Marijuana actually IS a gateway drug; the people who sell pot usually also sell cocaine and other illegal drugs.
Whoa. Citation?
Maybe this is just your personal experience. If you want to go head to head with anecdotes, usually the pot dealers I've known sell pot exclusively. Oh wait, maybe there was a significant correlation with mushrooms as well. I'll give you that. Though that's less "gateway" or more "same park". But as far as the idea that "marijuana actually IS a gateway drug", here's a more coherent treatment of the topic.
And for what overlap there is between harder drugs and marijuana, I might suggest that it's not the pot dealers who sell cocaine, but the cocaine dealers who sell pot.
But maybe your point is that once you're illegal, you're illegal? In for a dime, in for a dollar? I imagine that California's pseudo-legal status of marijuana makes marijuana sales by itself a more comfortable activity than also selling cocaine. So, your point about the harm of overreaching drug laws is backed up by this idea.
Tramiel was an ass, though. Sure, his contribution to the end effect was good, but talk about mistreatment of engineers. If you want unsung heroes, let's mention Bob Yannes and Al Charpentier and Charles Winterble.
It's... because the guys who... push for nuclear power... sound biased, unsincere and basically deceiving...
That's not a very good reason to be against something. Being against an argument because of the people behind it is what's called an "ad hominem" logical fallacy.
Now, there's some merit to taking the nature of supporters of a cause into consideration, but definitely don't use that as your primary reasoning.
I like renewables as much as the next guy. Probably more. For as much as those can be promoted, I'm really glad. But as long as we have coal burning plants because people are against nuclear, we are worse off. How's that sound for a bias?
How about this, instead of a pro-nuclear campaign, make it a "nuclear is better than coal" campaign?
But I wonder what the motivations/impetuses are that drive those biases, and whether we can reduce their influence and thus reduce the biases. Some info regarding this is available in the section of that article titled "Common theoretical causes of some cognitive biases".
Right. It's not about just "doing less", it's also about doing things more efficiently.
It's certainly not about doing less in the form of not having refrigeration.
My desktop computer uses 24 watts. I'm "[using] less energy" than most, but I'm not "doing less". Fuck, I can't seem to stop blabbing on Slashdot, for example.
Hm. I think the two examples you gave mostly substantiate my understanding of the problem with the anti-nuclear mentality.
"...even after they were informed of the right answer, they still didn't change their opinions..." This is the crux. Despite revised knowledge, there's some kind of emotional resistance to nuclear. The emotional resistance started as fear of catastrophe which was not undone by learning different. The fear remained regardless of knowledge change. Emotions don't necessarily respond to logic/information. (Which you see in every online debate.)
Emotional inertia that happens all the time. Mostly it causes willful ignorance and confirmation bias, but I guess even a few weeks of education won't necessarily overcome it.
What needs doing is figuring out how that inertia works. Step 3, profit. Anyone understand psychology well enough that they can give pointers on research starting points for this issue?
My SX-64 doesn't have an RCA in, or an audio input of any sort. The Commodore 16 has an RCA jack, but that's video out.
The only machine I've seen with an RCA jack for input is my Thinkpad Type 2635. It has an RCA jack with a microphone icon next to it (a general "line in", I guess).
My Adlib card has a 1/4" phono jack, though, which is amusing.
Alright, that's just blabbing about amusing hardware history.
Is the submitter really talking about RCA jacks? I don't think so.
Anyone remember that great web page listing something like 19 long-term unpatched (many critical) bugs in IE? Circa 2004, I think. I wonder if it's Web Archived.
Which is my bias talking? My perceiving a seeming lack of intentionality in jury nullification's inclusion in the legal system? Hm. I hadn't thought of that belief as being a matter of bias... And I can't quite think of what bias would have influenced it, so I would invite you to explain any theory you've got on that.
I'll tell you what I base the belief on. I read the WP article on jury nullification. In particular, the descriptions of how it is a de facto power and quotes like the following:
The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systems--a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations.
No, convention nor precedent prove design. No, judgement of right to use does not prove design.
Might I suggest that to perceive the characterizing (of jury nullification as an artifact rather than an intention) as some kind of criticism might be the product of bias or biases? In particular, the biases of expecting me to be a detractor of jury nullification (when in fact I am not) and of having a personal high valuation of jury nullification and a desire that it be promoted (which being an artifact doesn't in fact challenge). So those two misguided biases. Ah, and a misunderstanding. A misunderstanding that design is required for something to be valid or useful.
I don't think there's any cause to be upset, really, at the idea that the power is an artifact rather than an element of design. In either case its usefulness is retained. In either case its validity and efficacy is unassailed.
Jury nullification is part of the system for precisely that reason.
That makes it sound like it's by design. Certainly it's useful for the purpose of changing the system, but it doesn't seem to have been intentionally included.
Regarding the application of the actual power you have as a juror to acquit or convict despite or in disregard to your belief of the applicability of law in the case... You really should be aware of the possible effects / consequences. Reading about jury nullification appears to be a good way to learn more.
That sounds like a way to fuck up the system. Especially one that accretes effect through precedence.
If there isn't a way to respond directly to the faults of process or the faults of the laws themselves, the system is screwed, change it.
Otherwise, if you wedge your opinions/judgements into parts that weren't designed to receive them, you're warping how the system is intended to work and you had better be clear on the potential outcomes.
"I needed some place to record the credit card number and the address field had extra room..." Train wreck under construction.
I'm out of my depth with the topic of law here, but this is a general phenomenon we should be aware of.
Slashdot Mirror
Maximize the localness of your purchases.
Working well is not a defense for being evil.
"The Death Star contractors are delivering on time and under budget! Look at the quality of this work!"
Marijuana actually IS a gateway drug; the people who sell pot usually also sell cocaine and other illegal drugs.
Whoa. Citation?
Maybe this is just your personal experience. If you want to go head to head with anecdotes, usually the pot dealers I've known sell pot exclusively. Oh wait, maybe there was a significant correlation with mushrooms as well. I'll give you that. Though that's less "gateway" or more "same park". But as far as the idea that "marijuana actually IS a gateway drug", here's a more coherent treatment of the topic.
And for what overlap there is between harder drugs and marijuana, I might suggest that it's not the pot dealers who sell cocaine, but the cocaine dealers who sell pot.
But maybe your point is that once you're illegal, you're illegal? In for a dime, in for a dollar? I imagine that California's pseudo-legal status of marijuana makes marijuana sales by itself a more comfortable activity than also selling cocaine. So, your point about the harm of overreaching drug laws is backed up by this idea.
Tramiel was an ass, though. Sure, his contribution to the end effect was good, but talk about mistreatment of engineers. If you want unsung heroes, let's mention Bob Yannes and Al Charpentier and Charles Winterble.
It's ... because the guys who ... push for nuclear power ... sound biased, unsincere and basically deceiving ...
That's not a very good reason to be against something. Being against an argument because of the people behind it is what's called an "ad hominem" logical fallacy.
Now, there's some merit to taking the nature of supporters of a cause into consideration, but definitely don't use that as your primary reasoning.
I like renewables as much as the next guy. Probably more. For as much as those can be promoted, I'm really glad. But as long as we have coal burning plants because people are against nuclear, we are worse off. How's that sound for a bias?
How about this, instead of a pro-nuclear campaign, make it a "nuclear is better than coal" campaign?
Fact: No, it isn't.
We shouldn't even bother with LED lights, then? Efficiency counts for nothing? Conservation-mindedness counts for nothing?
Maybe your idea of "standard of living" is the convenience of leaving the (incandescent) lights on all the time.
I suspect there is in fact some deep psychology going on, probably a web of innate tendencies of thinking errors, but...
The phenomenon you are referring to does seem to be a very big factor. And your diligence in handling the matter with your child is quite commendable.
Here are some problematic thinking phenomena: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
But I wonder what the motivations/impetuses are that drive those biases, and whether we can reduce their influence and thus reduce the biases. Some info regarding this is available in the section of that article titled "Common theoretical causes of some cognitive biases".
Work == Efficiency?
I think maybe you've conflated these ideas. I'm guessing you're ignorantly profligate and socially irresponsible.
Hint: It's possible to use less energy and even increase your standard of living.
Right. It's not about just "doing less", it's also about doing things more efficiently.
It's certainly not about doing less in the form of not having refrigeration.
My desktop computer uses 24 watts. I'm "[using] less energy" than most, but I'm not "doing less". Fuck, I can't seem to stop blabbing on Slashdot, for example.
Hm. I think the two examples you gave mostly substantiate my understanding of the problem with the anti-nuclear mentality.
