georgerussia

I understand. You have strong beliefs, and all the facts in the world won't change them. Which is ok - just do not tell us next time that your position is based on real facts (because it is not), and someone need to do something with it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Some problems with this study are pretty obvious even for a layman like me. If you scroll this link down and read the extracts from "Related letters", the most problems will appear right away - "For example, drug use and problems were measured via uncorroborated self-report, which can be unreliable" There are a lot of drugs which affect driving ability, but aren't cold medicine - like sleep aid drugs. Therefore your assumption is biased. The sum is combination of parts, so if you have one or more parts incorrect, it's very likely that your sum is not valid either. So what is your point? There are similar cases where the person drank some vodka and then went for a drive. Should drinking vodka be outlawed because of this? What is your point? I doubt it. The DUI penalties are harsh - you just quoted a story where a drunk driver gets 15 years in prison. If risk of spending 15 years in prison did not affect his decision, it's not unlikely death penalty would. After all, most people go on the road without intention to kill someone, so he'd just think "this cannot happen to me" - as he likely did. Well, this means that: - All drunk drivers will hit-and-run if they are able. Next day some would submit to police and admit to hit-and-run, but not to drunk driving. The penalty for hit-and-run is very small comparing to prison for life, and even if you get caught while running, adding extra ten years over prison for life without parole is negligent. - A lot of them will likely to resist arrest, including armed response. After all, they already got their prison for life without parole, which is not really different from death penalty, so killing couple of more cops doesn't really matter anymore. You cannot spend two lives in prison. Those are just obvious consequences. I believe there will be more. No, the case I describe is different. For example, drunk driver A killed driver B and his wife and daughter, and was also killed in crash. Eye-for-eye now requires us to kill wife and daughter of drive A as well, right? Exactly, that's apples and oranges. We already have drunk/stoned drivers on the road. The drug control law does not help keeping him off the road like it didn't help Chris. I'd say your point is not grounded. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So how did you know that? I doubt you personally examined the condom to make sure a) it was proper size (yes, some people have no idea that condoms have sizes) b) it was indeed in use and c) it was condom fault. It's common - especially in our society - to blame other people or things for their own fault. Your "evidence" is a perfect example of hearsay, and your explanation seems to be biased; how about that maybe it was your Lord who impregnated her? As a good Catholic you must know that this has happened before! Nope, a lot of sexual activities like petting, sensual massage, mutual masturbation and so on also cannot spread HIV. Studies also showed that there was no single confirmed case of HIV transmission during unprotected oral sex (although other STDs have been transmitted this way). Condom effectiveness has been also proved by studies. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I cannot find the exact study case, but I really doubt it was a properly controlled double-blind study (which would get several groups of different teens, and have all groups to smoke marijuana). If the study limits itself to only those who already smoked, then it cannot answer the question whether the marijuana was a cause for those suicides, or whether those who were mentally likely to commit suicide started smoking marijuana. Same with the rest of the study. Note that survey does not mention "illegal drugs", which makes it useless to prove your case. This is called "speculation", and could link those death to everything, from alien invasion to global warming. Yet another useless example. This was not illegal pot smoking which resulted in crash. This was driving under influence - which is already illegal. What is your point? This is a good example to prove that banning drugs has absolutely no effect on safety. They ARE banned; did it help Chris? What if another person left paralyzed, should we amputate arms and/or legs on the impaired driver? If an impaired driver collided with another car which had family of three and people from both cars died, should we also have death penalty for the members of impaired driver family? You're now sound like a Congressman who says "I gonna side up with you on providing benefits to disabled veterans if Chrysler gets a $5B loan". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Term 'coin flip' implies random selection of one of two choices, where the chance for each of them to be selected is equal. It does not have to be real coin - may be a computer program, or mental. As long as it follows the definition, it doesn't really matter whether the coin was real. I do not understand what you're saying. If you mean that he chose the candidate based on internal preferences, then why do you call it "coin flip", which is associated with making a random choice? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, because according to scenario you described his discrimination was based not on race, but on coin flip results. The problem with your scenario is that it's very theoretical. Having two people applying for the same position, who have exactly the same skills, experience, and demands is already very rare. Having the same situation repeated ten times in a row does not even sound reasonable. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So it's all about raising money? Then it is the same as "legalize it and tax the hell out of it", with the only difference that some will pay the tax for themselves and like 1,000 others who wasn't caught. Taxing it seems to be a more reasonable and less resource-waste approach. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Depending on price and availability. Once illegal alcohol production was on rise, but once dry law has been repealed, it went down pretty fast. Not necessary, as cocaine is already taxed. You still have to pay tax for whiskey, but the government does not forbid you making cocktails out of it. It would go the same way as alcohol situation: once the profit margin decreases dramatically, most major crime gangs would leave the "business". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So maybe 50 years ago it was worth implementing. But is it still true nowadays? Could you provide verifiable evidence? After all, a lot of things have changed in last 50 years. Well, I personally know several nurses (both men and women) who want to be doctors, but cannot make it because of some reason (usually family). And I know some who do not want to be a doctor. I really doubt this will change. Obviously we all cannot be just doctors and lawyers. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I believe the question is whether the compensation should be paid for damages done not only to them, but also to everyone else who shares the same race, sex, religion or whatever? Someone already mentioned repatriation payments done by German government. Do you think that every Jew should be entitled for those payments? Or only those who directly suffered from the harm and could reasonably prove that? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

