Hi Lucky

Are unregistered people still allowed to vote? Are they a 1:1 ratio if they are?

I had a colleague at work vote for some but it didn't seem to count. Looking also at a few that have recently been linked on Blues News, the number of votes exactly matches the number of names in the "who voted for this" box. I would have thought some of them might have had non-members voting as well. Unless it's changed and/or they're not a 1:1 ratio.

Just curious.

Thanks

My colleague, Roland Griffiths, was the lead author on the study cited at 1:38. It's been said that his research kicked off what is now being called a "renaissance" of clinical trials involving psychedelics that has increased in number in the last few years.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

A few of my friends and colleagues have been using psychedelics in their research and practice, both in the white market, as well as the black market, for about a decade now. I'm excited for the changes in the use and exploration of these compounds that we'll see by 2025 or even sooner.

Many many moons ago when I was seventeen we started doing life drawing at my school. there were a few models they used but the most common two were a lady about thirty, nice looking, slightly plump but attractive and Alan. Alan was a thirtyish year old gay guy who was just very average looking. Physique wise he was 5' 10" or so, maybe just under 200lbs, slightly balding, wore glasses. Nothing offensive but as a seventeen year old lad I obviously started off preferring drawing boobies to schlong.

Thing is, I always drew better when drawing Alan because I just wasn't as distracted I suppose. He was a really nice guy and we got to know him pretty well over the year or so we did the class. I'd grown up doing a lot of sailing at a club with communal showers for the men so naked guys were no mystery to me. I wasn't offended by him and he certainly never did any poses like the guy in this video.

Fast forward ten years and I'm at a friend's house party. I know about half the people there and there's a lot of people from her work that I don't know. She worked at a medieval castle as a wench for their banquets and a lot of her actor colleagues were there. I kept catching the eye of this guy, forty years or so old, 5' 10" and just over 200lbs, pretty bald. You know when you get that feeling that you know someone? The face is familiar but you can't for the life of you remember where you've seen him before. Worse was the feeling that it was someone I knew quite well, not just someone I'd bumped into in the supermarket or something like that.

He looked puzzled by me too and we eventually got talking in the kitchen about where we knew each other from. We went through everything, from what we did for a job, where we'd worked, where we lived and drew blanks every time.

We went further and further back in time until he stopped, grinned and said 'you didn't go to Woodland's school did you?'

In that instant I knew exactly who he was, laughed and completely without thinking blurted 'Alan! I didn't recognise you with your clothes on!'

Of course it went quiet and I had to explain to my wife why I didn't recognise the gay guy with his clothes on (not helped by the fact that it was an all boys school). I still have paintings and drawings of him in my attic somewhere, which my wife was 'thrilled' to be shown!

Life drawing is great, and you don't need a 'fit' or attractive model. Anyone will do, in fact the more normal the better I think. It helps you look at what's there rather than any sort of ideal you might have in your head.

What I said was mostly in jest, but I will entertain my learned colleague's well-reasoned arguments with a response.

"Squirrel fella didn't know what was going on"? That's right. He didn't. He didn't know the intentions of the human, other than his general instinct of "stay away from non-squirrels." His fear of him was totally justified.

Deus Ex Machina? There was no unexpected intervention which led to a happy ending here, that is my point. The squirrel expected the guy to grab him, he just didn't want him to. My point is that if the guy had kept on riding down the river, the squirrel would have been fine. But for his interference, the squirrel wouldn't have been drowning. His actions were negligent. His actions caused a situation of peril for that squirrel. If the squirrel had jumped toward the man and entered the calm part of the river and failed to swim, I might agree that intervention would have been necessary. Instead, the squirrel jumped in the exact opposite direction of the person, likely fearing for his life and choosing the most direct escape route, thus dooming himself. But he wouldn't have jumped that way if the guy hadn't been there. We can't know where he would have jumped, but I doubt it would have been in the most violent part of the river. Animal instincts aren't dumb, otherwise that squirrel would have been long dead.

Guy saved his life? Did he? Did we see a drowned squirrel swimming away from the rock before the guy even got there? Was there something that I missed in this video? Was the squirrel in imminent danger of being eaten by a vicious squirrel-eating miniature river-swimming orca? My point is the guy put the squirrel in danger simply by being there. Even after the squirrel jumped, it is not known that the squirrel would have drowned if the man had simply swam away. We assume because we think that squirrels are shitty swimmers.

Self-righteous? Did I say that I don't touch wildlife? Did I say that I might not have done the same thing in his position? No. I am simply saying that we should all abide by the general principle that wild animals do not need our help. Our interactions with them should be constrained to watching them pass and keeping them out of our areas when necessary and shooting and eating them when legal and not deleterious to the species. None of us should assume that our interactions with wildlife are anything other than a semi-masturbatory effort that serves the single purpose of entertaining us and making us feel good with little to no actual understanding of the animal's position.

Meh. I don't even like that there is a cultural stigma associated with just admitting that teaching is a hard job and you can't mention that without attaching the disclaimer of "Well there ARE bad teachers who do _______ and that's bad."

Here's some food for thought: There is ALWAYS a self-check in place to guard against bad teachers, an army of people who will complain about said teacher constantly and actively work to remove that teacher from the position, the students. Students love complaining about teachers that they don't like, or they let it slip in different ways. "I love that sub, he let us do whatever we wanted."

