salamangkero

Please be forewarned, the general tone of this reaction post is a bit negative. Dear friend, nowhere did I say that anyone should not be treated as a human. I beg to differ. These drugs should help alleviate a patient's condition and, in that respect, everyone has the right to it. However, when the aforementioned drugs also carry a risk of side-effects, I should think prisoners are more deserving of this chance. I don't think being poor ever makes anyone more deserving of an adverse medical reaction. This is something I would also beg to differ on. In my point of view, human rights should be applied equally. Why should you test on prisoners of someone else's countries when you have prisoners available in your own? When you talk of how a government respects its own people, should that entail disrespecting everyone else? No drug is "perfect", heck, even paracetamol can have side effects. I think the question is rather meaningless, after all, that IS the point of testing: finding out whether a drug has other side effects that have not been observed from animal testing. And I think it's pretty racist to say something along the lines of "I think <<procedure>> is dangerous so I will not recommend it to my countrymen but it's okay if they do it to other countries" Really, I'm sorry if anyone gets offended but I think that's a pretty backward manner of thinking. Thank you for your insight; I'm pretty sure you would make an impeccable forecaster or fortuneteller. For the life of me, I have no idea how you are absolutely sure that any prisoner testing a drug WILL get sick. I am amazed at how you perceived that there is absolutely no chance that the drug will work with no or minimal adverse effects. And even when I said pharmaceutical testing on animals is a completely different issue altogether, I really do appreciate that you still persisted in bringing it up. Yeah... well, you see, my idea was trying to save lives while yours was focused on inflicting unnecessary pain and prolonging the agony of the process of dying. Thanks for the notion, though. Thank you for keeping an open mind. I'm quite positive we have very few murderers, arsonists, prostitutes, rapists, drug lords and terrorists here. Yeah... the criminal underground here is a thieving guild like that... yeah... You raised a good point and I agree. I must admit, I have never thought of it in that respect. I do suppose reducing their sentence is rather unfair to their victims. (Sorry, just for this line, I do genuinely agree with the quoted text; I'm not being sarcastic) Yes, I know it's beside the point too, which makes me wonder why it was brought up in the first place.

While I would have loved to post this in the "My Ideas, Theories, Possibilities, Innovations" section but I'm well aware that what may be obvious and logical to me may not be so apparent to others.My idea is already concisely presented in the title but, for the sake of further information, allow me to describe the situation which had led to the formulation of such a notion.In our country, the crime rate is rather moderately high and our prisons are quite full. A cell which includes two bunk beds would be made capable of holding up to fifteen persons. In some jails, there do exist a rather gentlemanly system where older prisoners, on account of their age and frailty, would get the best possible accommodations. On the other hand, there also exist systems where the strongest rule from a rather comfortable metaphorical throne, at least, as comfy as anyone in prison could afford. Meanwhile, all around them, overcrowding remains a problem. Lack of water and hygienic supplies like soap, shampoo and toothpaste introduce several dermatological and dental problems like boils, scabs, measles outbreaks and a host of other diseases and illnesses, prison brawls and rape notwithstanding.Now I just figured that, perhaps, it might be worthwhile to do testing using human subjects. I mean, AFTER testing has been done on other animals, and that, methinks, is a whole new issue that, at the moment, I have to beg you to ignore it and just stay focused on the primary question: should prisoners be subject to pharmaceutical testing?They could probably use the chance that it works. I mean, almost any health care they'd receive from drug companies would undoubtedly be much better than the conditions they are enduring right now. Perhaps a system could be instituted that those who undergo or participate in such testing might have more comfortable accommodations, or maybe have some years lopped off their sentences.Although, I would be first to admit, this has been mostly idle and speculative thinking; this idea has not been fully-thought out and while it feels like a good one, perhaps others might offer much more concrete and convincing opinions than what my addled brain had laid out before you, whether supporting or contradicting the original idea.What do you guys think?