AFAIK they only decriminalized pot, not cocaine/heroine. And even pot was decriminalized only partially - for example, you can legally buy one in a licensed shop, but you cannot legally resell it. Aren't those the same? Legalizing -> making it legal, decriminalizing - making it not criminal -> making it legal? But I'd say the state should decriminalize drugs. And prostitution. And tax the hell out of it as well as reducing police spending. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The problem with such remedy is that, for example, we had recently a discussion in a local Russian group. And it was related to affirmative action (in our interpretation). And it had interesting results - almost everyone said they would not see a black doctor or lawyer, because of suspicion he got their diploma as a result of affirmative action, and not because of skill or job qualifications. So it was suggested that affirmative action already negatively affects the people it was supposed to protect just by the simple fact it exists. Remember that none of us, nor our parents or grandparents had slaves, so we don't give shit about this "past discrimination". Nor, I believe, all the Indians, Chinese, Italian and Finnish guys who work with me, do. There is no way I gonna feel responsible for the actions of the people I never sanctioned or was related to. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I am Jewish and I think they should not have done this, because nobody should be forced to pay for mistakes made by their parent. However it's not a good case to compare, because the compensation is only paid to those who DIRECTLY suffered from Nazi, and not just to any Jewish person around. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There are several issues here. First, atheism is not a "typical religion", it is not a religion at all. Second, other things like eco-sensitivity, partisan rants, politicians etc. usually do not base their statements on being morally superior because of some unknown god. So I would separate religion from all those other things. This would assume we became less hypocritical - which doesn't seem to be the case. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I do not know how did you interpret this quote, but I do not see it as any proof of unreliability. The person just did not provide a satisfying answer. It is basically the same as claiming the study unreliable because a few people hang up their phone after being asked their religious association. What would be a good quote is the following: And my personal belief is that religion in USA became a fashion statement quite a long time ago. I have personally seen a lot of people who claimed they're Christians, but looking on their behavior those claims look empty. So it's just more people who weren't Christians stopped calling themselves Christians. Which is a good thing. I would be interested to get the survey information, i.e. how the participants were chosen, what questions were asked, and if more than one, what combination of answers would invalidate the results (some surveys ask the same question multiple times from different angles to detect the responders who did not understand the question, or lied). Well, very few things on this planet are less reliable than the Bible, and Jesus story - but still you have no problems believing in it. Hell and Heaven, for example, is unreliable by definition. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I wonder where did this number come from? The only way to get any number would be to: 1. Get records about everyone from the bank who have American citizenship (which, in my opinion, is close to impossible); 2. Compare the records with those reported to IRS (after all, it would be wrong to assume everyone of those people cheats on taxes). This comparison gonna be mostly manual, as I really doubt anyone provided their SSN to a Swiss bank; 3. Understand which part of balance increase is considered income, and not balance consolidation or so. No idea how to even approach it without involving every individual account owner; 4. Only then, when the amount of income is known, and it's possible to calculate total underreported income, it's possible to measure the losses. And I really doubt even 1 has been done. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Another meaningless statement. Everything COULD in theory lead to anything. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You do realize you just agreed with my statement that religious belief is not dropping. That's a funny logic. Do you realize that the number of _religions_ increasing does not necessary mean that the number of religious people is increasing? They may not even correlate. I'm sure we will see more and more religious sects. After all, it's a good way to make money, if anything. And so? People believe in various things. There are people who believe drinking your pee will cure their cancer, or having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. There are also people who truly believe the aliens came to Earth and had sex with them. It's useless to build anything using your beliefs as base. You could say that, but this could be a useless statement. All religions COULD lead to everything by definition. This includes not only Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but also murder, suicide, and illegal sex - it all happened before. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This may be a sidetrack, but $350 family deductible is extremely low, and even $3,000 family deductible is not bad (and you won't ever get such individual insurance for $218 at least in California). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is irrelevant. We're discussing the published study, and I'm addressing your comment about impossibility to create a reliable study on the subject. Then we would have a single religion, which didn't happen during last 2,000 years and is even less unlikely to happen soon. In fact we see more and more of them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You're correct, the source I used seems to not compare with Department of Finance figures. The numbers, however, still pretty close to half if you compare budget totals for 1998-1999 (75B) and 2008-2009 (136B). 1999-2000 got 84B, so the difference is less but still pretty significant, and cannot be compensated just by the population increase. http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/documents/CHART-B.pdf * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Sounds like bullshit. 1999-2000 budget numbers were more than twice lower. And I believe in 1999 California still had state university system, some welfare assistance and some mental health services - and still had relatively balanced budget. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, it is not impossible, and that has been done was done. Since you didn't provide any explanation, I assume that you probably mentioned that it is impossible to provide a study you would agree with (unless the numbers there show what you want to see, of course). Are you sure? This would mean that there is no difference at all between Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodoxes and Baptists. Which is not the case. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Let's see. I wonder how could it happen if the person who opened an account did some basic precaution - like using their Belize passport and not mentioning their U.S. citizenship. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Cuts is what we're talking about. Of course we'll hear more whines from community college students about increased tuition, but times are tough and there are no money. They could as well complain to the people who voted for those spending projects before. Very likely those will include their parents and maybe even themselves. It is not waste, it is just not critically needed right now. I haven't seen recent statistics on seismic retrofitted residential buildings, or on earthquake insurance purchases but last time I heard those numbers (2007) they were still quite low. And looking on current economy conditions I would be really surprised to see them greatly improved. This means if a serious earthquake (the one retrofits are protecting from) happen tomorrow, the whole Bay Area is going to be in a deep shit anyway. That's why those retrofits could be postponed. There are a lot of things which are needed right now, and BART extension could definitely wait. Most of those increases should be attributed in wage increase, more environmental friendly materials and practices, improved safety - which is good thing, and worth paying for. Also the money gets cheaper as well. The legislators in Sacramento are busy trying to get their terms extended, so state budget has lower priority now. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *