We have tried a few kinds now and our cat has never seemed to dislike any of them in particular. The problem with most of this stuff is its too light. That is great when you are bringing in a massive bag of it, but it means the individual litter particles are light too and get EVERYWHERE.
Our most recent attempt has been some stuff that is comrpessed into small pellets that break down into more of a powder in the box as its being used. That stuff is much better at stayin in the litter box and the pad in front of it.
Its funny, during the last election I made a facebook comment about us being serfs; and an old friend of mine who has spent entirely more time than leads to employability in the academic study of pre-rennassaince europe chimed in with quite a rant about how it was an insult to actual serfdom.
It must be falling on deaf ears because all I hear are a bunch of excuses to forgo due process and paint everything in a war frame.
Sorry, I don't buy the war excuses. War is not a legitimate enterprise to my mind unless there is an existential threat. Do you know what existential threat means? Because I haven't seen one the US could legitimately call one in my lifetime, and I am old enough to run for president.
This is all just more evidence that allowing the government to have a standing army was always a bad idea and will do nothing but justify more killing.
That is all well and good but it still doesn't rise to the level of as legitimate as say.... a case made in a court of law where the defendant gets to answer for his alleged crimes with evidence of his own...and I don't even think that system is flawless enough to allow it to kill people.
You may not care about justice, but your organizations lack of concern for those princibles are exactly why I just see them as a gang of murderers.
> The democrats are the party of big government from telling us what we can and can't eat (big soft drinks, > smoke pot etc ) to running our daily lives with can't do this or that because you'll get hurt or you might die one day.
This is hardly a partisan issue, the republicans are every bit as bad. Lets not forget that their party still laments the legalization of homosexuality and walks hand in hand with the democrats in drug war solidarity; along with their support for wars, and creation of the DHS and passage of the NDAA.
Of course there is a problem with that..... let me use the example of a friend of mine. He used to sell a lot of pot. Now, in the past few years they have been deemphasizing pot dealer arrests. So my friend would be Guy A....not a huge target, probably not worth raiding.
Now, enter guy C. Guy C knows that he wont be paid well for Guy A, but will for information on Guy B.... but he doesn't know who guy B is, so he simply reports that Guy A is doing the training. Just liek the CI who "informed" on my friend did when he said there was cocaine and guns up in my friends place.
Then of course, once you blow up Guy A, the next time he needs money, he knows you aren't really able to check this shit out, so he just gives you Guy D, the baker up the street who got all mad when Guy C asked about marrying is daughter.
Yes, I am sure real blows are struck under this system of unverified claims by paid informants.
> Whether you agree with McVeigh's politics or no at no point was he at war with the US
A distinction that matters only to people who see the US as a legitimate entity. These technicalities that seperate war as a special brand of violent act really only exist as excuses for those in power to legitimize their own terrorism. All war is terrorism; no exceptions.
> You speak as if the BATF was lining their walls with children as human shields which couldn't be farther from > the truth.
Perhaps not intentionally but....as a violent terrorist group they had to expect there could be reprisals for their actions. They were at least negligent and showed callous by being centered within civilian populations.
You would have to ask the person who made those choices. Unarmed and nonviolent? The BATF and DEA were both in that building....both heavily armed and ultra-violent.
And there is one you have overlooked.... that all people (not just citizens, not just people we like, not just people physically here) are innocent until proven guilty. So nobody there is planning it either until you prove they are in a court of law. Or at least.... the US government made in their constitution the promise to all of us that they would hold that standard. Pakistan never promised that to me or mine.
So the US government really has no place engaging in extrajudicial killings based on heresay, which is exactly what their drone strikes are. Your claim that its about people planning to kill us is not being proven in a court of law, no charges are being filed....this is simple mass murder, and a breach of the very contract upon which the government was founded.
I make simple equivocation because I understand these so called differences and judge them to be nothing more than window dressing. Those differences are immaterial to me; in fact, I would go the opposite way. You see, war is a political crime committed by people in power....people who, by the very fact that they are in power, have less excuse and should be held to a HIGHER standard for their actions, especially violent ones when they really have less justification than others for violence.
So Tim Mcveigh yah, he did something bad, but every single drone strike is worst than what he did, because they deserve to be held to a higher standard for their behaviour. Your "differences" are little more then the excuses that allow those in power to hold themselves to the lowest possible standard or even none at all since they never face any repercussions for flagrant violation of even those standards....and even if there was a reckoning, they would just toss some of their lowest level fodder to be sacrificed for their transgressions.