Wow, I wonder about that... I seriously wonder why this does not work for some people, I mean, the concept is pretty straightforward enough, in my opinion. In our house, we always put the remote control on a specific table, that way, we don't have to search for it in other tables. And we keep our tables neat and inanimate, I mean, our furniture do not "mysteriously" take objects on top of them and put it underneath. Now, I don't know if some cultures simply enjoy the thrill of the scavenger hunt or the mystery of haunted furniture but, really now, I think the main issue is not how to find an object when it is lost but how to stop it from getting lost. And if I may humbly suggest so, the following instructions seem simple enough: Allot a specific spot for your remote control. On top of the TV, a coffee table, a side table, whatever. Do not assign ALL tables, chairs or surfaces in your house. Allot exactly one table for your remote control Retrieve remote control from its spot. Turn on the TV. Enjoy. Turn off TV. Put remote control back in its rightful place. Keep the spot, no, keep your house free of clutter. In case remote control's resting place is disturbed and the remote control falls down, do not ignore this event. Put it back. See, not so difficult, is it? Then again, maybe some people do need to hoard their precious calories and would rather live with the problem than solve it so... I dunno.

I seriously can't believe I am engaging in this kind of conversation but I'll try my best to be understanding. Alright, so maybe you guys are right. Maybe remote control units do get lost from time to time. Maybe it's a ploy by television companies so you can keep on buying remote controls like every other consumable product. Maybe pressing a button on your TV to make your remote control "beep" its presence represents an immense scientific breakthrough in the frontier of weight gain technology, I don't know. I'm just speculating. Then again, I think I've heard a quote before that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure so, like, I don't know how you guys do it but I reckon this one kinda hits it spot-on. Then again, I'm not really all that familiar with couch potato culture so if you'll please excuse my ignorance

I am not sure if it is appropriate for me to post a response since I happen to be a non-American non-teenager who, like linekill, happens to live in the (self-proclaimed) texting capital of the world but this seems like a free forum so allow me to share my opinions on the subject. For one, I have observed that a lot of posts have rather vilified SMS technology, even associating it to Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres without basis. Text messaging has been blamed for the deterioration of grammar skills and some have painted a grim slippery slope scenario where humans will no longer be capable of face-to-face interaction. There were even a few wild speculations that there are absolutely no substance to these SMS messages. I think, however, that things are not as bad as they seem. For instance, texting is a cheaper form of communication than phone calls or email. I really believe that, in some instances, instead of the morbid breakdown of social relationships conveniently floated in the above posts, text messaging helps bring people together. Families here who have parents or siblings working in faraway areas (such as different provinces) find it very convenient to be able to message their loved ones for a very inexpensive amount. Students, who have no stable source of income, find it easier to budget their allowances when they communicate with their friends via text messaging. Also, it's not as if all text messages are like typical Budweiser "Whazzuuu~p?!?" commercials. Some have also (without basis) pointed out that students who texted a lot usually don't do well in school. I beg to differ; without SMS messages, I would NOT have graduated college. Ever thought of the convenience of broadcasting to your classmates the location of the next play rehearsal? How about asking one of your team members to please, please, please stop by a convenience store to buy isotonic water for your chemistry project because you found out that the guy who was supposed to bring it took a sick leave? In a large university, where classmates are not necessarily friends, haven't you texted your friends to borrow bus fare when your wallet got swiped at the cafeteria? Didn't you find it convenient when your professor texted you the next venue for your outdoor class? Or when the instructor thoughtfully messaged you that your exams have been postponed? Or the announcement that classes are cancelled due to a storm or political rally? Imagine the time you would have needlessly wasted without SMS messages! A lot of people blame texting for the fact that other people have terrible spelling, punctuation and grammar skills. I find this to be a wild exaggeration because, in our country, all our professionals have been exposed to lots of text messages. Oh, of course, we still have our share of idiots who tYp3 LyK d!s but we usually attribute these faults on the person, not on the technology. That would be as foolish as claiming lighter fluids give rise to arsonists and kitchen knives inspire a spate of murders. I sincerely exhort us all to think more on the matter before recklessly blaming a useful technology for problems that may, after all, be human in nature

