A screw is held in place by threads located on the thing being screwed into, whereas a bolt is held in place by a nut on the other end.

So unless your camera has a hole through it that you are trying to secure string to, you would be using a screw.

You can prove this to yourself at your local department store. Buy yourself a Hot Wheels and put it on the rail of the escalator and hold it in place. The wheels are moving the same speed as the treadmill, obviously, since they're in contact.

Now cause the car to move forward by applying an outside force, i.e. push it. The wheels are still moving at the same speed as the treadmill, and yet the car can move forward because of your external force that isn't influenced by ground speed.

Now pretend that instead of your hand pushing the car forward, it was a prop on the front of the car that was providing the external force that isn't influenced by ground speed. The car would still move forward, and if it had wings it would take off.

@51 How is that story proof of anything? The supreme court has already ruled that the California law means nothing. Those people were violating federal law, and were penalized for it.

@45 Defense lawyers are free to take exception to my interpretation of the Bill of Rights. However, in our society, judges are the ones who interpret law, not defense lawyers.

My interpretation is based mainly upon reading court decisions and my education on the subject, and as such will generally be close. If you'd like to read a few relevant cases and documents and provide an opposing interpretation, I welcome that. However, interpreting law based upon what you feel or want it to be does nobody any good, unless you happen to sit on the supreme court.

I'm dismissive of the fact that the doctor recommended marijuana because that's not an accepted medication for any illness or condition. If doctors nationwide want to change that, they can do so via lobbying and pressure on their lawmakers, with evidence to back it up.

Medication such as marinol (synthetic THC in pill form) exists that provides many (all?) of the benefits typically associated with medical marijuana, legally. If the doctor had prescribed marinol, there would be no issue. Similarly, if the doctor had recommended heroin instead of prescribed morphine for pain, the patient would have legal issues to deal with.

@47 Hemp was grown for fiber and textile use, which is irrelevant to a discussion regarding the legality of smoking it for medical reasons. The fact that wood has all kinds of innocent uses is irrelevant in a discussion about whether it's OK to stab somebody in the face with a wooden spear.

@48 Mystical cosmic positions about rights are well and good until they meet the real world. Attempt to assert your right to carry a sack of marijuana around, and watch the government assert their right to lock you in a cell and feed you bologna sandwiches.

Living in a society is essentially a contract between you and society, where you agree to follow society's rules. Those rules are set forth in the Constitution. If you don't agree with those rules, you are free to try to change the rules, or to leave, or to ignore the rules. However, society has a way with dealing with those that ignore the rules, commonly called punishment. This punishment comes in many forms, from small fines to the death penalty.

@49 "Iraq has WMD's and are going to use them against us like right now so we have to bomb the shit out of them."

"...the government said there was a danger and threat that justifies its actions."

Those are not the same statement. One is hyperbole to make arguing the converse impossible, the other is a rational and reasonable statement. By equating a position on the war on drugs to the illogical position above as analogous, you attempt to transfer the easily defensible position above to the argument you are trying to make. It's a black and white example of a straw man argument, whether you realize it or not.

Revising the statement to a reasonable one moves both subjects back into the realm of debatable.

Again, this is off-topic and has nothing to do with medical marijuana.

Why is Bob Hope black?

My link to the decision in question regarding the California law got borked. In any case, the relevant case is Gonzales v. Raich.

@41 Are you arguing that the "ruling clique" obtains marijuana illegally and avoids punishment, hence making it OK for the populace to do so (and not expect punishment)? If so, I'd like to see an example.

Alternately, are you arguing that the "ruling clique" violates other laws, hence making violation of any law you choose morally acceptable? In other words, if GWB runs a stop sign it's okay for me to do drugs?

@34 Revising your original statement into a more reasonable one doesn't make your original statement less ridiculous. Regardless, this whole conversation is off-topic.

@35 You are incorrect in your belief that the Constitution grants no rights. Might I remind you that article 1 section 8 grants Congress the right to make laws, such as the CSA, which makes illegal possession of a controlled substance a federal crime.

@36 I'll give you that you don't have to obey every law. You are free to violate whatever law you choose, but the powers that be are free to punish you for said violation in accordance with the law as created by your elected representatives. A more correct way to word it is that "we don't have the option of choosing which laws to obey, unless we are willing to accept the punishment for violating those laws". I'd assume that as a given, but it seems I have to clarify.

Those that violated laws against sodomy were arrested and charged with violating those laws. The laws were later determined to be unconstitutional, but that has no relevance on whether it was illegal to violate them at the time that they were violated.

@37 Your misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights is so drastic I wonder if it's worth it to even refute your points. For those with a bit more understanding:

*1st Amendment*
The establishment clause prevents Congress from creating any laws establishing an official religion. It does not prevent Congress from creating a law limiting parts of religions if the law has an obvious secular purpose. Congress could not outlaw wearing a crucifix, but they can outlaw sacrificing someone on top of a pyramid.

*4th Amendment*
You are confusing the enforcement of a law with the law itself. Poor enforcement does not automatically mean it's a poor law.

*8th Amendment*
I can think of lots of things that are more cruel and unusual, however, the federal government does not recognize marijuana as medicine. Sick people in prison receive medical care in accordance with standard medical practices. If you'd like to argue that marijuana should be considered a standard medical practice you are welcome to, but you need to convince doctors and lawmakers, not me.

*9th Amendment*
In a nutshell, this means that just because a right isn't specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However, it doesn't mean that all rights not outlined exist. The 9th doesn't really grant any rights, it serves only as an "instruction" on how to interpret other Amendments.

@32 Everyone has the option of obeying laws or not, but they also must realize that there are consequences for not obeying them. If they don't like the possible consequences, they can either avoid them by obeying the law, or attempt to get the law changed. Not obeying and the complaining that you shouldn't be subject to the consequences isn't really an option.

As for the amendments question, people much more knowledgeable about the Constitution have already figured it out. Further reading.

@29 Are you alleging that the federal government isn't following American law, or that Constitutional law doesn't exist, or that the government is violating the fundamental law of the land? Moreover, are you alleging it in some way that has anything at all to do with the discussion at hand?

@22 Whether the doctor would have lost her job for prescribing marijuana or not has no bearing on whether the defendant illegally used marijuana. Absent a prescription, no matter the reason for its absence, using marijuana is illegal. If the defendant was set on getting his marijuana, he could have went to another doctor in the two years between when he claims the doctor recommended it and when he was busted.

As for the Jim Crow laws, violating them did in fact result in violators going to jail until the laws were changed via a legal process. How my argument that people have an obligation to follow the law, or else they have to suffer the consequences supports a position that Jim Crow laws should be on the books I'm not sure.

As for sodomy laws, they are generally only on the books until somebody tests them and they get thrown out on various Constitutional grounds. There isn't (AFAIK) a process by which laws can just be thrown out, absent someone being prosecuted under said law. Unfortunately for those advocating legalization of marijuana, there's no Constitutional right to get high.

But its the sort of explanation like "Iraq has WMD's and are going to use them against us like right now so we have to bomb the shit out of them."

As this is a ridiculous position to take, holding it up as something to be defended while simultaneously arguing that it has the same logical basis as the position in question is, in fact, a straw man.

As I'm sure you realize, a straw man doesn't require attributing the view to me, just to those that believe in the counter position. Logically those arguing are taking the counter position, so it's indirectly attributing said view.

To summarize your argument: those that believe in the statement above would similarly believe that drug laws are logical. As the statement above is illogical, those that believe it are illogical, hence drug laws are illogical. It sounds to me that you don't know what a straw man is, or at least how to spot them.

As for not being able to understand how my statement about laws is a fact, why not ask the next police officer you see which laws you have to follow? It's a good bet that he'll say "all of them".

@16 The doctor didn't put it in writing, hence he had no prescription and was not legally entitled to have the marijuana at the time he was busted. Again, it's fairly clear. The doctor's reasons for not putting it in writing are unimportant.

That he later got a prescription is also unimportant, as prescriptions are not retroactive.

And no, bad laws are not changed by people not obeying them, they are changed through a legal process involving lawmakers and courts and the like. People that are in favor or legalizing marijuana can further their agenda by helping to elect lawmakers that agree with them, or by attempting to convince those that don't to change their minds.

@7 You might try reading the article you quoted. The person arrested did not have a prescription for medical marijuana; the article is quite clear on that. A doctor's verbal (and unsubstantiated) recommendation is not a prescription. Further, you cite one case, not "tens of thousands".

@11 We don't have the option of deciding which laws to obey. That using marijuana without a prescription is illegal is undeniable. People that choose the break the law should expect to suffer the consequences of breaking the law, and weigh the potential benefits against the potential costs.

People are free to lobby to get the laws changed, but until the laws are changed they are, in fact, the law. What your straw man argument about Iraq has to do with it I fail to see.

They are rotting in American prisons for using marijuana because they were not legally permitted to use marijuana due to not having a prescription to that end, and/or because they didn't get it through legal means.

Explanation enough?

There's a few brands of "kits" on the market that consist of a specially-designed squirt bottle and a few hundred packs of salt and baking soda, to make your own saline. Works like a champ.

HDR involves taking multiple shots of the same scene with different settings, and combining them digitally. It's not really suited for things that can move, let alone video.

I doubt it gets hot enough to do anything to the garbage can, as the article says the temperature of the smoker was between 220F and 230F.

Even if the temperature gets higher, how are you proposing the zinc would get from the can to the food? They don't touch, and I'm sure zinc vaporizes at a much higher temperature than 230F.

I doubt it gets hot enough to do anything to the garbage can, as the article says the temperature of the smoker was between 220F and 230F.

Even if the temperature gets higher, how are you proposing the zinc would get from the can to the food? They don't touch, and I'm sure zinc vaporizes at a much higher temperature than 230F.

Leave the root end of your onion unchopped and you won't have nearly as many tears, due to most of the enzymes that release the sulfur compounds being in that end. If that doesn't leave enough onion for whatever you're going to use it for... chop two, they're cheap.

Using this device to hide your RFID tags would probably be legal, as indicated, under the implied right to privacy. Similarly, you could wear foil pants to accomplish the same task.

However, there's no law in place that requires anyone to accept the RFID data emitted by this device as if it were emitted by the original device, for hopefully obvious reasons.

So, you could probably use this to hide the data on your passport, but it wouldn't help you get on a plane. You'd still have to hand over your real passport and allow them to scan the RFID.

... This country being Australia?

Also, Australia does not have any guaranteed right to free speech in their constitution.

Novell signed a deal with MS, but MS isn't involved in this suit (other than a former MS exec now being an exec at this company). The Novell-MS deal doesn't mean Novell can't get sued by other companies.

Why am I not surprised that a good number of the people commenting didn't even read _the first sentence_ of the article linked, and instead went off on RR as if his picture was on the bill.

Why let facts get in the way of an opportunity to spout ignorant venom, after all?

Explain to me again how a woman strangling herself with her own handcuffs is the TSA's fault?