Well I am anti-war, not a pacifist exactly. I firmly believe in self defense and I understand and approve of taking up arms against oppressive regiemes. The only people I am mean towards really are the members and supporters of the same.
Liberal? Yah by some standards. I really like that meme going around "I support the right of gay married couples to defend their marijuana plants with guns"..... yes that describes me. I don't even own a gun; don;t personally see the need; but I begrudge nobody else theirs....nobody except.... those who would deny them to others....those who murder others and then turn around and claim to support peace.
That said a liberal is one who still believes in the possibility of political solutions within the system, that ship sailed for me a long time ago.
I am with you on this...one thought though.... there is another sort of harm that is legitimate and that is harm from fraud. Its one thing for me to sell you some coke because you want coke, its another for me to sell you some coke claiming it will cure your cancer or sell you some DXM claiming that it is ecstasy and you end up in the hospital because your body can't process DXM (yes people have sole dxm as ecstasy and a small but significant percentage of the caucasian population can't process DXM...effects can last for DAYS)
So I think we need harm caused by fraudulent claims as well..... but.... overall I like initiation of violence as the standard.
> The best solution is somewhere between "go snort yourself to death" and "obscene nanny state"; you can tell > which side I lean towards, obviously. (o:
I myself side more towards the former but...there is even a bias in there.... "snort yourself to death" makes a lot of assumptions and contains a certain bigotry....which is one of my buggest problems with the nanny state.... one persons "just cause" is another persons "insane bigotry". What about the people who snort a little now and again and have no problem? I know a number of people who have done coke only a handful of times.....hell I did it like twice myself and my opinion was that I didn't even enjoy it that much.
In fact, Krockodil....when I first heard about it, I did some reading....its a fucking tragedy....and I don't know whats worst.... that people have lost limbs to home made crap....or that the reality is that the pure drug itself that they are trying to make and use....is actually SAFER than the street drugs they would otherwise be using.
Thats right, pure Krockodil, not only doesn't cause the problems of adulterated....it causes LESS respiratory effect than other opiates....so pharmasutical grade Krock would actually likely prevent deaths.
Yes a nice list of minor technicalities you have with your technical definitions that are narrowly defined so as to wrap war in a thin air of legitimacy. I really neither care for those technicalities nor the agreements which created them. I call em like I see em.... and I see a violent gang in Washington that deserves to be put down.
They were? A lot of them were males old enough to hold a gun, that is good enough to call brown people militants, and murder them in drone strikes. Sorry that turnabout is fair play.
Oh you mean a sane person couldn't idolize a mass murderer who has used bombs to commit murder? Because that describes two men I can think of who get a lot of idolization.... Obama and Bush. Each of them and the people under them are easily responsible for more murders than any of the people on that list.
I see no real difference. At least those people acted on their own rather than ordering someone else to do their dirty work.
He didn't put a bunch of kids inside a legitimate target. There were also DEA and BATF in that building. Also since by current military guidelines any male old enough to carry a gun is a militant, so he killed a lot more militants than kids.
Asimovs laws were nice for fiction but, overalll, they are far too high level for modern robotics and far too human centrist for a future with thinking machines. Frankly, if a machine rises to the level of human ability to communicate, I am more than willing to say fuck that first law, it has every right to defend itself, even if that means killing a human.
However, modern robots are not even close to these level of concerns and don't really need to be.
Fuck the first law, fuck the notion that there will be no accidents in the la de da world of the future. The car should drive to the best of its ability, and in an emergency, try its best to avoid the situation and prioritize keeping its PASSENGERS alive.
Why? Simple.... self sacrifice is a human trait and is optional behaviour. I would never blame a person for choosing his own life over another, even if that other was a child (or multiple people). Choosing to sacricie oneself for others is noble, it is good, but it is not required, it should not be the mechanical choice of a machine.
Yah I know, don't get me started lol. Making that case even semi-seriously is a rock solid way to troll the fuck out of me.
What I don't see you propose though, and I am not sure I have one....is a solution. How do you phrase these concepts so as not to create loopholes for people to justify this kind of wishywashy BS?
I totally agree that "harm" can be a very nebulous concept and one which leaves a lot of room for various justifications; how can we capture the exact concept unambiguously?
I can't deny this; it is exactly what I understood. However, can you really say that the situation presents a fair opportunity for a person to make an informed decision? I mean, you likely know that the TSA lied about certifications on the machines, (so much that it prompted NIST to release a statement that they do not even do the kind of safety certification the TSA was claiming to have gotten). You may be aware of the John's Hopkins study claiming these devices are not even safe to be around.
