Everybody knows what the Pyramids are. The fact that you had to explain who Jonah was tells me the Pyramids are somewhat more iconic.
True, but that's not the situation I'm dealing with on a daily basis. Most of the time, I deal with semis that go inconsistent slow speeds on a two lane highway. That gets worse if it's windy out, as it frequently is. I run greater risks if i stay behind the semi or pass it at the speed limit than if i just speed up and blow by it as quickly as possible. That's where I need to be above the speed limit.
That... is a situation I've never run into. I hope to never run into that situation but it is an interesting question.
Yep, couldn't have said it better myself. In Kansas, there's not a whole lot of urban areas to be found, so most of my driving is on nasty two lane highways. When a semi is going 5 under, you speed up to 10 over and blow by them. This keeps the semi from sliding into you and it also keeps anything in the oncoming lane from hitting you too. Win-win.
When it comes to breaking the speed limit or being run over by a semi, I'll break the speed limit every time.
Read it again. There was no hate for COBOL there, just a recognition of the hate others express.
No matter what happens, there are going to be some who don't like it. That's life.
In other words, there has to be a bug on the client that lets the web page run arbitrary code
Yep, that's called a browser. Arbitrary code is exactly what a webpage or video is. This is the exact reason driveby malware via ad networks still happens. If you have ISP level access and can inject malicious code in unencrypted pages, you win. The solution to this, from a web hosts view, is to encrypt everything.
They can question all they want, but if they want to disprove it, they'll have to provide some evidence to counteract the evidence that's already there.
No, you used the term "slippery slope" correctly. The very premise of your slope is flawed. As a society, we've had mind altering drugs that directly stimulate our reward centers for as long as we've been a society. Nearly everyone takes some kind, but we still have an incredibly small percentage of people looking to use the harder stuff (antidepressants, ADHD drugs, street drugs). Given this history, it seems highly unlikely that we're heading toward a future of "mechanized work/play" any time soon.
You know typical ADHD drugs would actually make neurotypical children worse, right? ADHD drugs tend to be stimulants, care to guess what that would do to normal children? Give a five year old some coffee and find out. It's a far cry from "drug them into zimbified submission."
ADHD meds are no more a slippery slope than Antidepressants before them. And they were no more a slippery slope than the Tobacco/Pot/Alcohol/Coffee before them. Arguments like yours are why Slippery Slope is considered a logical fallacy.
Nice try. Not quite right though. It's more like:
1. We observer some people having concentration issues across the board.
2. We hypothesize disorder X with prediction Y
3. We run brain scans and find out prediction Y is right
4. We hypothesize that stimulants may work differently on these people
5. We run tests and find out that stimulants work differently on these people
6. We conclude disorder X exists and stimulants can treat it
So, back to scientific method 101 for you.