Hacker Barnaby Jack Died of Drug Overdose

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hacker Barnaby Jack Died of Drug Overdose

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday January 4, 2014 @02:30AM from the rest-in-peace dept.

DrDevil writes "Barnaby Jack, the computer security expert who died mysteriously a few days before he was due to give a presentation on hacking pacemakers at last year's Black Hat, died of a drug overdose. The coroner initially withheld the report, which led to much speculation given the timing of his death. Mr. Jack appears to have taken a cocktail of drugs (PDF) and was found dead by his girlfriend. His girlfriend stated that he had used drugs regularly."

195 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 02:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

and this just proves it.
1. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by smittyoneeach · 2014-01-04 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Too soon. Could've moved to Colorado, like some junkie cosmonaut.
  
  --
  Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
2. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Bing+Tsher+E · 2014-01-04 02:36 · Score: 2
  
  Except Rock Stars have significant portions of the mainstream public admiring them before they O.D.
3. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Pharmboy · 2014-01-04 02:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, hackers are just like anyone else and this proves it. People overdose all the time, they just don't make the front page of Slashdot.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
4. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-04 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Always know your dose.
  No one is going to keep track of it for you.
  If you want to live to be a ripe old junkie like Wm. Burroughs, you learn to keep care of yourself.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
5. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  NOOOO!!!! it was conspiracy theorists , you have to have a fresh conspiracy at new year!
6. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-04 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, what fun it would be to attempt an overdose on marijuana.
  Some would say eating 15 lbs in a few minutes would do it, but the real troopers keep trying to smoke their way to suicide.
  No success stories yet, gotta keep hammering on it.
  Dont bogart that joint, my friend , pass it over to meeeeee....
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
7. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by smittyoneeach · 2014-01-04 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  All I said was "could've moved". You're the one who had to make it dark.
  
  --
  Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
8. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  Pot does that to you...
9. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by mcgrew · 2014-01-04 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  I've been trying unsucessfully for over four decades, was 19 then. I'll surely succeed in the next 40 years. 2049 news item: "mcgrew, age 97, was found dead today of an apparent marijuana overdose..."
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
10. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Mr.CRC · 2014-01-04 03:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If this was an OD due to illegal drugs, then it's likely that it wouldn't have occurred if the drugs were simply legal. You cannot "know your dose" with illegal drugs because you: 1. don't know what drug it really is at all; 2. don't know the concentration or purity. The best way to reduce ODs would be to legalize everything, then all the info on how to dose and minimize adverse health consequences could be kept out in the open.
11. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 03:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Fear of pot makes you stupid.
12. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  If this was an OD due to illegal drugs, then it's likely that it wouldn't have occurred if the drugs were simply legal.
  
  While fewer ODs would happen if drugs were legal and well regulated, or at least labeled, it is hard to say if any given OD would have happened without details and knowing a person. People still manage to have issues with alcohol poisoning, which takes some effort since many can't physically down their drink of choice fast enough to do so. More potent drugs that have more variability of impact due to tolerance and history of use are still going to result in some accidental and/or stupid ODs regardless of how well known the dose is, short of having them to be regulated to all being rather mild doses. In that latter case, there would still be a black market for stronger doses then.
13. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by itsdapead · 2014-01-04 04:21 · Score: 2
  
  Proof? No, you have a hypothesis and a single point of data.
  If only he had a hypothesis (men in black kill hacker to shut him up*) and two points of data: (A) Hacker about to give a speech, (B) hacker dies from overdose - then it would be much more compelling.
  (*despite knowing that "Hacker gives talk on hacking pacemakers" = page 5 just under the skateboarding duck whereas "Hacker dies mysteriously on eve of controversial speech" is at least worth a side column on page 1.)
  