I sincerely believe the question is rather too broad. It is not a question of whether homeless people should be allowed cellphones (implicitly stating that homeless people may or may not have their phones confiscated from them) I perceive it more like, "Is it right for homeless people to own luxury phones?" If it's some beat-up old Nokia model that can only text or call (no offense to Nokia, I actually prefer your phones), there is no point to the question at all. After all, the poor guy (or gal) most probably NEEDS it. Does your homeless man need a CAMERA phone?However, what if it was a postpaid iPhone? Or Blackberry? Or Android? Is it right that they own a phone with a variety of features they don't need instead of selling it and buying a cheaper model? Oh sure, they bought the phone, it is theirs! However, is this correct behaviour, given that they are aware of their situation? I am no American, but I am from a country that has seen lots of poor people (squatters, we call them; they live in shanties built on land that is not their own) so kindly allow me to pose a few similar questions:Is it right for a poor man to pay for hair coloring (bleach, highlights, what-have-yous) when his family could only eat rice and salt everyday?Is it allowable for a beggar to buy cigarettes even as he himself is begging for food?Should a woman buy a new cellphone model if her daughter is already wearing tattered rags from day to day?By the virtue of trading, anything anyone buys, without cheating or resorting to any trickery, is rightfully his. I will not dispute that one's property should not be confiscated if it harms no one. Do not mistake this, however, for approval of such reckless actions. For one in dire straits, it is only prudent to attempt to recover by ridding one's self of luxuries and sticking to one's needs. To do so communicates a genuine desire to save one's self and should not a nation attempt to save those worth saving? No, a nation should try to save as much of its populace as it can, whether they help themselves or not. Yet the question still lingers, are you willing to save those who would not help themselves?(Remember, this is, for me, about luxury phones. I do acknowledge the (almost vital) need for a basic cellphone)