Other professionals in education quickly zero in on comments from students and, with reliable accuracy, can identify problems with colleagues. I, myself, overheard a conversation students were having about another teacher stumbling around 'acting drunk and swearing' and went over to ask about it. I was shocked when I was shown a video shot from under a desk of this happening, stopped what I was doing, grabbed the principal who conveniently was in the hall, and that was the last day that person was in our building.

I'm fairly confident; in spite of morale being low, teachers being bashed in the news, students suffering from more problems than I can count, and being forced to teach to a standardized test; damn-near every person in my school is doing the best they can.

p.s. the pay sucks too.

At 3:30 he doesn't dismiss the factors, he cites the study @eric3579 linked to. The other two are satire on how the "different choices" argument is bullshit.

Once again, no-one is saying that everyone should be paid the same. An engineer is paid more than a secretary (regardless of the gender of the employee).

The fact is that women doing the same job are on average paid less than men.

Having more girls go into engineering and paying teachers more are both laudable aims, but that's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, where a female engineer and a female teacher are paid less than their male colleagues.

I blame people for the current situations, are you not a person? I'm also complicit simply by existing.
Why would I need to expose my friends and past colleagues to a random internet denier ...firstly, subjecting them to you would likely end my friendship with many of them, secondly, you said clearly that you had already asked them ALL, so what gives? Were you just lying? (I know the answer to that, but I'm not sure if you'll admit it or not) If so, why should anyone believe anything you say?
I don't debate EVERY single person, only those I think are claiming things I see as incorrect. Debate at least informs each other of the others point of view, if not fostering re-analysis and possible changing of minds.
So, you would rather accept a few weatherman's opinions instead of most climate scientists when it comes to climate. Meteorology is the study of weather, not climate...or the dog, not the man....SQUIRREL! It doesn't mean they know nothing, but it does mean they aren't professionals in the climate and that others are far more specialized in the field and should be deferred to when discussing their field of expertise.
As I said clearly, I think the 'debate' is moot, as the process is too far along to do much about as I see it, and the few 'folks' that might make a difference (but not enough of one) don't listen to random people from the internet.

You're gonna call this surveillance? Really? If you want to see a map showing the flight path of the plane your friend/family member/colleague is on, in real-time, you can just go on the web and bring it up. It's been that way for years. No big deal. But hey what the hell, let's spin spin spin it and see if we can get some clicks!

While we're at it, let's just call all data gathering "surveillance" until the term is all but meaningless, because the true abuses need to be even more accepted as everyday ho-hum nothing to see here folks move along.

This happened on 9/11. Only a few people left when they had the chance because the others stayed with the herd, even when some who were leaving urged their colleagues to get out.

First things first, these cops are assholes and should be jailed straight away (and I'm with @bcglorf, if you commit a crime while on duty as a cop, you should face extra jail time).

That said, (and god it pains to me to agree with lantern) I still don't think it's fair to tar all cops with the same brush. We don't judge any other group by it's worst members, why do the cops get singled out?

"Because the good ones don't speak up"

Ok, I'll admit this is a problem. But it's really not that simple. If you are a good cop, by definition, you're working within the law. You need to gather evidence, build a case and so on. In practice, that's pretty difficult to do, especially when the bad cops, also by definition, aren't bound by the same rules the good cops are.

Not to mention the social stigma of "ratting out" your colleagues (and that applies in every walk of life), the potential harassment or even threats (again, bad cops aren't bound by rules).

The problem is a cultural one, and it has to change from the bottom up.

Men tend to not pick up on the subtle nuances of sexism.
About 3 months ago I entered a room at work. A female colleague of mine, one of the most attractive ones at that time, was eating a sandwich or something like that. Nothing phallic like a banana. Across the room stood another coworker, freshly married father of a newborn son. He was watching her eating with an expression of certain interest and after I inquired what's so interesting he proclaimed loudly enough for her to her "I could watch her do that all day." His tone said way more than his words.
The woman was eating a fucking sandwich. I'm still waiting for the day when I'm licking an icecream cone and any woman tells me she could watch me do that all day long.

And that's just the subtle stuff, the socially acceptable creepiness.

It isn't but they always try to do something. Interestingly in America the press are pretty much immune to the bullshit Glenn and his colleagues have had to go through. Example, the Guardian was visited by I wanna say MI5, some british cunts. Anyways they came in and told them to destroy everything they had from Snowden, and watched them do it too. They took grinders and magnets or whatever to the computers destroying their harddrives with all the information. Information that is in the Guardians places in America, it's just sitting in New York. The brits ain't care, they want that stuff to be stopped too and they asked Obama I'm sure but in America we fought for that shit and they leave the press pretty much alone.

The British cunts have done this before too, they of course held Glenns partner at the airport and confiscated his many electronical things just being dicks. The BBC has itself been raided before by the Rozzers (???) for some stupid shit.

Look I hate on America a LOT, there's tons of shit I don't like that this country does but we seem to have gotten Press Freedom right. That wasn't an accident that was fucking fought for Hard and Long. Now the press and it's ideological and indoctrination bullshit is another story. But whenever there's been leakers in this country they've had a paper or some news outlet they could go to and those news places would tell the story. They LOVE looking like they're left wing but they don't really do any of the day to day real shit, because they're funded by corporations.

Air travel isn't much fun in those conditions either!

I once drove back to Melbourne from Adelaide right through a storm, and it was horrible with low visibility and some vans going 40 and others still going 100... but one of my colleagues flew, and actually passed right over me at some point, but he said it was the worst flight of his life.

Obviously the best option is to just wait out the storm!!!