Because the burden of proof is on those that believe that it's harmless rather than those that don't believe it to be safe. Which is just the way that it should be.
There really isn't that much evidence to support the idea that legalization is the appropriate course of action. At this point with so little evidence in hand, I wouldn't expect a proper assessment to be completed for at least another 20 years. But I could be wrong about that.
Plus there's the part where pot smokers are willing to lie cheat and basically make up evidence to justify things like medicinal marijuana. Yes it does work, but come on, pretending like Marinol doesn't exist and insisting on useless and vague regulations is just immature.
And despite that many parties have had the Presidency, the Federalists, the Republicans, the Democrats, the Whigs, a Democratic-Republican and IIRC TR was a Bull Moose candidate the last time he served.
It doesn't get talked about a whole lot, but the Presidential site has a comprehensive listing of President and party affiliation.
This isn't interesting, filming is a verb meaning shooting video. You don't get modded interesting for complaining that shooting people ought to leave them dead or maimed.
It's ridiculous until one of your kids ends up with pics on the net that weren't authorized. The issue isn't that people are taking pictures, the issue is that people don't ask and you don't know what they're taking pictures of.
Taking pictures of inanimate objects is usually fine, but taking pictures covertly of women isn't right. Really taking pictures of anybody like that isn't right, but for god's sake just buy some porn if you're that desperate.
You do realize that net access and capacity are seriously important infrastructure and that the private sector can't do it, right?
The problem with the private sector putting in the infrastructure is that it is very, very expensive and these businesses are also having to compete with upstart idiots like vonage using their own infrastructure to compete with them. As well as the current difficulties of getting cash to do the work.
There's also the bit about wanting the infrastructure to reflect what the people want rather than what the corporations want. Go ask a Texan about how their privatization of interstate electrical wires went. I'll give you a hint, there's a reason why they pay gas powered prices for coal produced electricity.
But there is a right way and a wrong way, granting a monopoly is one route. Probably the best thing would be a monopoly over the interstate connections and regional monopolies over the transmission lines within a state. And require certain provisions in the bids. Such as auditing rights, neutrality and adding a certain amount of capacity.
And ultimately, the net infrastructure is ultimately every bit as important to future gains in the size of the economy as the roads and highways are.
Qwest really isn't that bad. But then again I had comcrap cable service for my internet previously and that services was pretty amazing its ability to suck. Several hours of downtime a day no particular interest in service. The fact that they can't even get their primary service right is terrifying.
Qwest is about average from what I've had not necessarily great, but I've had few problems and on the rare occasion where I've needed help it wasn't hard to get.
But really it would be far better to separate the infrastructure provider from the services provider and regulate the infrastructure providers quite a bit.
But DSL is going to be better than the alternatives in terms of service, just because it's no longer a proper monopoly, having been regulated much more firmly than the alternatives.
Last I checked, the Democrats didn't have enough votes to override a Presidential veto without the Republican party going along with it. Which means large pork for defense contractors asinine spending on Iraq and very little that the majority party can do.
Ultimately the budget had to be passed and if the Republicans in the house and senate and the White house wouldn't go along with a sane spending plan, then it wasn't going to pass. Exactly what is so hard to understand about that?
The Republican party was doing that sort of juvenile thing a lot the last 2 years because they knew that people like you didn't have any idea they were doing it. If you'd read up on the constitution you'd know that they have to have a simple majority in both houses and a signature of the President or a super majority in both houses to make it so. They couldn't get either one with responsible spending.
And besides, now that the Republicans are out of favor, suddenly you guys are going to be fiscally conservative? I can BS on that, it's just a way of profiting on the Dems doing some actual work without contributing.
Sure he did, he proposed the budget, and his party, which never asked questions signed it as was. They racked up about 7 trillion dollars in debt before the Democrats got a majority.
It's not like the Democrats had much of a choice, the President made it very clear that he'd leave our forces in Iraq with or without actual financial support.
Suggesting that the less than 2 trillion in bailouts is a big deal is incredibly hypocritical on you're part. Had the President and his party not felt the need to wrack up 20k+ in debt per person living in the US, the 2 trillion would have been no big deal at all.
On some issues one cannot and must not be moderate. Moderation in most things is a virtue, but moderation in the protection and application of freedom is a deal with the devil.
It is probably one of the most striking applications of what St. Bernard said: "The road to hell is paved in good intentions." The people making the rules about what is and is not free are generally well intended, but it always ends the same way after not too long, abuses of power and many of them.
We either believe in free speech and free association or we do not, particularly when we're talking about political or religious speech. "I do, unless you say something I don't like" is, well, cowardly.
Indeed, and that's sort of what has puzzled me for sometime. The former President was all about setting up Democracy and bringing freedom to other nations even as his policies made it more and more difficult to have those values in the US.
He put in place a gag rule on virtually everything, gave tax money to religious organizations he agreed with to perform what had been government actions. He fought long and hard to prevent anybody from knowing what he was doing in general putting down blanket gag orders on anybody with dealings with the FBI on a number of occasions.
And ultimately the country paid a terrible price for the systematic abuse of power.
But that aside, I do still believe in freedom of speech, which unfortunately dictates that I have to accept that those that are going to boost his actions have a right to say whatever they want about the actions. Freedom is really not an easy luxury to appreciate, it'll require a serious devotion otherwise it can be lost possibly forever.
But, a screw driver is right in a reasonable number of instances, there are many screws out there. But that's not an analogous situation.
Banning groups isn't something that is legitimate in a Democratic society, or really any other sort of society with representative governance.
The ability to abuse something isn't justification for not having or doing something, the fact that it _is_ abuse justifies it.
Look at the UK, I don't believe that they've removed the limitation of groups to under 3, even though the IRA stopped fighting years ago. And the assumption that the organization can't happen because you've limited groups to a small number is asinine.
Civilized? Who wants to live in a civilized society? I mean hell, civilization is why I have to wear pants and go to work. And worse still wear pants while going to work.
The UN is mainly a joke because it's never been given control of a UN army. The original idea was to give the UN it's own military so that when it decided to intervene it had the ability to allocate the troops and send appropriate orders.
Then there's the bit where America or the EU will take pot shots at the other using the UN as a means, but the sames the case with the WTO as well. I mean it's not as if those organizations have better things to be doing.
Umm, people don't intend to own when they stream from Netflix. The reason why people do it is because it's cheaper to spend $9 a month for the privilege and then not bother buying the movie ever. Very few movies are worth watching more than a couple of times, and renting access to a fairly substantial catalog is a lot cheaper than buying a lot of movies that you're only going to watch once.
Yes, they could have at least covered Vanguard for Atari. I mean, hey, there are probably at least 30 people that remember and/or care about that one. I mean this is slashdot.
Umm, my current dual core machine is much more energy efficient than my previous machine was. It doesn't heat my room the way that the old one did. During the summer the old one was basically unusable due to the amount of heat it was putting off. My new machine is throttled down quite a bit more and only puts off more energy when I'm recompiling the OS or something like that.
A properly designed computer is going to be more efficient now than it was previously.
Even off where it uses 0 energy would be quite a step forward. Computers still use some electricity while supposedly off. Getting that down to whatever it takes to keep the clock functioning would be useful.
And suspend to disk ought to take 0 electricity while suspended as well.
How is this informative? The Clinton staffers didn't do it at all. It was thoroughly debunked within a month of the allegations coming out. And former President George W Bush himself stated specifically that it did not happen.
What do we need as evidence? A specific letter from Dick Cheney that it didn't happen? The not signed with the blood of former AG John Ashcroft? At some point it becomes paranoid delusion, and I think we've hit that point.
The W keys incident didn't happen. There was no conspiracy to remove W keys from keyboards. There may have been a couple, but it was definitely not $4k worth of damages.
And neither did the rest of that. It was bunk that was started as a joke column, which suddenly gained a life of its own. Sort of like Bill Gates and the 640kb or Al Gore and the invention of the internet. Neither Gates nor Gore ever actually made the attributed statement.
Whether or not you care to admit it, there was no massive scale vandalism or vast Left wing conspiracy here. It's just a few people are too obtuse to admit that maybe it didn't happen.
It's a tough problem, but I'm not really sure what purpose charging the girls, with manufacturing and distributing child porn really is. Yes it's bad to have those sorts of pictures made and distributed, but is it really productive to send children to juvie for taking photos of themselves?
I'm not really sure that this is the sort of crime that the lawmakers writing the legislation had in mind when they passed it.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the burden of proof is on those that believe that it's harmless rather than those that don't believe it to be safe. Which is just the way that it should be.