I think this is a very touchy issue and there are bound to be a lot of sentiments regarding how people approach this. For one, allow me to clarify that I do sincerely believe that there are those of us who sincerely want to help and, no matter if their methodology is either sound or foolish, they have done whatever they did with the best of intentions. So much for the good part. For some, if not most, I dare suppose, Haiti is a very convenient feel-good mechanism. Oh, a lot may not acknowledge harboring such negative thoughts and, probably, few would even realize what they are doing. There are those who, consciously or otherwise, donate to Haiti relief efforts in order to feel good (or, heaven help us, smug) about themselves. There would be bragging veiled under "sad" conversations in hushed tones about Haiti's plight: "I mean, I saw those starving people there and it just broke my heart. I mean, girl, I've donated my clothes and <insert a sizeable amount here> <insert currency here> but it still doesn't seem enough. Oh, those poor, poor people." Clearly not an example of subtlety, that, but a rather realistic example of human nature. Far worse, some could be exploiting Haiti. I personally cannot bear witness to any actual exploitation but allow me to tell you a little about my home country. On September 25, we were visited by a rather moderate typhoon. There was not much respectable wind as we usually get during the stormy season. However, it did bring us the worst rainfall ever recorded by our weather agency, dumping immense amounts of rainfall over our mainland. Areas that were not at all flood-prone submerged, main thoroughfares were rendered impassable and thousands were stranded on offices, malls and other commercial establishments. Worse, thousands more were stranded right in their very homes as rapidly rising waters forced people to their rooftops. These are no shanties we are talking about here (a lot of them have been swept away by swelling rivers or sheer floodwater), no, these are concrete two-story houses of middle-class to high-class people. It has been said that damage has been suffered by everyone from all walks of life. Enter the aftermath. There was an outpour of support from people, also from all walks of life. Celebrities reached out to the peons, the masses helped rescue TV stars stranded on their rooftops. There suddenly was a lot of food to go around, curiously including some food in styrofoam packages, bearing a small political logo and a short note: "A little help from Senator XXX" A quick look at several plastic bags of relief goods turned up a rather familiar name. Unofficially, the campaign period for the 2010 presidential elections has begun. Worse, there turned up some shirts that had the words, "Where I'm from, everybody is a hero," proudly emblazoned across the chest. Generally speaking, not just for the Haiti earthquake but for a lot of tragic disasters, people usually extend a helping hand. A few of these hands bear food, clothing, basic needs, money or any assistance its owner can provide. Some of these hands are coated in honey; the moment one poor soul brushes against it, it swiftly grabs a sticky hold on its victim's arm all while its owner hollers, "Behold! I AM HELPING PEOPLE!" A substantial part of these hands were forced to give by other hands. I mean, everyone's giving, it is only right that I should give too, right? WRONG! As negative as it sounds, I'm going to have to agree (a bit, but not entirely) with princeofvegas. Think of your own! Put yourself first! Can you really afford to give? More importantly, do you really want to give? Oh, sure, go ahead and put on a front in the name of "ethics" or "what's right"... in the end, what it all boils down to is not how many people you have saved but whether you can live with the convenient lie you keep telling yourself. So what if your friends are giving? Do not sully the name of charity by simply treating it as a fad. Pragmatists will disagree with me, explaining how, in times of need, it matters not where help comes from, so long as there is help. I say, nay! We have evolved and risen above animals because of our intelligence but also, of equal importance, because of kindness. It is our ability to care for another being, regardless whether it is from our bloodline or not, that we are able, as a species, to protect each other and mature into who we are now. Where kindness disappears, we degenerate into nothing more than machines, following a set of social rules against our will. Will giving deprive you of anything? Will it reduce your financial capability as a person? Will it put you in a situation not too far from those you are rescuing? If so, don't give! What use is it to rescue one man from poverty if it reduces another into begging? How different is it from the relationship between predator and prey where one dies so that the other may live? Leave charity to those who are actually able to part with their resources. Martyrdom is only for those who are either stupid or have a strong faith in their principles. I personally know a lot of stupid people but I don't know too many principled ones; most of their profound, astounding and charitable philosophies unhesitatingly wilt at the mere thought of their credit card companies. Remember that even before the earthquake, Haiti is in a terrible, impoverished condition. To answer the original question, I sincerely doubt ALL of the relief efforts actually reach Haiti, given its corrupted state. Forgive me this impudent analogy, but I am seeing a street urchin, eating from dumpsters and, generally, ignored by everyone. On an otherwise ordinary day, he stubs his toe and, all of a sudden, everyone is all over him, throwing him their money. "Oh dear, help the poor kid!" they say. "Give! Give! Give! It is only right to give," blared the media. "He needs medical assistance!" cry the doctors. "His toe needs immediate treatment... eh? Pneumonia, you say? I'll get right on it as soon as I fix this toe right!" Hypocrites. I admit, I did nothing for Haiti. I have my own reasons, which I will not bother explaining. After all, I do not think I have done anything wrong that will require any sort of justification from me. No, I'm not poor (I'm not rich either) and I have a steady job. I play bowling or badminton every week. I also sleep soundly at night. Don't get me wrong. I bear no hatred towards Haiti and, personally, I will not wish any such devastating earthquake upon anyone. I am just not inclined to help them.