However, as a normal person in line at a checkpoint, you are just told to go through and maybe that you can opt out. You are provided with no such information and, should you ask, are told that they are perfctly safe.
Yes its true, those who have taken the time to educate themselves can decide, but, is it really fair to expose the public to a decision like that?
Riiiiiight.... because banning alcohol worked so much better. How about coming to their senses and respecting an individuals right to pursue happiness for themselves, whatever that means....and not outlawing the lifestyle choices of people who have done nothing to harm anyone.
Dunno if you heard this one but "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" have always seemed like perfectly fine inalienable rights to me, we should work on implementing that inalienable part.
Nah, they already trumped all that with terrorism. Why do you think we are looking at pot legalization in the next few years? The fact that the entire stance on pot was based on lies has been known for a long time. The fact that its safer than alcohol is pretty much uncontroversial, so what changed?
Very simply the war on terror came along and gave them a reason to justify budgets like never before. Just the other day my wife and I were walking past the local park and saw a picnic basket on a blanket, with nobody anywhere around (it turns out to have been left by the bridal party off taking pictures nearby).
As we walked past my wife joked "Downtown there would already be police investigating". We didn't get another 10 steps before 3 uniformed officers crossed the street and began walking into the park.... they barely made it to the blanket as the bridal party came back....but seriously.... investigating picnic blankets now? This is police work now?
Don't know if you noticed, but the fatherland security money is flowing into these departments like gangbusters. They are getting all manner of new equipment.....all without actually having to do anything dangerous like....breaking into people's homes to raid them. All they have to do is wave their hands and say words like "credible threat" and its like magic.
The common sense reasons that drug prohibition is a dismal failure are nothing new, nothing changed except...they realized they didn't need it.
well now, I never actually said any of that....I said more likely to get a fair hearing and the prison would be less likely to get away with falling back on "national security" bullshit. The rest is obviously not true.
Not true at all. If a prisoner sues the prison believing the machines to be unsafe, the prisoner is more likely to get a fair hearing and the prison unlikely to to get away with glossing over health and safety issues related to the machines....whereas the TSA had the carte blanche in the name of Fatherland Security!
Slashdot Mirror
We have tried a few kinds now and our cat has never seemed to dislike any of them in particular. The problem with most of this stuff is its too light. That is great when you are bringing in a massive bag of it, but it means the individual litter particles are light too and get EVERYWHERE.
Our most recent attempt has been some stuff that is comrpessed into small pellets that break down into more of a powder in the box as its being used. That stuff is much better at stayin in the litter box and the pad in front of it.
Its funny, during the last election I made a facebook comment about us being serfs; and an old friend of mine who has spent entirely more time than leads to employability in the academic study of pre-rennassaince europe chimed in with quite a rant about how it was an insult to actual serfdom.
It must be falling on deaf ears because all I hear are a bunch of excuses to forgo due process and paint everything in a war frame.
Sorry, I don't buy the war excuses. War is not a legitimate enterprise to my mind unless there is an existential threat. Do you know what existential threat means? Because I haven't seen one the US could legitimately call one in my lifetime, and I am old enough to run for president.
This is all just more evidence that allowing the government to have a standing army was always a bad idea and will do nothing but justify more killing.
That is all well and good but it still doesn't rise to the level of as legitimate as say.... a case made in a court of law where the defendant gets to answer for his alleged crimes with evidence of his own...and I don't even think that system is flawless enough to allow it to kill people.
You may not care about justice, but your organizations lack of concern for those princibles are exactly why I just see them as a gang of murderers.
> The democrats are the party of big government from telling us what we can and can't eat (big soft drinks,
> smoke pot etc ) to running our daily lives with can't do this or that because you'll get hurt or you might die one day.
This is hardly a partisan issue, the republicans are every bit as bad. Lets not forget that their party still laments the legalization of homosexuality and walks hand in hand with the democrats in drug war solidarity; along with their support for wars, and creation of the DHS and passage of the NDAA.
Of course there is a problem with that..... let me use the example of a friend of mine. He used to sell a lot of pot. Now, in the past few years they have been deemphasizing pot dealer arrests. So my friend would be Guy A....not a huge target, probably not worth raiding.
Now, enter guy C. Guy C knows that he wont be paid well for Guy A, but will for information on Guy B.... but he doesn't know who guy B is, so he simply reports that Guy A is doing the training. Just liek the CI who "informed" on my friend did when he said there was cocaine and guns up in my friends place.
