Someone who knows a bit more about the topic than Miller and has written a script for a successful show sounds like a better fit to me than bringing in an academic or social worker and then translating their stuff into movie dialogue.
So IMHO contraversy factor is nil.
Still haven't seen it, but have heard some of it through the wall after coming out from the Avengers and watching trailers in a lobby for a while. Mad Max is LOUD!

we're just not allowed to talk about them as a society, because "white male privilege", is my point.

Last I looked we white males were still very much running the place, so your shit about women getting in the way of you becoming one of the people with power in society is just kicking the cat.

It's anything but obvious.

Are you really THAT stupid? Mising up two different posts by two different people, one of which is obviously a reply to the one above? Of course you aren't, so please stop pretending it's not obvious.

You painted with a broad brush

Not at all, that was the "I can't do anything right" post above mine with deliberate contradictons to cover anyone. Mine was about drawing attention to the only flaw that matters instead of the one above that was pretending that everyone is a target.
Now are you going to be adult enough to apologise for the equivalent of tipping a bucket full of turds over my head because you stuffed up or are you less than that?

upvoted comment that you claimed was made that said "women are unsuitable for tech"

Every fucking time there is a "women in IT" or "women in STEM" article on this site there are plenty, are you really telling me you have not seen at least a dozen by now?

Like Enron? Or Arthur Anderson?

A steep price to pay. Hope his sacrifice makes air travel safer.

It can be yes. I specifically said that as long there was sufficient suitable candidates after screening out users it wouldn't be a concern to the employer.

It goes without saying that if there aren't sufficient suitable candidates after screening that you'll need to go back and start looking at those screened candidates.

Your anecdote is an example of this happening; and I don't dispute that it happens; but that hardly makes it universally the case that what is true for one large organization and one (especially widespread) drug is true in all cases or for all drugs.

I've always wondered why city busses and other utility vehicles couldn't be mounted with sensors to measure the condition of the road surface in urban areas. You could get multiple times per day readings on many arterial streets and probably the entire city's road surface 3D scanned annually.

The data could be used for planning and organizing street patching and repair tasks at a minimum. It might also help with surfacing technology and better determine long-term major maintenance.

I wish you all the best, and hope your mom really does figure out that if you're the most important thing in her life, she's really doing it wrong.

I do have sympathy for her; I'm sure that like my daughter her choices aren't wholly under her own control, and that as hellish as it is to live with her, it's got to be a thousand times worse to be her. But that doesn't change the fact that close contact with someone like that wears on you in ways that you don't even realize until they're gone. My family is still recovering from the unbelievable tension and stress she put on all of us until she moved out. I didn't even realize until she was gone how irrationally snappish and defensive her brothers had gotten, but now I see it because they're finally unclenching their jaws. Me, too.

Your mother is mentally ill, and she needs help. But until she decides that, and decides that she needs to get help to change, or until she bottoms out in some way that legally removes all choice from her, it won't happen. Having compassion for her suffering is good... as long as you don't get sucked in, and that's really hard. I don't think I could bring myself to cut ties, but maybe it would be best. Nobody can tell you what's right, and odds are that whatever you do will bring some misery. It's balancing on razors and job #1 is not getting cut any more than you can avoid :-/

Laws against drug use are used as a means of control and intimidation by providing the police with a tool to suspect, stop and search people, usually the underclass. It's mostly a coincidence that the underclass is predominantly minority and it certainly enables further intimidation and control of minorities to be sure.

But I think a big reason marijuana remains illegal is not because of any specific risk from marijuana use itself, but because marijuana use is so widespread it provides the police with near limitless justification, opportunity and motivation to suspect and search people. If you legalized marijuana you move the decimal point several places to the left on the chances someone you randomly stop may actually be a person of legitimae interest. You also lose the influence you had over people who use marijuana.

Bottom line is legalization means the cops lose a major rationale to treat most people like criminal suspects. It makes it harder to run roughshod over minorities, too, but I think the general power and control outweighs its specific utility against minorities.

I know I'm feeding a Troll, but...

