Thank you for pointing out that trying to define all actions as either good OR evil is a flawed, and EXTREMELY subjective means of viewing the world. One man's terrorist really is another man's freedom fighter,.
Many people want to smoke pot, prop 19 proponents think they should be allowed to, and they think that creating a (regulated and taxed) legitimate industry to serve that desire would be of greater benefit to society than the prohibition which is current policy.
So far as I know, that's the main thrust of the pro side's arguments... everything I've heard on it basically boils down to one or more of those points.
The opposition's main point seems to be, essentially, pot is bad, smoking pot is bad, and we should continue to prohibit the cultivation, distribution and use of pot because doing so is in the best interests of society.
Again, their arguments seem to pretty consistently fall into these points.
Is there a class of argument that I've not witnessed which is fundamentally dishonest?
As some one who has smoked pot, quite a bit of it in fact, but no longer does and has no intention of ever doing it again (it tends to trigger panic attacks, paranoia, and crippling neurosis... none of which I find enjoyable in the slightest), I feel that the pro side has a much stronger case... if only because it is my general opinion that an activity should only be banned when it poses substantial and immediate danger of real harm to society. I support banning impaired drivers regardless of what impairs them (and yes, pot does impair one's ability to drive in ways similar to but somewhat different from alcohol... much like being high is similar to, but somewhat different from being drunk) based on the danger that they pose to others, but I also view that ban as substantially and obviously separate from an outright ban on consumption etc.
You do know that there is already a large, well-established, well-funded industry around predicting (influencing? fixing?) elections? Worrying that Google's analysis of search trends to predict election results is going to taint the electoral process is rather like worrying that passengers on the Titanic might have gotten mild food poisoning.
Earlier today Obama said the sky is blue. Clearly he is a lying Socialist, and the sky is not blue.
Then I heard Glen Beck say that grass is green, which just proves he is a racist and a fascist, and now I can be sure that grass is not green.
In this brave new world, we determine reality by excluding the views of those whom we predetermine to be wrong. Welcome, and enjoy the stay... just don't plan on leaving any time soon.
Citizens United is perhaps the single clearest example of judicial activism in US History.
They were absolutely correct to strike down the rule as overbroad and stifling, "Hillary: The Movie" never should have been blocked, and that portion of McCain-Feingold was obviously flawed. Basically everyone familiar with Constitutional Law, on both sides, knew that was going to happen and virtually everyone agreed with it. Had they made the ruling thus, there wouldn't be an issue.
Instead, they went WAY beyond that, and ruled that a) corporations are equivalent to individual, private citizens, b) spending money is equivalent speech, ergo c) corporations must be allowed to spend infinite amounts of money anonymously on political advertising. This rather obviously goes well beyond the narrow scope of interpreting the law as written by congress, and is an extremely blatant act of 'legislating from the bench".
Given where it came from, this would be fucking hilarious... if it weren't so horrific.
Apparently you are unaware of the enormous breadth of choices that exist between beating somebody until they're half dead, cutting off an appendage, branding them, or otherwise taking thoroughly barbaric retaliatory measures and doing nothing at all. Nobody has advocated the latter, they've just said you're an asshole for advocating the former.
"I suspect the court doesn't differentiate between the two when setting probation terms"
One does not generally discuss "probation terms" with regard to somebody convicted of shooting someone with a firearm. That seems like a pretty distinct differentiation to me.
I'd love to see a review... this was a (slightly) remixed press release.
Ok, to be fair TFA is actually a pretty decent early review, and actually gives the machine a somewhat lower score than I would expect to see on anything Apple (3.5/5, for those too lazy to look). The summary, however, is just an ad.
The people in the videos pretty much make that point for him. I can't imagine why he'd link those particular videos (of the same incident, as it so happens) if he didn't agree with their entire message.
