These laws tend to bust casual users, not the long-term abusers who seem to cause the most grotesque accidents.

Instead, rely on the judgment of police officers -- we may have to raise standards in some areas -- as to who is driving safely or not.

If they cause an accident, or get a ticket, allow the officers to demand a breath or blood test. This can be used as evidence at the trial.

Those who cause wrecks while intoxicated will find themselves uninsurable because the insurance companies will not risk the liability.

People kill themselves. They do so in public sometimes. This includes online, which is part of the public. Go back to stealing taxes and writing stupid reports; this is a problem without a solution, or a solution in search of a problem.

Conservatism is suppressed because it is a threat to the dominant paradigm. If it cannot be suppressed, terms are re-defined so that they exclude meanings which could be conservative. Most people go along with this, because actual conservative reasoning -- not the watered down liberal hybrid presented by characters such as disguised Zodiac Killer Ted Cruz -- does not flatter the human ego. It requires instead recognition of the smallness of the self, and this offends most people.

Some people can be slightly overweight but everything can be fine health wise and try to force them to a normal weight is more likely to make things worse.

The doctors have adjusted the definition of "obese" (apparently) to include pot-bellies and thunder thighs. They are doing this in the War on Obesity, which like other Wars on Social Problems, is based in forcing people to do what is not natural for them. They think this will work because all humans are the same, identical and grey, without any context or surrounding needs. But as you point out, people vary. For some, a little extra weight is a good thing, especially in middle age.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to find some eclairs...

You cannot force yourself to lose weight.

You can will yourself to lose weight.

The two are distinct. The first is a method of control, which means that without changing your will, you put in place external methods of regulating yourself. The second is how most people lose weight, which is by regulating their desire by balancing it against their desire to be thinner. It's not a diet, it's a reduction.

All the people I know who lost weight and kept it off did so by focusing on their appetites and not rules for limiting consumption. They found ways to want less food, thus eat less, and if exercise played a role it was secondary.

Of course, none of them were obese by any realistic definition. Fifteen to fifty extra pounds is not out of the range of normal.

Technically, that's true: the product selects its audience because the audience selects the product. But, the community also endorses such things, which pushes ordinary users into a culture of emojis, promiscuous anal and bestial sex, and artisanal fast food. Stop the madness!

When people pay actual money for an OS, they do expect long term support.

I agree with them, at least as far as patching dangerous errors in the software. In addition, the MSFT model has always been to sell the OS with a new machine, so for as long as that machine lasts...

It's true. If you use an effete computer, by a trendy but vapid company, you are more likely to engage in risky sex and get AIDS.

Windows XP/Vista/7/8/8.1 are competitors to Windows 10 which costs them more to maintain and with fewer monetization/expansion options, why would they do anything but encourage you to move to the new great future they believe they have created?

Would you rather have them try to update four operating systems, or just one?

They saw that people who'd been ordered to forget thought less about the context.

The less specific something is, the less our minds can place it, and so it becomes generic and forgotten. A good way to erase culture, learning, and independent thought.

Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. – Friedrich Nietzsche

The house always wins, and insurance companies always profit. Better to leave medicine mostly unregulated and reduce costs. If someone comes in at age 79, having smoked his whole life, with lung cancer and emphysema, it might be time to allow successively increasing doses of morphine so the patient can pass on peacefully without costing himself or others $1.5 million in a final miserable year of care before death.

there's a statistical cost his neighbors will incur at some point in the future that involved supporting his healthcare.

Or, we could just not support his healthcare. I trust granular choices more than universal ones.

What will they spend the money on? Oh: the same things they have failed at in the past. Government is a parasite, like a leech, mosquito or flea.

Good day, sir.