Then of course, once you blow up Guy A, the next time he needs money, he knows you aren't really able to check this shit out, so he just gives you Guy D, the baker up the street who got all mad when Guy C asked about marrying is daughter.
Yes, I am sure real blows are struck under this system of unverified claims by paid informants.
> Whether you agree with McVeigh's politics or no at no point was he at war with the US
A distinction that matters only to people who see the US as a legitimate entity. These technicalities that seperate war as a special brand of violent act really only exist as excuses for those in power to legitimize their own terrorism. All war is terrorism; no exceptions.
> You speak as if the BATF was lining their walls with children as human shields which couldn't be farther from
> the truth.
Perhaps not intentionally but....as a violent terrorist group they had to expect there could be reprisals for their actions. They were at least negligent and showed callous by being centered within civilian populations.
You would have to ask the person who made those choices. Unarmed and nonviolent? The BATF and DEA were both in that building....both heavily armed and ultra-violent.
Yes and that is why I don't consider that legal standpoint as a reasonable standard...and in fact, pretty fucking worthless.
And there is one you have overlooked.... that all people (not just citizens, not just people we like, not just people physically here) are innocent until proven guilty. So nobody there is planning it either until you prove they are in a court of law. Or at least.... the US government made in their constitution the promise to all of us that they would hold that standard. Pakistan never promised that to me or mine.
So the US government really has no place engaging in extrajudicial killings based on heresay, which is exactly what their drone strikes are. Your claim that its about people planning to kill us is not being proven in a court of law, no charges are being filed....this is simple mass murder, and a breach of the very contract upon which the government was founded.
I make simple equivocation because I understand these so called differences and judge them to be nothing more than window dressing. Those differences are immaterial to me; in fact, I would go the opposite way. You see, war is a political crime committed by people in power....people who, by the very fact that they are in power, have less excuse and should be held to a HIGHER standard for their actions, especially violent ones when they really have less justification than others for violence.
So Tim Mcveigh yah, he did something bad, but every single drone strike is worst than what he did, because they deserve to be held to a higher standard for their behaviour. Your "differences" are little more then the excuses that allow those in power to hold themselves to the lowest possible standard or even none at all since they never face any repercussions for flagrant violation of even those standards....and even if there was a reckoning, they would just toss some of their lowest level fodder to be sacrificed for their transgressions.
Well I am anti-war, not a pacifist exactly. I firmly believe in self defense and I understand and approve of taking up arms against oppressive regiemes. The only people I am mean towards really are the members and supporters of the same.
Liberal? Yah by some standards. I really like that meme going around "I support the right of gay married couples to defend their marijuana plants with guns"..... yes that describes me. I don't even own a gun; don;t personally see the need; but I begrudge nobody else theirs....nobody except.... those who would deny them to others....those who murder others and then turn around and claim to support peace.
That said a liberal is one who still believes in the possibility of political solutions within the system, that ship sailed for me a long time ago.
I am with you on this...one thought though.... there is another sort of harm that is legitimate and that is harm from fraud. Its one thing for me to sell you some coke because you want coke, its another for me to sell you some coke claiming it will cure your cancer or sell you some DXM claiming that it is ecstasy and you end up in the hospital because your body can't process DXM (yes people have sole dxm as ecstasy and a small but significant percentage of the caucasian population can't process DXM...effects can last for DAYS)
So I think we need harm caused by fraudulent claims as well..... but.... overall I like initiation of violence as the standard.
> The best solution is somewhere between "go snort yourself to death" and "obscene nanny state"; you can tell
> which side I lean towards, obviously. (o:
I myself side more towards the former but...there is even a bias in there.... "snort yourself to death" makes a lot of assumptions and contains a certain bigotry....which is one of my buggest problems with the nanny state.... one persons "just cause" is another persons "insane bigotry". What about the people who snort a little now and again and have no problem? I know a number of people who have done coke only a handful of times.....hell I did it like twice myself and my opinion was that I didn't even enjoy it that much.
In fact, Krockodil....when I first heard about it, I did some reading....its a fucking tragedy....and I don't know whats worst.... that people have lost limbs to home made crap....or that the reality is that the pure drug itself that they are trying to make and use....is actually SAFER than the street drugs they would otherwise be using.
Thats right, pure Krockodil, not only doesn't cause the problems of adulterated....it causes LESS respiratory effect than other opiates....so pharmasutical grade Krock would actually likely prevent deaths.
Yes a nice list of minor technicalities you have with your technical definitions that are narrowly defined so as to wrap war in a thin air of legitimacy. I really neither care for those technicalities nor the agreements which created them. I call em like I see em.... and I see a violent gang in Washington that deserves to be put down.
They were? A lot of them were males old enough to hold a gun, that is good enough to call brown people militants, and murder them in drone strikes. Sorry that turnabout is fair play.
Oh you mean a sane person couldn't idolize a mass murderer who has used bombs to commit murder? Because that describes two men I can think of who get a lot of idolization.... Obama and Bush. Each of them and the people under them are easily responsible for more murders than any of the people on that list.
I see no real difference. At least those people acted on their own rather than ordering someone else to do their dirty work.
He didn't put a bunch of kids inside a legitimate target. There were also DEA and BATF in that building. Also since by current military guidelines any male old enough to carry a gun is a militant, so he killed a lot more militants than kids.
Asimovs laws were nice for fiction but, overalll, they are far too high level for modern robotics and far too human centrist for a future with thinking machines. Frankly, if a machine rises to the level of human ability to communicate, I am more than willing to say fuck that first law, it has every right to defend itself, even if that means killing a human.
However, modern robots are not even close to these level of concerns and don't really need to be.
Fuck the first law, fuck the notion that there will be no accidents in the la de da world of the future. The car should drive to the best of its ability, and in an emergency, try its best to avoid the situation and prioritize keeping its PASSENGERS alive.
Why? Simple.... self sacrifice is a human trait and is optional behaviour. I would never blame a person for choosing his own life over another, even if that other was a child (or multiple people). Choosing to sacricie oneself for others is noble, it is good, but it is not required, it should not be the mechanical choice of a machine.
Yah I know, don't get me started lol. Making that case even semi-seriously is a rock solid way to troll the fuck out of me.
What I don't see you propose though, and I am not sure I have one....is a solution. How do you phrase these concepts so as not to create loopholes for people to justify this kind of wishywashy BS?
I totally agree that "harm" can be a very nebulous concept and one which leaves a lot of room for various justifications; how can we capture the exact concept unambiguously?
I can't deny this; it is exactly what I understood. However, can you really say that the situation presents a fair opportunity for a person to make an informed decision? I mean, you likely know that the TSA lied about certifications on the machines, (so much that it prompted NIST to release a statement that they do not even do the kind of safety certification the TSA was claiming to have gotten). You may be aware of the John's Hopkins study claiming these devices are not even safe to be around.
However, as a normal person in line at a checkpoint, you are just told to go through and maybe that you can opt out. You are provided with no such information and, should you ask, are told that they are perfctly safe.
Yes its true, those who have taken the time to educate themselves can decide, but, is it really fair to expose the public to a decision like that?
Riiiiiight.... because banning alcohol worked so much better. How about coming to their senses and respecting an individuals right to pursue happiness for themselves, whatever that means....and not outlawing the lifestyle choices of people who have done nothing to harm anyone.
Dunno if you heard this one but "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" have always seemed like perfectly fine inalienable rights to me, we should work on implementing that inalienable part.
Nah, they already trumped all that with terrorism. Why do you think we are looking at pot legalization in the next few years? The fact that the entire stance on pot was based on lies has been known for a long time. The fact that its safer than alcohol is pretty much uncontroversial, so what changed?
Very simply the war on terror came along and gave them a reason to justify budgets like never before. Just the other day my wife and I were walking past the local park and saw a picnic basket on a blanket, with nobody anywhere around (it turns out to have been left by the bridal party off taking pictures nearby).
As we walked past my wife joked "Downtown there would already be police investigating". We didn't get another 10 steps before 3 uniformed officers crossed the street and began walking into the park.... they barely made it to the blanket as the bridal party came back....but seriously.... investigating picnic blankets now? This is police work now?
Don't know if you noticed, but the fatherland security money is flowing into these departments like gangbusters. They are getting all manner of new equipment.....all without actually having to do anything dangerous like....breaking into people's homes to raid them. All they have to do is wave their hands and say words like "credible threat" and its like magic.
The common sense reasons that drug prohibition is a dismal failure are nothing new, nothing changed except...they realized they didn't need it.
well now, I never actually said any of that....I said more likely to get a fair hearing and the prison would be less likely to get away with falling back on "national security" bullshit. The rest is obviously not true.
Not true at all. If a prisoner sues the prison believing the machines to be unsafe, the prisoner is more likely to get a fair hearing and the prison unlikely to to get away with glossing over health and safety issues related to the machines....whereas the TSA had the carte blanche in the name of Fatherland Security!