There really isn't that much evidence to support the idea that legalization is the appropriate course of action. At this point with so little evidence in hand, I wouldn't expect a proper assessment to be completed for at least another 20 years. But I could be wrong about that.
Plus there's the part where pot smokers are willing to lie cheat and basically make up evidence to justify things like medicinal marijuana. Yes it does work, but come on, pretending like Marinol doesn't exist and insisting on useless and vague regulations is just immature.
And despite that many parties have had the Presidency, the Federalists, the Republicans, the Democrats, the Whigs, a Democratic-Republican and IIRC TR was a Bull Moose candidate the last time he served.
It doesn't get talked about a whole lot, but the Presidential site has a comprehensive listing of President and party affiliation.
SCOTUS did a pretty good job of shredding the 2nd ammendment last year.
This isn't interesting, filming is a verb meaning shooting video. You don't get modded interesting for complaining that shooting people ought to leave them dead or maimed.
It's ridiculous until one of your kids ends up with pics on the net that weren't authorized. The issue isn't that people are taking pictures, the issue is that people don't ask and you don't know what they're taking pictures of.
Taking pictures of inanimate objects is usually fine, but taking pictures covertly of women isn't right. Really taking pictures of anybody like that isn't right, but for god's sake just buy some porn if you're that desperate.
You do realize that net access and capacity are seriously important infrastructure and that the private sector can't do it, right?
The problem with the private sector putting in the infrastructure is that it is very, very expensive and these businesses are also having to compete with upstart idiots like vonage using their own infrastructure to compete with them. As well as the current difficulties of getting cash to do the work.
There's also the bit about wanting the infrastructure to reflect what the people want rather than what the corporations want. Go ask a Texan about how their privatization of interstate electrical wires went. I'll give you a hint, there's a reason why they pay gas powered prices for coal produced electricity.
But there is a right way and a wrong way, granting a monopoly is one route. Probably the best thing would be a monopoly over the interstate connections and regional monopolies over the transmission lines within a state. And require certain provisions in the bids. Such as auditing rights, neutrality and adding a certain amount of capacity.
And ultimately, the net infrastructure is ultimately every bit as important to future gains in the size of the economy as the roads and highways are.
Qwest really isn't that bad. But then again I had comcrap cable service for my internet previously and that services was pretty amazing its ability to suck. Several hours of downtime a day no particular interest in service. The fact that they can't even get their primary service right is terrifying.
Qwest is about average from what I've had not necessarily great, but I've had few problems and on the rare occasion where I've needed help it wasn't hard to get.
But really it would be far better to separate the infrastructure provider from the services provider and regulate the infrastructure providers quite a bit.
But DSL is going to be better than the alternatives in terms of service, just because it's no longer a proper monopoly, having been regulated much more firmly than the alternatives.
Last I checked, the Democrats didn't have enough votes to override a Presidential veto without the Republican party going along with it. Which means large pork for defense contractors asinine spending on Iraq and very little that the majority party can do.
Ultimately the budget had to be passed and if the Republicans in the house and senate and the White house wouldn't go along with a sane spending plan, then it wasn't going to pass. Exactly what is so hard to understand about that?
The Republican party was doing that sort of juvenile thing a lot the last 2 years because they knew that people like you didn't have any idea they were doing it. If you'd read up on the constitution you'd know that they have to have a simple majority in both houses and a signature of the President or a super majority in both houses to make it so. They couldn't get either one with responsible spending.
And besides, now that the Republicans are out of favor, suddenly you guys are going to be fiscally conservative? I can BS on that, it's just a way of profiting on the Dems doing some actual work without contributing.
Sure he did, he proposed the budget, and his party, which never asked questions signed it as was. They racked up about 7 trillion dollars in debt before the Democrats got a majority.
It's not like the Democrats had much of a choice, the President made it very clear that he'd leave our forces in Iraq with or without actual financial support.
Suggesting that the less than 2 trillion in bailouts is a big deal is incredibly hypocritical on you're part. Had the President and his party not felt the need to wrack up 20k+ in debt per person living in the US, the 2 trillion would have been no big deal at all.
On some issues one cannot and must not be moderate. Moderation in most things is a virtue, but moderation in the protection and application of freedom is a deal with the devil.
It is probably one of the most striking applications of what St. Bernard said: "The road to hell is paved in good intentions." The people making the rules about what is and is not free are generally well intended, but it always ends the same way after not too long, abuses of power and many of them.
