Laws exist because the elected legislature passed the required laws to criminalise certain actions pertaining to certain drugs. To believe that this would be fixed by people finding someone not guilty of breaking those laws is simplistic at best.
To believe that the problem is just that I'm simplistic is also pretty simplistic, don't you think?
The laws need to be repealed
Not necessarily. I think salutary neglect is a great option.
He tried to have people killed. They need to lock him up for life.
If they want to lock him up for that, they need to have a trial for it.
Take a look at your average jury, do you really think it would be used most for the right or wrong reasons?
The point is that it's better to let ten guilty people go free than for one innocent to be convicted.
is the public supposed to read the transcripts of every criminal trial?
No, but if more of the public would refuse to find people guilty on drug charges, it would certainly help. I don't need to read a transcript to know that I wouldn't convict Ulbricht, or anyone else, of the charges brought against him.
Copyright terms should be max(author, spouse).
What about for polygamist authors, you insensitive clod?
Using a code to crawl for uses of "comprised of" throughout all of Wiki's articles
Wikipedia is not "Wiki." Wikipedia is a wiki. There are many wikis in the world, and they are not all Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the publication, and wiki is the medium. "All of Wiki's articles" is like saying "All of Newspaper's articles."
Maybe I can get away with this offtopic pedantic comment since this whole article is about a guy spending years trying to fix small errors.
If a large percentage of users all started using ad blocking software then places like google, slashdot, and facebook would either have to start charging or even worse start doing secret product placement.
Or be donor supported like PBS. I love donor supported websites.
Indeed. I grew up listening to a stack of Gospel music cassettes my Dad copied from friends around the country on his travels. I've downloaded some of the exact same albums on bittorrent.
We can disagree over the rights of herd immunity, but those who maintain that refusal to vaccinate hurts only the one who refuses, as the OP argued, are just plain ignorant of the facts.
Some of us still see a distinction between hurting someone by taking direct action against them, and hurting someone by not taking an action that would benefit them. It's an impasse and I doubt either side is going to persuade the other, no matter how many times it repeats on slashdot, and no matter how many people do or do not understand herd immunity.
Long and short - employers should be able to discriminate against people who voluntarily refuse vaccinations.
That's a completely libertarian position as well. Taken to a logical conclusion, employers may discriminate against employees and even customers on the basis of vaccination, employees and customers may discriminate against businesses on the basis of vaccination policy. I think businesses choosing to have a vaccination policy may be a great innovation that the free market can bring to bear on this issue.
America, you have a problem, and you are making it the problem of everyone on the planet.
Yes, we do. Please be sure not to equate us with our government, though.
Land of the free and home of the brave? You have to be fucking kidding us.
It's a big not-so-funny joke to us, too.
I discovered Star Trek Continues after it was posted on Slashdot a couple of weeks ago. This series is now responsible for jump-starting my children's interest in Star Trek, so I rate it highly!
"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger
