Well no, it's not, actually. The active ingredient in Ritalin, methylphenidate is quite distinct, chemically, from amphetamine, methamphetamine, or any of the related close derivatives. While methylphenidate and methamphetamine both start with the same four letters, their biochemical effects are different. (For example, both compounds are dopamine reuptake inhibitors, but only methamphetamine is a dopamine releasing agent. The two compounds have opposite effects on neuronal firing rates. And so forth.)

Which would be a sound argument if (a) ballistic vests were actually able to safely absorb all shots that hit them without allowing the person wearing them to be seriously injured or even killed; and (b) police officers were only ever shot in the torso--and never below the waist, on the arms, or in the neck or head.

Ballistic vests aren't a magical wall, except in the movies.

That's a special brand of gullible you have, wherever it is you're from. The only place where police deliberately take non-lethal, specifically-incapacitating shots with a firearm is in the movies.

The only place where there is readily available, secure, bulletproof cover within a split-second's reach of every foot chase is, once again, in the movies. Seriously, dude. When someone fleeing an armed robbery points a gun at a cop, it's one of those occasions when use of deadly force by the police is actually justified, and not just "justified".

Okay, so my new device (a LeakyTech router, say) has a five-year expiry clock on it. A vulnerability is discovered a year after I buy it. It spends 80% of its lifetime completely exposed. I'm now out of pocket for the cost of a new device every five years, and I'm only protected for 20% of the time. Nice.

Or, my new device (from Securitron, this time) is actually quite secure. It takes ten years for the bad guys to find an unpatched or unpatchable hole. Five years of reliable, trustworthy use I could have had get thrown away. I've pointlessly reduced the safe, working lifetime of my electronic device by 50%, doubling my hardware cost and incurring extra downtime for no improvement in my security. Nice.

Better yet, I've gone through a couple of cycles of forced obsolescence. This time around, I've moved from the Securitron product to the LeakyTech one, and now introduced a hole in my security that wasn't there before. Either the LeakyTech device has another rapidly-discovered vulnerability - maybe it was introduced when they tried to patch their first one-year defect- or I didn't configure the new hardware properly when I was making my enforced switchover. Nice.

Similarly, we should cease enforcement of all traffic rules and regulations. We should only punish drivers whose actions actually injure or kill someone else. Anything else is government overreach.

Probably because pedophelia doesn't involve acts between consenting adults able to give appropriate, informed consent. Given that you couldn't resist that analogy, it gives a pretty good idea of where you're coming from on this issue--and it's not a good place.

Personally, I'm just going to stand up for "disappointment", rather than "outrage". (I would go with "outrage" when talking about how, for instance, it's still legal in most U.S. states to fire someone from their job for no reason other than their being gay--but that's just my opinion.) That said, I will firmly declare a "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on" for presuming that because you're not outraged, or you think it's a dumb thing to be upset about, that anyone else expressing serious anger has to be faking it.

Which is totally sound reasoning, if you would like to make the assertion that "LGBT people", "black people", and "animals" are all proper subsets of the group "people". Or, alternatively, that "LGBT people", "black people", and "animals" are all not subsets of the group "people". Which one of those arguments did you want to plant your flag on?

Welcome to America, where we have now passed through the stage where money is equivalent to speech and reached the point where money is the only socially-acceptable form of speech.

Don't like what other people are saying about the game, pla? Guess you should stop pissing and moaning about it, and just not give any money to the people whose behaviour you disagree with. You know--follow your own advice.

Well, of course the director was unamused. During flight testing you noted documentation errors and several out-and-out flaws in the code, and then you tried to pass that pile of dreck off to him as "promising". Be honest--your code only survived the landing because the pilot intervened and took control of the aircraft. In the future, maybe you shouldn't try to sugarcoat things.

The problem, of course, is that instead of the restaurant taking up space on one floor of the building, it would then occupy a restaurant-sized hole in every floor of the building. (Yes, this could be partially offset by stacking several floors of restaurant in this hypothetical elevator shaft, but you're still wasting many multiples of the restaurant's floor area in the building. And floor area in high-rise towers isn't cheap.) We'll leave aside the challenges of providing working utility connections, and the likely-to-be-appalling costs of construction and maintenance.

