Science Abuse

But since those activities are legal, that constitutes discrimination. A limited card for welfare payment is a good idea... is it possible? Regardless, they'll jsut end up bartering for their fix: they're addicts, they'll find a way.

So.. like, government work but pays less? The arguement that you'll run into there is; "How can I look for a good job if I'm sweeping streets?"

Don't you smoke and drink? Better hope you don't end up unemployed, cuz we won't wanna cover your habbits.

Just engaged in this lil debate and thought I'd get it going here, too. Earlier this year, Congress began debate over legislation requireing people to pass a piss test before recieving welfare. An excellent idea, but certainly not a new one: -In 2000 Michigan became the only state to adopt random and suspicionless drug testing of those applying for public assistance. Three years later, in Marchwinski v. Howard, the federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling striking down the program as a violation of the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (warrantless search… of your bladder) -A 2003 ruling by a federal appeals court that covers the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee ruled that states cannot drug test welfare recipients because it’s unconstitutional. -Congress is currently debating legislation that could cut federal welfare funding to states that do not require drug testing. -The amended federal welfare bill was approved by the Ways and Means Committee’s Human Resources Subcommittee on Tuesday, March 15th. -this is something that has been brought up repeatedly, and shot down by the judicial branch repeatedly, the logic being that every US citizen gets the same treatment as every US citizen, regardless of addiction. The last remaining argument is that drug abuse constitutes criminal activity. Think of it this way: -Bill is an alcoholic and spends $50/wk of his welfare money on beer. We’re paying for him to get drunk and not work. -Joe is a smoker who burns through $50/wk in cigarettes. We’re paying him to make his apartment stink. -Larry is a pothead that spends $50/wk on reefer. We’re paying him to get high and listen to jam bands. Neither is worse than the other from a fiscal standpoint, one is just less legal. Taking it a step further, consider their health care costs: -Bill needs treatment for cirrhosis. -Joe needs treatment for respiratory problems -Larry has heart problems from all of the junk food that he eats. Also consider that, statistically, most alcoholics also smoke. Their addictions are money pits that we’re funding through our welfare checks. If we’re going to deny coverage because of one addiction, wouldn’t it make sense to deny coverage for all addictions? Now we see the slippery slope of this issue and why it hasn’t been resolved yet. I’d love to deny smokers and alcoholics coverage because of the fiscal load of their habits, but if I go before congress saying that people who drink and smoke shouldn’t get welfare, I’ll never leave DC alive. If you take the next step and target people who spend too much on thing they don’t need, how long is it before obese over-eaters are denied coverage? “Your body fat index indicates that you can live without food for a week, so we’re cutting your benefits.” Makes fiscal sense, right? Given that the legal aspect is the only valid point to stand on, you could submit that people with criminal records shouldn’t receive welfare. Imagine our crime rate if everyone who’s ever stolen a car stereo suddenly had no foodstamps. People need to eat, and if they have a criminal record they obviously aren’t great at making good life-choices. We don’t have enough cops or jails for that, and we’re already incarcerating and feeding over 3% of our countries population. I’d rather give them food stamps than provide them “3 hots and a cot”, lights, plumbing, on-site medical care, heat, and paid guards 24/7. Point: The solution to a societal problem is never, ever simple. Anyone who claims the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as some who claims the root of the problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.

Yes, yes I do. My only qualm with the cinematography was the lack of making a decision: Is it a documentary or a movie? Make up your mind. I like the open ending because I liked the movie. It created a "world" that was interesting, so leaving an open ending keeps that "world" alive. It also makes it easier to make a decent sequel: If ye get closure at the end of a flick, then the first 1/4 of a sequels is spent trying to make you think that it make sense to make the sequel. Worst example: Terminator franchise.

I was excited about this flick and watched every trailer, and nver got an indication that it would be anything other than what it was....? Perhaps it's an ingrained expectation in the American mind that an alien movie will either involve large-scale intelligent creatures doing badassed activities, or less than a dozen terrifying killers. This was more real, starving people in a slum that have had to relinquish their tech superiority just to get a meal. I liked the film, I'll own it. I'd say it was one of the first original ideas to come out of the Sci-Fi industry in a while.... but it's just a different take on a 20 year old concept: Alien Nation It was the 80's, so that was a detective flick. This is the 00's, so it's an anti-hero societal commentary.

I don't see what the big deal is: If you build too big a fire too close to a structure, it will burn down, removing the structure, and thus solving the problem of the pit being too close to a structure.

Grandma was just behind the camera. It was raining, I had to set it up inside the cottage looking out a window

Me trying to "surfboat" in a conoe with a mild 3ft break. The boat gets tossed on its side at the end, throwing me out, an the rolling boat running over me. I've had it on 6ft swells, but the same thing happened when I tried to ride it in, though that time it broke an oar. Good lil boat though; it righted itself.... though it had taken on an extra 500+lb of water and was impossible to manuever until I dumped it out on shore... which used up my muscles and ended the surfboating day.

Some times I don't wreck. lol

Longnose Gar, good job gents.

About 5" long. I already know what it is, but thought I'd share anyways. http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3710/garx.jpg There's another species of this beast that gets bigger.

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4567/tires.jpg

That's just not fair, putting images like that in our heads. Cruel bastards.

Gypsy moths are huge but their caterpillar form isn't as big as this thing was.

I'm just lookin to keep things powered up while camping or on a hike. I'm told there should be a diode in there some where to keep it from draining the batteries at night?

How this thing didn't get carried off by a bird, I have no idea: http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/6383/catarpillar.jpg I took that as a warning.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17574_7-insane-ads-that-have-no-clue-what-theyre-selling.html I love Cracked's writers:

This is what I'm playing with. The back of the panel says "22.25 Open circuit voltage", and the manual says 120mA output... is it even strong enough? Perhaps I should just splurge onthis one. I got the smaller one because it fits easily in my sunroof shade (and was disposably cheap), maybe that one will fit, too.

Phone and ipod chargers, they plug into the wall and convert AC to 9.5 and 3.5 VDC. Solar Panel I have, converts light into 12 VDC. Could I just plug the charger right into the panel without issue? The Inverter will be trying to convert DC into DC, would that be a problem? Voltage and everything matches up, and I doubt that the panel will make enough current to hurt anything, I'm just wondering about the DC/DC. Thanks!

http://www.ticketnews.com/Dethklok-Mastodon-tour-brings-Metalocalypse-to-life896364?utm_source=Homepage_news&utm_medium=latest_thumbnail October 20, LC pavilion. Saw the show live last year, sill be there again this year.

Actually, more people are killed every year from misc illnesses than were killed in the year of the last pandemic. The only reason that those millions aren't a big deal is because the breeding is making up for it. It's harder to notice, too, because of the way that illnesses are reported.

"Phalanx vaccine" brought into the real world. It's probably bullshit, expensive bullshit.

The kids don't want to be treated like poofs. Kids have to lose, they have to suck and be motivated to stop doing things that they aren't good at so they can move one and find things that they are good at[/url]. Society doesn't need people who are coddled into a job that they suck at.

ttittaysttt