Incidentally, one thing I didn't see was the two alleged Black Panthers (I have no specific reason to believe they weren't, but there is also no substantial evidence that they were legit) actually threatening anyone. In fact, watching the video I see several White people standing and walking nearby, including entering and exiting the polling station, without incident or harassment. Again, maybe they were keeping people out off camera, but the video just shows them standing there and largely ignoring the people they are supposedly intimidating.
Don't be ridiculous, of course they believe in Free Speech. They just place some conditions on that speech.
Free Speech requires the following for Anonymous to support it:
*It must be done Anonymously, otherwise you're obviously a shill or something *It must be obnoxious and ultimately without purpose *It must be done by somebody who isn't rich, famous, educated, poor, unknown or uneducated... all of those groups are stupid (see first bullet) *It must not criticize Anonymous in any way, ever, for any reason, doing so makes you a fascist who hates Free Speech *It must not violate any of Anonymous' other stipulations which may or may not exist and may or may not be made known before they begin enforcing them
That's pretty ringing support, in my book. Actually, it looks pretty similar to the conditions most major Western political parties put on their support for Free Speech. Perhaps it really is time for the Dramacratic Party to step forward and seize the mantle of power... they've got the requisite hypocrisy in place, and they certainly have enough skilled operators to start rigging elections like the big boys. How about it gaiz?
Wouldn't that require him to literally murder somebody? Suge was never anonymous or unknown, he was "behind the scenes" only in the sense that he wasn't on stage... you never see Don King in a boxing match, either.
Anyway, I suspect that, had Julian Assange chosen to remain anonymous, he would have either been dead or "outed" months ago. The "decline" of WikiLeaks may be related, but only insofar as both are a result of it becoming well-known and popular in recent months.
The business owns the copier. Unless you mean to imply there is something illegal about not photocopying certain documents on a privately owned copier, or even something unethical about it, you're going to have a very hard time making a case for why this is terrible.
Following that sort of opposition to its logical (and absurd) conclusion, it should be illegal and unethical for anyone to not say something which they do not believe they should say: we are all compelled to say everything possible, regardless of our actual feelings or beliefs. That poses a pretty significant problem for me, and seems to entirely subvert the very meaning of Free Speech into Compulsory Speech... not good.
Depends on what you want to change, really. While some of our amendments have altered the details of our government, I'd say it's a stretch to say that any has fundamentally altered it. Direct election of Senators is a big change, but it's not much of a revolution.
I think this is one of the things where people get really worked up and overdo it, but there's a certain amount of truth to it. There are some really run-down schools out there, and while I don't think a school benefits from gold-plated toilet seats or wall hangings, there's certainly a baseline we should be shooting for. Making sure that it is properly ventilated, the exterior walls have appropriate insulation, the heat/AC system is adequate to keep the building at a reasonable temperature (not below 55ish, not above 75ish), enough room for every student to have a seat with some workspace, a cafeteria that can pass health inspections, clean floors and walls without large patches of missing or inappropriate surfacing, enough lights for students to see their work without straining their eyes... none of this is extravagant, and certainly there's some room for interpretation and subjectivity, but there certainly is a point at which a school needs to have decent facilities in order not to hamper education.
Frankly, I think part of the problem is that public construction projects are a major source of corruption and kick-backs, so politicians have tremendous incentive to constantly renovate and build schools regardless of any actual need. Plus, it always looks good when you photo op at the groundbreaking, it shows you really care about kids and families, kissing hands and shaking babies is always a plus.
Question: if we use internet voting, will that impede voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, creative counting or any of the other traditional methods of rigging elections proudly used in this country since the 18th century? Because if so, I've been informed it doesn't matter what I vote, and if not then I've been informed it still doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for pointing out that trying to define all actions as either good OR evil is a flawed, and EXTREMELY subjective means of viewing the world. One man's terrorist really is another man's freedom fighter,.
Many people want to smoke pot, prop 19 proponents think they should be allowed to, and they think that creating a (regulated and taxed) legitimate industry to serve that desire would be of greater benefit to society than the prohibition which is current policy.
So far as I know, that's the main thrust of the pro side's arguments... everything I've heard on it basically boils down to one or more of those points.
The opposition's main point seems to be, essentially, pot is bad, smoking pot is bad, and we should continue to prohibit the cultivation, distribution and use of pot because doing so is in the best interests of society.
Again, their arguments seem to pretty consistently fall into these points.
Is there a class of argument that I've not witnessed which is fundamentally dishonest?
As some one who has smoked pot, quite a bit of it in fact, but no longer does and has no intention of ever doing it again (it tends to trigger panic attacks, paranoia, and crippling neurosis... none of which I find enjoyable in the slightest), I feel that the pro side has a much stronger case... if only because it is my general opinion that an activity should only be banned when it poses substantial and immediate danger of real harm to society. I support banning impaired drivers regardless of what impairs them (and yes, pot does impair one's ability to drive in ways similar to but somewhat different from alcohol... much like being high is similar to, but somewhat different from being drunk) based on the danger that they pose to others, but I also view that ban as substantially and obviously separate from an outright ban on consumption etc.
You do know that there is already a large, well-established, well-funded industry around predicting (influencing? fixing?) elections? Worrying that Google's analysis of search trends to predict election results is going to taint the electoral process is rather like worrying that passengers on the Titanic might have gotten mild food poisoning.
Earlier today Obama said the sky is blue. Clearly he is a lying Socialist, and the sky is not blue.
Then I heard Glen Beck say that grass is green, which just proves he is a racist and a fascist, and now I can be sure that grass is not green.
In this brave new world, we determine reality by excluding the views of those whom we predetermine to be wrong. Welcome, and enjoy the stay... just don't plan on leaving any time soon.
Citizens United is perhaps the single clearest example of judicial activism in US History.
They were absolutely correct to strike down the rule as overbroad and stifling, "Hillary: The Movie" never should have been blocked, and that portion of McCain-Feingold was obviously flawed. Basically everyone familiar with Constitutional Law, on both sides, knew that was going to happen and virtually everyone agreed with it. Had they made the ruling thus, there wouldn't be an issue.
Instead, they went WAY beyond that, and ruled that a) corporations are equivalent to individual, private citizens, b) spending money is equivalent speech, ergo c) corporations must be allowed to spend infinite amounts of money anonymously on political advertising. This rather obviously goes well beyond the narrow scope of interpreting the law as written by congress, and is an extremely blatant act of 'legislating from the bench".
Given where it came from, this would be fucking hilarious... if it weren't so horrific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linux_distributions
You can thank me later.
Presumably it spent the first few years failing to hold Linux back.
I like Xfce, personally. Cleaner, lighter, and IMO more discoverable than Gnome or KDE.
Ooh, I bet they could launch him out of a cannon!
I am fairly certain that none of the reptiles, fish, birds, amphibians or insects native to Australia are marsupials.
Apparently you are unaware of the enormous breadth of choices that exist between beating somebody until they're half dead, cutting off an appendage, branding them, or otherwise taking thoroughly barbaric retaliatory measures and doing nothing at all. Nobody has advocated the latter, they've just said you're an asshole for advocating the former.
"I suspect the court doesn't differentiate between the two when setting probation terms"
One does not generally discuss "probation terms" with regard to somebody convicted of shooting someone with a firearm. That seems like a pretty distinct differentiation to me.
I'd love to see a review... this was a (slightly) remixed press release.
Ok, to be fair TFA is actually a pretty decent early review, and actually gives the machine a somewhat lower score than I would expect to see on anything Apple (3.5/5, for those too lazy to look). The summary, however, is just an ad.
Uh huh... wouldn't it also be possible with only Troll and underrated mods? Somewhat simpler scheme, I think.
The people in the videos pretty much make that point for him. I can't imagine why he'd link those particular videos (of the same incident, as it so happens) if he didn't agree with their entire message.
Incidentally, one thing I didn't see was the two alleged Black Panthers (I have no specific reason to believe they weren't, but there is also no substantial evidence that they were legit) actually threatening anyone. In fact, watching the video I see several White people standing and walking nearby, including entering and exiting the polling station, without incident or harassment. Again, maybe they were keeping people out off camera, but the video just shows them standing there and largely ignoring the people they are supposedly intimidating.
Good effort, though.
Nope, trolling. Way to feed 'em.
As opposed to the antisocial site Livejournal.
Don't be ridiculous, of course they believe in Free Speech. They just place some conditions on that speech.
Free Speech requires the following for Anonymous to support it:
*It must be done Anonymously, otherwise you're obviously a shill or something
*It must be obnoxious and ultimately without purpose
*It must be done by somebody who isn't rich, famous, educated, poor, unknown or uneducated... all of those groups are stupid (see first bullet)
*It must not criticize Anonymous in any way, ever, for any reason, doing so makes you a fascist who hates Free Speech
*It must not violate any of Anonymous' other stipulations which may or may not exist and may or may not be made known before they begin enforcing them
That's pretty ringing support, in my book. Actually, it looks pretty similar to the conditions most major Western political parties put on their support for Free Speech. Perhaps it really is time for the Dramacratic Party to step forward and seize the mantle of power... they've got the requisite hypocrisy in place, and they certainly have enough skilled operators to start rigging elections like the big boys. How about it gaiz?
"he's pulled a Suge Knight"
Wouldn't that require him to literally murder somebody? Suge was never anonymous or unknown, he was "behind the scenes" only in the sense that he wasn't on stage... you never see Don King in a boxing match, either.
Anyway, I suspect that, had Julian Assange chosen to remain anonymous, he would have either been dead or "outed" months ago. The "decline" of WikiLeaks may be related, but only insofar as both are a result of it becoming well-known and popular in recent months.
The business owns the copier. Unless you mean to imply there is something illegal about not photocopying certain documents on a privately owned copier, or even something unethical about it, you're going to have a very hard time making a case for why this is terrible.
Following that sort of opposition to its logical (and absurd) conclusion, it should be illegal and unethical for anyone to not say something which they do not believe they should say: we are all compelled to say everything possible, regardless of our actual feelings or beliefs. That poses a pretty significant problem for me, and seems to entirely subvert the very meaning of Free Speech into Compulsory Speech... not good.
Depends on what you want to change, really. While some of our amendments have altered the details of our government, I'd say it's a stretch to say that any has fundamentally altered it. Direct election of Senators is a big change, but it's not much of a revolution.
I think this is one of the things where people get really worked up and overdo it, but there's a certain amount of truth to it. There are some really run-down schools out there, and while I don't think a school benefits from gold-plated toilet seats or wall hangings, there's certainly a baseline we should be shooting for. Making sure that it is properly ventilated, the exterior walls have appropriate insulation, the heat/AC system is adequate to keep the building at a reasonable temperature (not below 55ish, not above 75ish), enough room for every student to have a seat with some workspace, a cafeteria that can pass health inspections, clean floors and walls without large patches of missing or inappropriate surfacing, enough lights for students to see their work without straining their eyes... none of this is extravagant, and certainly there's some room for interpretation and subjectivity, but there certainly is a point at which a school needs to have decent facilities in order not to hamper education.
Frankly, I think part of the problem is that public construction projects are a major source of corruption and kick-backs, so politicians have tremendous incentive to constantly renovate and build schools regardless of any actual need. Plus, it always looks good when you photo op at the groundbreaking, it shows you really care about kids and families, kissing hands and shaking babies is always a plus.
Question: if we use internet voting, will that impede voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, creative counting or any of the other traditional methods of rigging elections proudly used in this country since the 18th century? Because if so, I've been informed it doesn't matter what I vote, and if not then I've been informed it still doesn't.
I know Truman Capote is up there as well.
If I were the sort to do pointless and only marginally interesting research, I might look into the actual answer.
Neither, some people are so deluded as to think Facebook friends actually matter.
I know, it shocked me the first time I heard it too. Try not to cry yourself to sleep.
You have the Gundams drop in a stronger bridge. Isn't that obvious?