We either believe in free speech and free association or we do not, particularly when we're talking about political or religious speech. "I do, unless you say something I don't like" is, well, cowardly.
Indeed, and that's sort of what has puzzled me for sometime. The former President was all about setting up Democracy and bringing freedom to other nations even as his policies made it more and more difficult to have those values in the US.
He put in place a gag rule on virtually everything, gave tax money to religious organizations he agreed with to perform what had been government actions. He fought long and hard to prevent anybody from knowing what he was doing in general putting down blanket gag orders on anybody with dealings with the FBI on a number of occasions.
And ultimately the country paid a terrible price for the systematic abuse of power.
But that aside, I do still believe in freedom of speech, which unfortunately dictates that I have to accept that those that are going to boost his actions have a right to say whatever they want about the actions. Freedom is really not an easy luxury to appreciate, it'll require a serious devotion otherwise it can be lost possibly forever.
But, a screw driver is right in a reasonable number of instances, there are many screws out there. But that's not an analogous situation.
Banning groups isn't something that is legitimate in a Democratic society, or really any other sort of society with representative governance.
The ability to abuse something isn't justification for not having or doing something, the fact that it _is_ abuse justifies it.
Look at the UK, I don't believe that they've removed the limitation of groups to under 3, even though the IRA stopped fighting years ago. And the assumption that the organization can't happen because you've limited groups to a small number is asinine.
Civilized? Who wants to live in a civilized society? I mean hell, civilization is why I have to wear pants and go to work. And worse still wear pants while going to work.
The UN is mainly a joke because it's never been given control of a UN army. The original idea was to give the UN it's own military so that when it decided to intervene it had the ability to allocate the troops and send appropriate orders.
Then there's the bit where America or the EU will take pot shots at the other using the UN as a means, but the sames the case with the WTO as well. I mean it's not as if those organizations have better things to be doing.
Not yet, but the legislature isn't done trying.
Remember kids /. does not support the cool crime of music piracy.
Umm, people don't intend to own when they stream from Netflix. The reason why people do it is because it's cheaper to spend $9 a month for the privilege and then not bother buying the movie ever. Very few movies are worth watching more than a couple of times, and renting access to a fairly substantial catalog is a lot cheaper than buying a lot of movies that you're only going to watch once.
I believe that's Hooray for boobies.
Yes, they could have at least covered Vanguard for Atari. I mean, hey, there are probably at least 30 people that remember and/or care about that one. I mean this is slashdot.
Umm, my current dual core machine is much more energy efficient than my previous machine was. It doesn't heat my room the way that the old one did. During the summer the old one was basically unusable due to the amount of heat it was putting off. My new machine is throttled down quite a bit more and only puts off more energy when I'm recompiling the OS or something like that.
A properly designed computer is going to be more efficient now than it was previously.
Absolutely not, the battery is charged by a newly invented infinite motion machine.
Even off where it uses 0 energy would be quite a step forward. Computers still use some electricity while supposedly off. Getting that down to whatever it takes to keep the clock functioning would be useful.
And suspend to disk ought to take 0 electricity while suspended as well.
How is this informative? The Clinton staffers didn't do it at all. It was thoroughly debunked within a month of the allegations coming out. And former President George W Bush himself stated specifically that it did not happen.
What do we need as evidence? A specific letter from Dick Cheney that it didn't happen? The not signed with the blood of former AG John Ashcroft? At some point it becomes paranoid delusion, and I think we've hit that point.
The W keys incident didn't happen. There was no conspiracy to remove W keys from keyboards. There may have been a couple, but it was definitely not $4k worth of damages.
And neither did the rest of that. It was bunk that was started as a joke column, which suddenly gained a life of its own. Sort of like Bill Gates and the 640kb or Al Gore and the invention of the internet. Neither Gates nor Gore ever actually made the attributed statement.
The White House vandal scandal that wasn't
Or from W himself at: George W. Bush, Clinton defender
Whether or not you care to admit it, there was no massive scale vandalism or vast Left wing conspiracy here. It's just a few people are too obtuse to admit that maybe it didn't happen.
It's a tough problem, but I'm not really sure what purpose charging the girls, with manufacturing and distributing child porn really is. Yes it's bad to have those sorts of pictures made and distributed, but is it really productive to send children to juvie for taking photos of themselves?
I'm not really sure that this is the sort of crime that the lawmakers writing the legislation had in mind when they passed it.