Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:law enforcement scams (Score 5, Informative) 462

by QRDeNameland (#47884441) Attached to: CBC Warns Canadians of "US Law Enforcement Money Extortion Program"

If Republicans had their way, the government would have no power whatsoever to confiscate anything from you without first convicting you of a crime.

Utter and complete bullshit. The asset forfeiture regime was introduced under the Presidentâ(TM)s Commission on Organized Crime in 1986, at which time the President was Republican Saint Ronald Reagan, and was ramped up through the GHW Bush administration.

Not that I absolve the Democrats in any way of their part is this travesty, but make no mistake...when Republicans have their way, this is *exactly* the sort of corrupt power grab they are famous for.

Comment: Cue the cop apologists... (Score 0) 462

by QRDeNameland (#47884189) Attached to: CBC Warns Canadians of "US Law Enforcement Money Extortion Program"

The cops have a tough job and the vast majority are not predators and have our best interests at heart. As long as I know they're keeping us safe, what's a little shakedown here and there? Just make sure you don't like someone who deserves it and take heart that they can only steal what's in the car or on your person. Just be *reasonable* about it, that's all.

And please, stop the nonsense about being in a police state. In a police state, they stick the plunger handle all the way up your ass, here they stop at 2/3 the way. Clearly *not* a police state....yet.

/Stockholm Syndrome

Comment: Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (Score 1) 239

by QRDeNameland (#47725419) Attached to: Latest Wikipedia Uproar Over 'Superprotection'

I do have some vague feeling that I heard it used in the way you describe once several decades ago, but I'd hardly say that such a meaning is "well recognized".

If you check the Urban Dictionary page for "Nimrod", I'd say that it appears to be pretty well recognized. According to one entry, the usage dates to a Bugs Bunny cartoon where Elmer Fudd is referred to as such.

I can't say it's universally common among the entire English-speaking world, but where I grew up (East Coast US in the 70s/80s) it was a common synonym for 'dimwit'.

Comment: Re:Er, that's a bit confusing (Score 2) 166

by QRDeNameland (#47570519) Attached to: The Problems With Drug Testing

Not to be seen as a classist biggot, but if someone homeless or destitute, but understand the nature of the proposition, why shouldn't they be able to enter an agreement to test drugs that 1) might help whatever the condition being treated is and 2) render them with some income? The same opportunities should be afforded them as others. You can't exclude someone because they are homeless or destitute.

Well, putting aside the question of whether or not this practice is exploitative, I see a greater concern in the fact that they are testing on a group that may not be representative of the general population. If, for example, the people you are testing on are disproportionately severe alcoholics or drug addicts, you might get a disproportional incidence of side effects that will skew your results. Ethics aside, it seems like bad scientific practice to me.

Comment: Re:Chrome? (Score 2) 436

by QRDeNameland (#47561993) Attached to: Which Is Better, Adblock Or Adblock Plus?

The real question is: If you value privacy and dislike ads, why would you ever use Chrome?

Well, I keep Chrome installed as my secondary browser because I run Firefox by default in "hazmat suit" mode (ABP, NoScript, Ghostery, RequestPolicy, etc.) which does break a lot of sites. For sites that I trust, oftentimes it is easier to just use Chrome than figure out what I need to whitelist in which plugin using FF. In terms of using it as your only/default browser, I agree with you, but even for a moderate paranoid like me, there is a case to be made for 'ever' using it.

Comment: Re:Holy grey area! (Score 2) 159

by QRDeNameland (#47439209) Attached to: Biohackers Are Engineering Yeast To Make THC

Provided you don't know that _all_ poppies are opium poppies, then it's legal to buy the seeds and grow the flowers. Of course now that you know ...

GP might not "know" that because it's false.

Only Papaver somniferum are opium poppies. The common red 'Flanders' poppy aka the Veteran's Day/Remembrance Day poppy (Papaver rhoeas) is not an opium poppy, nor are a number of others like the California poppy that are not even of the genus Papaver.


Comment: Re:Buffet vs. A La Carte (Score 1) 353

by QRDeNameland (#47412153) Attached to: Here Comes the Panopticon: Insurance Companies

No, really, it is. Remember when everyone said that butter was bad for you and you had to eat margarine instead? Now it's the other way 'round (or looking to go that way). So - how would you feel about having to pay for all those times you bought real butter all those years?

Oh, even better - let's talk diets! Not like recommendations for those don't ever change from, say, the old four food groups to pyramid to tetrahedron, to... - oh, wait.

No thanks - I prefer to not put my eating habits and health in the hands of some corporate asshats.

My first thought reading this: Is there any actual scientific evidence that the data gathered by a FitBit or similar device is actually indicative of better health? Or is it yet one more assumption in the field of human health that seemed reasonable but turned out to be misguided, as in the cases you mentioned?

My second thought: once you put a financial incentive on wearing such a device, there will now be incentives for people to hack/game the output...e.g., throw your FitBit in a paint can shaker and it looks like you're doing calisthenics when you're really sitting on the couch eating bonbons. (I have no idea if that would work, but you get the picture.)

Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.