Welcome to 2015.
- A period of time when HIV can be prevented from propagating during sex using an extremely sophisticated method called a "condom".
- A period of time when, at least for the developed world, drugs have advanced to the point where a sick person can be treated and kept alive more or less indefinitely. (although it costs money, and the treatement is a heavy one with some displeasing secondary effect. I would not recommend anyone glossing over "meh, not a problem if I catch HIV, I'll be treated". But I would certainly consider that in the developed world, HIV isn't a deadly disease, merly a chronic one) (that's for the developed world. Poorer region suffer from the fact that drugs cost prohibitively expensive for them and aren't widely available. And also pharma-companies aren't interested in developing cheaper alternatives because they're currently happy with their current earnings, whereas developing cheaper drung doesn't make sens economically to them because they won't recoup the necessary cost from the poorer region).
- A period of time when the drugs have so advanced and are so efficient that, undersome circumstances, it might be possible to reduce the viral load so low that it is almost irrelevant. (These people aren't curred per se. The viral count stay low because they are taking meds. If they stop the virus would rise again. But as long as they keep taking theire meds, virus levels are so low, that from the outside it looks more or less like any random person - including the risks) (again, that's not an excuse to completely forget condoms for ever. But that means, for example, that a man infected by HIV but with a virus level kept low enough, can father a child without risking infecting the mother. And given the preceeding paragraph, that also means that he'll get to see the child birth and see the child grow).

Right thing on *their* own? You know *YOU* can put a condoms on your dick/a femidom inside your pussy (depending on your sex) if you're so much afraid of catching HIV.

Or you know, maybe encourage *you* to but a condom.

Or you know, you could just put a condom on and forget about whole "dying" story.
(Also, you're not going to die of it as of 2015. You'll be on a lot of meds, costing substantial money. But still alive)

Don't engage irresponsible behaviour, use proper protection under all circumstance (except when all people involved have been tested and are known clean).

Depending on availability, either put a condom on (or in, depending on which sets of reproductive organs you happen to be equipped with)
or, when no protection is available, refrain from stick you dick into the pussy (or other similar combination of organs, depending on sex of the person involved) each human being has approximately 2m^2 of skin. Even with only 2 partners, that gives ton of possible combination. Using a bit of imagination, you're bound to find one which doesn't carry an infectious risk and still brings satisfaction to all parties involved.

Also remember: before HIV and AIDS were discovered, nobody knew about risks of AIDS (well, obviously).
But those who used protection (condoms, etc.) where already protected from it even if they didn't knew about it yet. (Maybe they though about avoiding syphilis or ghono. Still that *also* protected them from the yet-unnamed-AIDS).
Same situation now: maybe the person you think engaging sex with hasn't HIV as you think, but maybe the person has some new emerging yet to be formally discovered sexually transmitted disease. If you wear a condom at that moment (on the principle of "always wear one, except with you regular partner once you've both tested") you get automatically protected from the disease even if nobody knows about it yet and no doctor has put a name on it.

A condom is a protection not only against current HIV but against all future STD that might evolve in the future.

And by the way: "keep the people with HIV away to avoid catching AIDS" in practice boils down to "don't stick you penis inside their pussy" (or other combination of sexual orrifices) and don't mix blood (e.g.: by exchanging used syringes).
That enough to avoid transmitting HIV.
You can eat dinner together, you can drink together, you can work together in the same workplace, ... all 0% risk of VIH infection.

(Well, unless your workplace involves that each work meeting must end up as a giant sex orgy)
(In which case I would totally agree to protect you from your fears and switch jobs with you).

Medium.com: Because Small.com and Large.com don't exist.

Not really. Perhaps I work as an employee under the table and my boss is a drug user. OR his wife who picks it up at the bank is. Or the manager who actually hands me my pay. Or maybe its even the bank teller at the business counter at the bank.

In any case, it would take several separate tests over a period of weeks to establish that I take cash regularly from a drug user. Otherwise, the money could be from pretty much anything... maybe he bought my kids bunk bed frame at our last garage sale...

I see it as closer to "I wear a bullet-resistant vest that is immune to the particular models of bullet included in the most common black market ammo kits." In practice, do more intrusions use vulnerabilities whose existing patches an administrator just failed to apply or vulnerabilities for which a patch does not yet exist?

That's the defense that early video game cloners used, but courts ended up ruling that the copyright in a video game relates to those portions of the program's audiovisual output that are constant across runs.

I'm no lawyer, but I speculate that the legal theory is that advertisements are incorporated into the site's "collective work" under license from the advertisers.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trade+dre...