We're talking victimless, not harmless. With drugs, there is no victim, because the person making the purchase is making a conscious choice to buy something to put into their body. They are well aware of the effects and risks.
Contrarily, identity theft is clearly not victimless. A person's credit card or social security number is taken from them without their knowledge or consent so that it can be sold.
To go on an anti-drug tirade here when your pedantry isn't even correct does no one any good. All you're doing is parroting and reinforcing negative drug stereotypes. You wouldn't be doing so if those sentiments weren't pushed on you since before you could even comprehend them.
Using drugs is victimless, but given that a lot of drug manufacture and cultivation is directly linked to organized crime, buying drugs is only victimless if you know for a fact that your drugs are ethically grown, fair trade, etc. Which you don't.
I would agree that buying a computer who uses conflict minerals is not a victimless act. I find that a lot of what we do in modern society is not victimless even though we like to pretend it is.
Second, there are other parties who are hurt directly or indirectly by the drug use (granted, this only applies to some drugs).
Third, there are victims in getting the drugs to the person (once again, not in all cases, but with the black market, you can't be sure which case you fall under).
Finally, much like with alcohol, just because I do not consider it victimless does not mean I am against it being legalized. In fact I think that legalization would greatly reduce the number of victims.
I have multiple g-mail accounts. One of them is my primary personal one, and another one I use is a shared account that my band uses for business and soundcloud.
Google makes it hellish to sign out of one and into the other. For the longest time, I had them linked, and my band mates could see my personal e-mail. I don't know if they could get past a log in point, but the fact that its so hard to keep them un-linked and log into one or the other is infuriating.
The keyboard shortcut that I found is Control-Shift-M to open a box around the profile, down-enter to select "Switch person", then Tab-(Tab-)enter to select the other account. Anyone know if there's a shorter shortcut?
You can change users by clicking the top right of a chrome window.
They may not be obvious to set up, but they are worth learning about if you are going to use stick with Chrome and use multiple Google accounts, or multiple accounts on any service - Twitter, FB, etc.
Looking at sales as an indicator of the success of a product is warped and silly. The fact that it is considered the right way is a shining example of the fundamentally flawed nature of our capitalist system.
Up until last year when he moved out, I continued to use my dad's first generation iPad while he used his new mini. The first generation iPad worked great, I used it all the time. I saw no reason to go and purchase one of the newer ones for myself other than the fact that I couldn't install iOS 7 on it. The software pushed obsolescence, not the hardware. My dad kept it when he moved out because it was still a great device.
A more accurate title would be "No one knows of any reason to buy the new generation iPads because their older ones are working just fine"
>Rovio's expansion into animation and merchandising continued to hit its profits hard, leading to today's 110 redundancies.
I wouldn't say they grew the company too fast. I can definitely see why merchandising would have been a huge hit on profits.
With the amount of angry birds garbage I saw in stores in my area, compared against the number of people that would possibly want said garbage, well...it was just a waste of money.
It's like some old executive thought it would be a great idea to expand into merchandising, as if this were still the 80s or 90s where people bought rooms full of that kind of useful shit.
Anyone who has looked at the income inequality mountain that has appeared since then knows that the people who would buy that kind of crap can't afford to. Though, it doesn't surprise me that the kind of executive who would be able to make a decision like expanding into merchandising would be upper class and completely out of touch with how little people want their garbage and would have seen it as a complete waste of money.
No, shit like this isn't helping. You are talking out of your ass about something you clearly know nothing about.
Marijuana is as addictive as potatoes. The fact that you even mention heroin in your post shows you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Alcohol is way more addictive and dangerous than pot and we have a huge craft brewing and tasting culture in this country.
If you know absolutely nothing about a subject, for the love of god, please stop and think before you hit reply. You're not contributing at all by posting when you know nothing about the subject.
Maybe we disagree on how addictive potatoes are? Marijuana is fairly addictive, with about 9% of users becoming addicted.[1]
Alcohol's quite addictive too. I don't know whether it's more or less so than marijuana. But with alcohol, we have what we have. If I were designing policy and we didn't have the drinking culture that we do, I'd be hoping we wouldn't end up here.
All I'm saying is this: it's actually a bad thing if lots more people end up smoking lots more weed. It's bad in two ways. One, it's bad intrinsically, because I do think that smoking weed three or four times a week demotivates you and keeps you from getting your shit done. Two, we need to learn how to legalise drugs without use increasing massively, because we've got a lot more drugs to legalise.
it's actually a bad thing if lots more people end up smoking lots more weed
Nice straw man, but it falls down when you actually look at the rates of usage in places with legalization. For instance, The Netherlands, where the toking habits are somewhat safer than in San Francisco [0].
Eating hamburgers is legal both in the Netherlands and the US. But the US has a lot more obese people than the Netherlands. You cannot simply assume that the outcome of drug legalization can be transferred from one country to another.
Sure, but you also can't assume that legalization will necessarily increase incidence of usage. So let's go with what evidence we do have.
Colorado's full legalization has barely existed long enough to consider it a valid sample, but the state's Department of Public Health and Environment has found that use among high school students has gone down since legalization [0]. That's certainly an encouraging trend.
All I really would ask is that you back up the claims you make with facts rather than just sharing your assumptions.
There is a serious lack of women in the tech industry, and it isn't (as some in the slashdot comments suggest) solvable just by encouraging that companies hire more women. Companies can't hire more women if there simply aren't that many women applying because they don't exist in the field. Encouraging more women to get into the tech industry at a young age is the right approach, IMO.
I don't see how this is anything but discriminatory. If you look at the stats, boys are falling behind in nearly every area, in terms of levels of achievement. Taking away incentives for them in the one area they tend to do well is discrimination, plain and simple.
"I'm concerned that boys have become politically incorrect, that we are a society in the process of turning against its male children." - Christina Hoff Sommers
I personally have been a mentor for a three sets of boys over the last three semesters at Spark (http://sparkprogram.org/) and have seen firsthand the positive experiences boys can have when they learn they can be creators, and not just consumers. To take away that creative spirit from boys is a crime, and I cannot see myself supporting any nonprofit initiative that discriminates in such a manner.
I have never heard anyone tell a female that they won't succeed in STEM subjects.
I hear a lot (relatively) about encouraging more women into tech. Why? So they train up and decide they don't like it after a couple of years and quit?
Contrarily, identity theft is clearly not victimless. A person's credit card or social security number is taken from them without their knowledge or consent so that it can be sold.
To go on an anti-drug tirade here when your pedantry isn't even correct does no one any good. All you're doing is parroting and reinforcing negative drug stereotypes. You wouldn't be doing so if those sentiments weren't pushed on you since before you could even comprehend them.