Yes I agree and if the judge doesn't then they need that ability. Now I think that if they can't excuse people then maybe bumping the pay to handle the minimum wage amount if they are on duty for 2 days or more.

I agree with you. Jury duty is an important part of our society obligations and I can't count how many times I have heard people get out of it just because. I have had 4 jury duty notices and each time I get them in all honesty I get happy. 3 of the 4 have been canceled just before trial. So that was always a let down. However, the other jury duty I have had before I was on to be selected but was nixed because my parents were both police officers. While I got 6.00 for being there the pay sucked when I paid 5.00 in parking and used a gallon of gas. I am not complaining about doing the job but the expense of performing were better paid then I think you would have more people WILLING to serve then those ditching to make more money. Hardship or not we should be able to live while serving on a jury. No one on the jury should worry if they will be able to put food on the table because they have to help justice.

I think the challenge to this as well is what if in the end we (BIG IF here folks) defeat the Taliban and they become an ally? I think what we are missing here is that when they become an ally we don't want to continue to make a "war" out of them or have that reminder.

The other side to this is that using a general term (OpFor) gives them the ability to let the gamer choose what/who their enemy is. If we go to war with the penguins well that would cause problems but if we go to war with another country then it is easier to let the gamer see the OpFor as the other side.

One of the things I have learned on Slashdot is someone may say something and define it later. I have also had a pleasure of both learning others sides to issues as well as being lucky to have people comment back professionally or at least not disrespectful. This is much importance to note because I feel and have seen others who get down right rude. I appreciate your respect in your response.

I couldn't agree more with alcohol (honestly my post was a little different to begin with but later revised.). I believe that the control of alcohol should be limited to in a persons home where they can drink all night long but keeping themselves out of general harm to the public. If given outside of the area of ones home then rules and responsibilities to those giving such drinks should be stricter. I do not believe nor do I think it is fair that drunks can get in their cars and drive off without someone ensuring their ability to drive without being a danger to the public. Sadly prohibition didn't work well out as we all know.

I believe that at least with what little knowledge I have (I am not afraid to admit lack of knowledge) that the difference is we failed because of the wide spread popularity of alcohol. This helped in making enforcement harder as so many people were well on their way to work around the system for what they wanted. However, marijuana doesn't fit such a profile and has only gained I feel because so many people are now wanting it and combine some states are allowing "medical" marijuana. Which to me is the equivalent of some areas not even enforcing prohibition or seat belt laws . To me "personally" I feel Marijuana and Alcohol are one and the same as far as effects to the average Joe. While I have never used marijuana, the studying I have done on it for school projects show that the effects can have almost like effects to people. For example drivers driving drunk don't clearly see, have delayed reaction time, and possible blackouts, and those who are high are unable to determine what actions to do, hallucinations, and decreased response time.

I do not for reasons agree with cigarettes (I do however see your point). I have not heard of a person driving after smoking a cigarette have an accident because they couldn't clearly tell the line or had decreased reaction time. Granted those incidents I am sure with people dropping them in their lap may not help the cause it is different to marijuana in the sense of the reactions to one's mental abilities. While I do agree it is addictive (both my parents smoke) the effects are felt by the person and the impact to society from say someone driving is far less. I do support the laws prohibiting smoking from the work place and minimizing the attempt to target minors. I agree on public offices (Government Owned or those dealing with the public) should not allow smoking inside of them. However that is the end of my agreeing. I dislike and feel that the law makers have overstepped the rights of the people by requiring (Here in Texas 3 cities I know of have city ordinances on the books) private business that while deal with the public are required to stop smoking from taking place. If a non-smoker doesn't wish for their health to be impacted that way then their choice to go to a place where such restrictions are in place and spend their money there. Forcing restaurants or bars from allowing smokers to smoke is wrong because they are "privately" owned and no one is required to go to them for a service.

My point was to say your post appeared to have the argument we aren't winning this battle so lets allow it because it would be easier and cheaper at this point. One has to worry if such response were the case then at what point do we have to apply that with other laws.

I think their is a disservice to people and getting the truth out by not having a study on the impact of Marijuana and gathering of stats (if available) to prove and back the point why we have made marijuana illegal. I think everything at some point needs to be revisited to ensure the necessity of due diligence when faced with such situations of lack of scientific proof with drugs.

Well AC I disagree. The police are trained and while accidents of human error happen it would be far more apparent with random stoners and opium addicts. Just think they had their dignity robbed but at least they got the drugs off the street so one day they won't have to worry about someone being so stoned that they end their lives.

Another sad argument... If they are going to do it anyway then make it legal. How many people in society do marijuana? The problem with this thought process is if we do it for this then we have to do it others. We can't combat murders so we should make it legal for them to do. We can't combat burglary so we should make a law that allows it if they do it and it is under a certain amount. If it is wrong then it is wrong. Regardless of the amount of people committing the crime. Now if the majority of people say okay this should be allowed and the risk to society or the risk to harm to yourself to the point we (society) will have to take care of you is non-existent or can't be offset some how (Taxes to cover mental help professional salary and the staff salary to take care of you etc) then I would be all for it.

What about those that commit crimes that result in the ending of a life? What will you do then? You can't punish them with double life sentences... The point is to deter in our laws from people committing those crimes. If you speed you choose to do that we punish you with a fine to pay and the results of your inability to make safe decisions will impact your future ability to drive and your insurance will rise because of your not making safe decisions. When those people sit down and think about the impact logically to their own life and the decisions that they may carry out while high, drunk, stoned, etc when they aren't in those settings maybe then they can say it shouldn't be risk for others for my dumb actions.

While I enjoy your comments I do object to your second to last comment.

There should be a law to protect me if the activity you choose to do will infringe on my rights to a healthy, happy, and safe life. You can choose to eat junk food and watch too much TV. I am fine with that. But if you are eating junk food causes harm to my life such as let us say such as alcohol with an impaired driver (you in such example) then I should be protected from that action. I am all for you drinking, smoking pot, doing crack, and living on Burger King if that is your choice. But if your choice means that I will have to worry about driving down the road and you are unable to clearly drive or make a responsible choice because your decision or cognitive functions are diminished then I have the right to say my safety and thus of the safety of society is to deem activities unlawful then I see no problem with it.

The other side is that the public is not trained medically to make decisions about the effects of such drugs on the population. If the drug itself may harm your mental state and you then need to be placed in a state center to be cared for because you killed off your brain cells to the point you have no ability to safely care for yourself then my tax money or society's money as a whole has to be used to now care for your "right to do what you want" has caused you harm and it is unethical along with immoral to let you die or cause harm to yourself/others then yes I/We (Society) have the right to tell you what activities you can't do to prevent harm to yourself, to others, and to society money.

Professor: While this is all off subject I would also like to applaud you for allowing the use of open notes. I can tell you as a student myself those far more benefit me then the use of remembering every possible sentence in my book or lectures given. It is sad that schools can't pursue more effort in cheat prevention and that of consequences if you do. I feel a student caught cheating should get the F for the class if they attempt to cheat and get caught doing so.

Good luck Professor and while many may not think to say this Thank you for doing your job. If it was not for our Teachers and Professors I would be no where close in the knowledge I have obtained over the years. Thank you.

I know I might get modded down but I do want to say a few things.

Being a former Abuse Manager and Abuse Member for 2 very large hosting companies (one shared hosting and one of the big Dedicated Server companies) I get where they are coming from. This was no different when back in the day Rackshack/Ev1Servers hosted a Jew hating website. They got attacked hourly. Rackshack/Ev1Servers didn't just remove it because someone hated it but because it targeted people in real life. The difference here is like the alta said its a double standard. Personally, the Muslim community is quick to attack at anyone that doesn't agree with their rules, laws, and overall religion.

While I personally do not agree with the burning I do agree with the Church people's right to do this. Maybe if people were to get more outraged at the other things going on from the other side then we would see some improvement to the situation and overall tolerance of other religions and get some respect ourselves.

I am really tired of those crying for the Muslims and how we need to be understanding and not do things like this yet where is the media when flags are being burned? Where is the media when they are burning bibles? Where is the outrage when they spread their hate messages?

We don't get upset at the other religions being made fun of because they won't send suicide bombers or kids with guns after you. They may send hate mail, or responses back but you don't fear death.

Is it the right of the hosting company to shutdown the site? Sure we all have the right to shut down a website for any reason. In this case I am sorry but I don't agree with the shutting down of this site. This is a protest not them saying "Kill all Muslims!" Or them hosting a site targeting Muslims.

Why is it that we are not having these problems with people like Westboro Baptist Church? Why isn't the Government stating how their message of picketing funerals could cause problems and moral issues for the soldiers fighting? Guess it isn't that important. We let them have the stage to boast their free speech but someone says lets burn a book and we get all kinds of fired up to stop and protect them.

While I tend to not feed the trolls this comment seems to be more of an attack. You must not understand what Linux is about. It is not about anti-copyright thieves or pirates. I think you will find if you take the time to look beyond what someone is spoon feeding to you that you might see it is actually the opposite. Most Linux users (be it system admins or the Linux home user) respects copyrights. We relay on those same evil copyright laws to enforce companies and individuals to follow the agreement for the use of our code or project. While the "releasing" of the code is different in each case (GPL BSD etc) they all have the same request for copyright as most people. The Linux community has even taken cases to court in which code was "used" without their permission or in a way not intended in their agreement for the right to use the code.

With that being said how can you say that linux users are against copyright if we want it enforced on our own products. Yes there are people who use linux to "break" copyright and move around things. However, this happens in the Apple world as well as the Microsoft world. May I remind you that majority of the copyright cases filled by the RIAA are users using programs that were developed for a Windows Operating system.

There are just as many people out there using the other operating systems who don't give a crap about copyrights as there are those that use linux who don't care for copyrights.

it's got electrolytes it's just what swimming pools need!

Robot Driver on board.

I don't care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg

While I was preparing the comment a well thought out comment I was reminded that my

Sorry I had to harvest some grapes. I don't want them to die!

Crap I almost forgot to milk the cows, feed my friends chickens,

Sorry... I had to go expand my farm so I can grow more corn. To hell with this comment. I will be in Farmville just send me a friend request...