Dear fan,

I am sure that you can find many other entertainment content options that also cost significantly more than $5, especially among those available on the first day of theatrical release. Many of them also require you to get off your ass and go somewhere, rather than letting you enjoy your entertainment experience in bed, at home, on your tablet.

So, yeah. $5. It costs that much because we think it's worth that much, and because we think that enough people will agree with that assessment to make this business financially viable. In a very real and tangible way "what people will pay" is very much "what something is worth", at least for dollars-and-cents pricing decisions.

Sincerely,

Joss Whedon

P.S.: I'm funnier than Louis CK, so there's that, too.

You know that by far the largest group of unemployed people living on a government income are retired old folks collecting Social Security, right?

But I'm guessing that "grandma" isn't the demographic group I'm supposed to think of when you blow your ill-informed dog whistle.

The same is true for speeding. But even if you want to narrow the scope to "things I can do in my own home, where I won't get caught except if something goes terribly wrong, or by happenstance" there is still a pretty big field.

Suppose I live in a high-rise apartment tower. It would be trivially easy for me to buy a couple of dozen propane cylinders from local retailers, and slip them into my hypothetical apartment. (Put each one in a suitcase or cardboard box to carry it upstairs, and spread the purchases out over a few different stores, across several weeks of summer barbecue season. Pay cash.) No one knows my apartment is now a giant bomb. Totally illegal under an assortment of fire codes and municipal bylaws. Probably runs into state and/or federal rules about the transportation and storage of dangerous goods. To be honest, I can't be bothered to look up all the different ways in which it is illegal.

Anyone could do it. No one who does it would get caught (unless they talk about it). Should it therefore be legal to store a quarter ton of compressed, flammable gas inside a residential apartment building?

I have to admit that I am always surprised by people who confuse and conflate the notion that something is possible with the notion that laws against that possible-to-do thing are thereby rendered unenforceable.

It is extraordinarily easy to acquire an automobile with a top speed exceeding 75 miles per hour. They can be found readily on our city streets, in the garages of our homes, all across America. Millions of such vehicles exchange hands, legally, every year. Shockingly, that doesn't actually render laws against speeding unenforceable--even though every driver has access to technology with which they can speed, available at the twitch of a foot.

Well, no. That figure only applies if a power outage (affecting both the city power and the building's emergency power, so as to disable the building's tuned mass damper) occurs simultaneously with every occurrence of high winds. Or if the building's owners decide to just turn off the tuned mass damper for giggles, and leave it turned off for a decade and a half.

Far more interesting - and potentially scary - was the fact that even with the mass damper, the building would expect to see winds sufficient to cause toppling approximately once every 55 years. As the building is now approaching its fortieth birthday, there's a better than even chance that it would have fallen by now.

Which, I'm sure, is a great comfort for that now-crippled or -deceased driver. The guy with the license plate frame is probably very sorry after the fact, and would probably do things differently in retrospect. Meanwhile, the guy who lost his legs doesn't want a million dollars; he wants his legs.

In occupational health and safety, it is generally and widely understood that serious or fatal accidents seldom occur out of the blue. A fatality will nearly always be surrounded in time and space by a cloud of (usually unrecorded or unreported) near misses and minor incidents. Relatedly, there is the concept of "normalization of deviance". Essentially, the idea that if you let your standards slip a bit and nothing bad happens, the tendency is to allow that lower level of vigilance to become the new acceptable standard. Lather, rinse, repeat until a major failure occurs. (The Challenger disaster is an oft-cited example.)

Coming back to the licence plate frames, I don't care whether or not someone gets a fine for speeding. I do care that we've created a pool of privileged drivers who are no longer receiving any feedback when they engage in higher-risk driving behaviors. "Go ahead and drive as fast as you want; we'll trust your judgement on that until after your first high-speed collision..." probably isn't a real solid basis for road safety.