  --
  In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
14. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Sponge+Bath · 2014-01-04 04:24 · Score: 2
  
  Always know your dose.
  Other words of wisdom from Ron White: "Never let a mormon set your buzz level."
15. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 04:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  He combined heroin with Xanax and an antihistamine. That is a pretty reckless combination. Sure, it's possible that the heroin was uncharacteristically pure.
  Nevertheless, if you combine three depressant drugs (two of them quite strong), you're always risking an overdose. You can't really blame this one on prohibition.
16. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by itsdapead · 2014-01-04 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  NOOOO!!!! it was conspiracy theorists , you have to have a fresh conspiracy at new year!
  but everybody knows that conspiracy theorists are all agents of the Black Helicopter Brigade paid to create plausible deniability for the real conspiracies.
  
  --
  In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
17. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 05:17 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  If this was an OD due to illegal drugs, then it's likely that it wouldn't have occurred if the drugs were simply legal.
  What a bunch of crackpot nonsense.
  I guess Micheal Jackson would have been alive if just propofol would be legal??
  
  Prescriptions now biggest cause of fatal drug overdoses
  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-09-30-drug-overdose_N.htm
  Simply the reason that something is NOT illegal, does not make it safe. How many people die of alcohol overdose each year? Too lazy to find out? Let me help you.
  http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/110-120.htm
  