A lot have been said about this topic, including a few obscenities. There are, however, a few key points I'd like to explore: Unless we are talking about porn films here, where rape scenes would hardly be an issue amidst other perversions, I think this statement would be an injustice to a lot of films that don't really focus solely on rape, or sex, for that matter. I would be first to admit that rape is actually a very powerful driving force in the plot of any story, it is almost certain to be a reason for revenge, an explanation for a character's aloofness, an explanation for a character's existence or a manifestation of an antagonist's perversity... or a combination of those. Then again, there are those soft porn flicks masquerading as "indie" movies. I've watched a few of these... uh, art films and while I must admit that some of them offer superb acting performance, tackle profound issues (other than sex)and generally, present a viewer with a reality that is so far removed from the altruistic perfection of the silver screen, there are also a few abrupt side scenes featuring nudity (and sometimes, rape) that contribute nothing at all to the plot. In this issue, I would suppose, much thought should be given not to whether rape was the entire point of the film (I mean, we have films that hinge on very singular concepts too) but on whether rape was all there is to the film. Ignoring the rather hasty, judgemental statement about having no relative or friend who had been victim to rape, would this statement mean that anything that could possibly offend a fraction of the population should NOT be shown on visual media? Say I have a friend who has been fired from her job. It had been a very traumatic experience for her to be fired by a company she was loyal to. Now we go to a movie and, guess what? We see a guy getting fired on screen. Should tears well up in her eyes and sobs escape her lips? Should I be outraged and mutter, "People who are okay with job termination scenes have NEVER EVER had anyone close to them get fired. That scene was so totally unnecessary!" Sad as it may be and non-ideal as the world is, rape is very much a reality people should face and be wary of. It is, at the moment, very much a part of life as dinner and beggars and airlines and lunatics and elevators. You may not encounter them everyday but you know they're there. To deny the reality of rape, to blanket it with a plain text or narration or to sugar-coat it with uber-subtle "hints" (such as groans, moans and screams accompanying a blurry silhouette) would be to insult the intelligence of the audience. It would be as horrible as implying that you are showing a movie to a bunch of idiots with the mind of six-year old children incapable of separating make-believe from their own bubble of reality. Though, of course, if you were actually showing it to actual six year old kids, then, that's a different issue, one that involves parental guidance, which brings me to... The blame here, methinks, lies on the parents, not on the film. I mean, if the movie was properly labelled as R-18, NC-17 or even PG-13, they should have taken the cue and watched it, y'know, somewhere private. Or after the kids have gone to sleep. (Unless, of course, the DVD has a Spongebob Squarepants cover, I mean, wouldn't that be a, rather unpleasant, surprise for the entire family now? ) Also, am I also wrong in inferring that this statement presumes kids to be idiots? I mean, look, they're watching Taken, do they think, "Oh no, I'm gonna get kidnapped?" They're watching the Ring, do they think, "I'm not gonna watch cartoons anymore on the off-chance the image turns to static and then?" They're watching Resident Evil, do they think, "I'm gonna shut myself inside the house?" Rape, in and of itself, is an entertainment to certain sectors of the society I would not admit to being part of. Aside from that, however, (meaning for average people) rape in and of itself does not consist entertainment. It's in how the victim overcame her... trauma. It's in the hero guy who avenged his daughter. It's in the orphan who struggles to be accepted by a world that frowns on parentless children. I'm not sure about the culture there but... I don't know, seriously, how many of you guys had "the talk"? I got my basic sex ed from school, a few more advanced stuff online and morals from the news. At first, it was like, "If someone rapes anyone, he or she will rot in jail," which was just fine, since kids don't have firm morality yet so, for the moment, fear of punishment would do. When I grew up and learned to put myself on other people's shoes, well, I knew why rape is wrong. I'm not presuming to actually understand rape victims, simply that I can think of the issue and decide for myself why it's right or wrong... but I digress, I suppose. In any case, I think this one depends on one's parenting style. (Don't ask me, I don't plan on having any kids) If you guys can actually make it work without being too awkward, then fine, go ahead, talk to your kids. If not, well, regulate what media they are exposed to, at least, until they can do some thinking for themselves. Still, I think kids nowadays are pretty smart, if you actually give them credit. Still, one thing I agree with is that you should NEVER park your kids in front of the TV for education. Not even if it's an educational show, much less a crime drama with rape scenes or, heaven forbid, a hardcore porn flick. Be a parent; kids learn more through human-to-human interaction. Human-to-media learning should only be supplementary, NEVER the main means of education. Even for topics like rape and sex. ESPECIALLY for topics like rape and sex.

Well I'll be! I never thought I'd see the day when something has already been achieved and people just up and say, "No, it's impossible." And I think the point of teleportation is to transport one object from one place to another WITHOUT MOVING IT or any of the particles it's been broken down to. That's a lot like saying you can teleport a pair of pants by ripping it up and mailing it to the other side of the world, where it will be sewn back together again. So I'll have to disagree with evilsmiley25

A few thoughts occurred to me over this issue, some related to each other, and some, disjoint.For instance, the future depicted by a lot of visual media, like the Jetsons, or, heaven help us, Futurama, is rather... too imaginative. Sure, it'd be nice for all of us to live on top of tall structures but I find it highly impractical. For one, if everyone wants to live up there, who's going to occupy the other floors? Or, supposing that we have saucer-shaped living areas on top of solid concrete steeples, what reason, aside from the half-baked projections of cartoon makers, would humanity have that would prompt them to leave behind the safe, stable ground and decide to live up there, buffeted by winds and at the cruel mercy of earthquakes?Okay, so let's just assume that rising water levels due to global warming made us live in the sky, where the ground level has long since been submerged into the ocean. Of course, we'd have our garages up there and our cars retrofitted to fly in 3d instead of navigating roads in 2d. A few more questions pop up: how do you manage traffic in three dimensions? What sort of protection or anchorage do you have against storms or occasional gusts of wind when you have no roads or wheels for traction? Without fences, how are citizens to protect themselves from some maniac who decides to ram his car against every structure in sight? Who is to save the poor soul who ran out of gas?How handy it is to stand in the present and view the hallway into the past! And, pretty much like picture frames along a hallway, things back there seem so much closer to each other, don't they? There sure are a lot of discoveries in the past, like fire and wheels and steam engines and circuit boards, mostly because we NEED them. Travelling to the country by a horse-drawn sled is an inconvenience. Waiting for mail by the Pony Express could very well be a matter of life and death. Dozens have died in pain and disease that could very well have been prevented. That's why have cars and choppers, email and SMS messages, medicine and vaccine.However, what daily inconveniences would be solved by a jetpack? A floating car? Laser blasters? Tall buildings? Uhm... sex robots?I think, sometimes, we need to think outside the box to progress. Other times, though, we have to get our heads off the silver screen... or the boob tube

It is quite an interesting idea. While I do not dispute that matters of grave importance (such as significant secrets, messages of love, money and, well, estate) cannot simply be entrusted to something as simple as a web service, I must admit that there are also matters of personal importance which one cannot simply entrust to a lawyer for one of the following reasons: a) one is a student, unemployed or, basically, does not have the money to hire a lawyer, the item(s) in question are not significant enough to qualify for an "estate" such as journals, novel drafts, baseball cards, lego sets, etc In any case, what I do think is that this should be useful to younger people. Many times, I have wondered on my own mortality and I am pretty sure that the thought of death comes to all sane-minded people after, if not before, the age of twenty. While I do not have much to pass on to others should I pass away, I do have things that are of certain importance to me. Should I leave this world, I would be most anxious to see that they should not fall "in the wrong hands" so to speak. However, I must admit, I have not, at the moment, the money for a lawyer nor the trust for my friends (there are rather embarrassing secrets, again, of personal importance, I am loathe to share to anyone so long as I am alive) Though, of course, I'd trust these web services even less than my friends, only, I am under the assumption that none of the people behind these web services know me personally and, therefore, would have absolutely nothing to gain from selling out on me Mailfreezr, on the other hand, would be as useful to me as a personal diary kept under lock and key... or a time capsule, without all that digging and cement pouring and digging out again... which is to say, I don't find it to be of much personal use. After all, I am not the type of person to write letters to my future self, though I also understand that other people do. This grim, morbid business of delivering messages after death certainly brought to mind one such arrangement with a (offline) florist. This is a mushy tearjerker, though, so... you have been warned