"...even after they were informed of the right answer, they still didn't change their opinions..." This is the crux. Despite revised knowledge, there's some kind of emotional resistance to nuclear. The emotional resistance started as fear of catastrophe which was not undone by learning different. The fear remained regardless of knowledge change. Emotions don't necessarily respond to logic/information. (Which you see in every online debate.)
Emotional inertia that happens all the time. Mostly it causes willful ignorance and confirmation bias, but I guess even a few weeks of education won't necessarily overcome it.
What needs doing is figuring out how that inertia works. Step 3, profit. Anyone understand psychology well enough that they can give pointers on research starting points for this issue?
My SX-64 doesn't have an RCA in, or an audio input of any sort. The Commodore 16 has an RCA jack, but that's video out.
The only machine I've seen with an RCA jack for input is my Thinkpad Type 2635. It has an RCA jack with a microphone icon next to it (a general "line in", I guess).
My Adlib card has a 1/4" phono jack, though, which is amusing.
Alright, that's just blabbing about amusing hardware history.
Is the submitter really talking about RCA jacks? I don't think so.
Making an enemy of the government might somehow end up putting a dampener on your business, though. Risky advertising, innit?
Doh! Proof of MS's laggardliness!
Anyone remember that great web page listing something like 19 long-term unpatched (many critical) bugs in IE? Circa 2004, I think. I wonder if it's Web Archived.
My, what a pretty wall of text.
What I got: "hammers, nothing but hammers", "EVERY LAST SINGLE ONE", and "Failed! Disgraceful!"
Wait- what? How does that work?
No GPS and no cell tower triangulation, yet house-level location?
Which is my bias talking? My perceiving a seeming lack of intentionality in jury nullification's inclusion in the legal system? Hm. I hadn't thought of that belief as being a matter of bias... And I can't quite think of what bias would have influenced it, so I would invite you to explain any theory you've got on that.
I'll tell you what I base the belief on. I read the WP article on jury nullification. In particular, the descriptions of how it is a de facto power and quotes like the following:
The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systems--a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations.
No, convention nor precedent prove design. No, judgement of right to use does not prove design.
Might I suggest that to perceive the characterizing (of jury nullification as an artifact rather than an intention) as some kind of criticism might be the product of bias or biases? In particular, the biases of expecting me to be a detractor of jury nullification (when in fact I am not) and of having a personal high valuation of jury nullification and a desire that it be promoted (which being an artifact doesn't in fact challenge). So those two misguided biases. Ah, and a misunderstanding. A misunderstanding that design is required for something to be valid or useful.
I don't think there's any cause to be upset, really, at the idea that the power is an artifact rather than an element of design. In either case its usefulness is retained. In either case its validity and efficacy is unassailed.
Jury nullification is part of the system for precisely that reason.
That makes it sound like it's by design. Certainly it's useful for the purpose of changing the system, but it doesn't seem to have been intentionally included.
Yep, definitely raising kids well by example.
Regarding the application of the actual power you have as a juror to acquit or convict despite or in disregard to your belief of the applicability of law in the case... You really should be aware of the possible effects / consequences. Reading about jury nullification appears to be a good way to learn more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
That sounds like a way to fuck up the system. Especially one that accretes effect through precedence.
If there isn't a way to respond directly to the faults of process or the faults of the laws themselves, the system is screwed, change it.
Otherwise, if you wedge your opinions/judgements into parts that weren't designed to receive them, you're warping how the system is intended to work and you had better be clear on the potential outcomes.
"I needed some place to record the credit card number and the address field had extra room..." Train wreck under construction.
I'm out of my depth with the topic of law here, but this is a general phenomenon we should be aware of.
I was thinking "::crickets chirping::", but ... your version is a bit more, uh, colorful.
A wee bit of regex contemplation gets you:
(\w+)\s*(?:@|at|atsign)\s*(\w+)\s*(?:\.|dot|period)+\s*(com|net|org)
I think address munging has to be a little more sophisticated than this example to materially reduce harvesting.
Surprisingly sophisticated and reasonable thinking on behalf of the court. I'm impressed.
Can't we all just fight a little bit?
I thought I was on the Internet.
Yes, yes, we realize djbdns is far more secure. And that DJB is ornery.
Instead of peppering the whole forum with "djbdns is great", just respond to this thread.
Frist!