  he annual average number of deaths for which alcohol poisoning was listed as an underlying cause was 317, with an age-adjusted death rate of 0.11 per 100,000 population. An average of 1,076 additional deaths included alcohol poisoning as a contributing cause, bringing the total number of deaths with any mention of alcohol poisoning to 1,393 per year (0.49 per 100,000 population). Males accounted for more than 80 percent of these deaths.
  If only alcohol was a legal drug, right?? Right?
  There are many reasons for legalizing illegal drugs (mostly to do with 3rd party risk mitigation), but overdoses have nothing to do with it.
18. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by marcello_dl · 2014-01-04 05:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Another data point is that the investigation should not rely on the GF alone, to determine if it's a case of drug addiction. Sampling hair is not very difficult in many cases. Else I have for you a bulletproof way to kill your BF: poison him and declare he was doing drugs.
  Another data point is collectible: what would cost pacemaker producers to fix the trouble once an exploit is possible and relatives of patients who die (no need for attack, they can die of malfunctions, of simply worrying about it) start to sue.
  Another data point is in the making: whether his death will make the "hacking pacemakers" presentation impossible or too generic to be useful.
  As the other poster said, you also have to wonder why experimenting with heavy dosage of drugs is a good idea when you have a presentation that will make you world famous is just a few days away.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
19. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, except minus the hot chicks.
20. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Oligonicella · 2014-01-04 05:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I have known a number of druggies, some on various hard stuffs. No. They would still OD. People still huff, knowing full well it coats your lungs. People still sniff gasoline, knowing full well it destroys your brain. These are two completely legal substances. No. People would still be stupid. You can't bypass stupid with a label.
21. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by hairyfeet · 2014-01-04 06:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Not to mention we've had a recent kinda nasty VP that requires pacemakers and whom would have probably been a target if the info would have leaked and you have one more bullet point in the "this smells funny" column. Reminds me of that reporter whose family aid he had a phobia about blood and would pass smooth out when he saw a drop of the stuff supposedly slit his wrists to kill himself.
  Frankly it should be so trivial to tell if he was a druggie, the stuff ends up in the hair, nails, hell with heavy users they practically sweat drugs so finding out shouldn't take any time at all...wanna bet nobody runs anymore tests? After all we have learned from Manning and Snowden the past couple of years frankly I trust the mob more than I trust my own government so call me paranoid but I'd like a second opinion please.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
22. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Guido+von+Guido+II · 2014-01-04 06:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You're missing the point. As you pointed out, legality and known purity is not going to prevent all overdoses, but it would prevent some.
  If you're buying drugs on the street, it's difficult to tell exactly how pure. This means that by taking the same mass of a particular drug, you're not going to get precisely the same amount of active ingredient. If your latest dose is sufficiently purer than your typical dose, then you may overdose.
  What complicates this is that many addicts will go off of their drug of choice for a period of time and lose their tolerance. When they start using again, their bodies can't handle as much but they try to use their old dose and overdose.
23. Re: Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Sean · 2014-01-04 06:30 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Barnaby would routinely party until 5am then deliver the first talk in the morning. And deliver the talk well. His research was good, but then again so was the research of others who weren't nearly as much fun. Conference organizers aren't robots.
  His hard partying ways were well known in the security community. Reading all of this conspiratorial talk reminds me how foolish we can be when we talk about people we've never even met.
  Does anyone seriously expect a bunch of other well known hackers to admit in public that they routinely binged on drink and hard drugs with Barnaby? Merely to put to rest wild speculation by some randoms who didn't even know him and will likely continue to believe whatever they want to believe?
24. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 06:37 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  I suppose it's easier to damn these "druggies" that you've known than to have the uncomfortable thought that perhaps they were sniffing gasoline or huffing paint thinner due to the fact that they were, in fact, the only legal drugs to which they had easy access. Yes, those damn druggies, never mind that had they had legal access to properly dosed drugs and a safe environment, they wouldn't have been sniffing gasoline or huffing paint thinner.
25. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Princeofcups · 2014-01-04 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  If this was an OD due to illegal drugs, then it's likely that it wouldn't have occurred if the drugs were simply legal. You cannot "know your dose" with illegal drugs because you: 1. don't know what drug it really is at all; 2. don't know the concentration or purity. The best way to reduce ODs would be to legalize everything, then all the info on how to dose and minimize adverse health consequences could be kept out in the open.
  The thing with speed balls (cocaine plus heroin) is to maximize the rush while minimizing the side effects. This is a never ending race to OD. Many heroin users have died due to unknowingly using uncut drugs, Janice Joplin, etc. But speed balls are another beast all together.
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
26. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by LoRdTAW · 2014-01-04 07:16 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I am surprised this got modded insightful. Nothing against the parent but knowing your dose wouldn't help in cases like this. It was an OD from a cocktail of heroin, cocaine, Diphenhydramine (aka Benadryl) and Alprazolam (aka Xanax). Even if they were legal, no sane doctor would ever advise taking all four together. This was nothing more than death from reckless drug use. You could legalize everything, provide safe usage guidelines and people would still die like this. Its the same as speeding, losing control of your car and dying in a car crash caused by your own recklessness. you knew the limit, you were taught to follow it but you ignored it.
  Basically the worst thing you can do is mix this stuff together. They do it to have one drug counteract the other eg. coke is a stimulant and heroine is a depressant. The two are combined to get the extreme euphoria of heroin but having the coke combat the sedation (most heroin users shoot up and pass out). Those two used together is called a speedball and has killed quite a few famous people, and many more regular users.
  Why he also chose to throw benadryl and Xanax on top of that deadly mix is beyond me.
27. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by ColdWetDog · 2014-01-04 07:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  While all of this is true to an extent, the bigger problem is mix and match. There is very little real data on the effects of mixing multiple classes of drugs other than to tell the user 'it's dangerous, don't do it'. Most ODs are from either naive users, as you point out, or users who get drunk (typically), then add a slurry of other drugs, then go somewhere dark to pass out and then just quit breathing.
  Most ODs would be thwarted by having the presumptive victim in the same room as other people who have managed to keep enough of their brainstem function so as to remain breathing spontaneously. Calling 911 or just kicking the victim in the groin is pretty easy, even for the lay person.
  (Channel to the OD scene in 'Pulp Fiction'... )
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
28. Re: Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Sepodati · 2014-01-04 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt you'd believe the report, so what's the point? If "they" can have someone killed, they can fake an autopsy report.
  If our government is efficient enough to even carry out a tenth of these conspiracy theories, we're fucked. I've seen them in action, though, and I think we're okay.
29. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by HiThere · 2014-01-04 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  But you're believing the story. It might be true. I'm not sure I want to be any more definite than that. Without knowing the person, I don't know whether it is plausible or not. I don't know whether the "girlfriend" actually was such, and I don't know if someone was out to get him.
  A few years ago I would have accepted this story without much question. These days there are so many proven lies told as official stories, that I don't even believe when they say something plausible. I think you've got to learn to live with uncertainty. There are too many practicing liars to trust much of anything you can't check yourself. (Fortunately, it's fairly safe to ignore most news stories.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
30. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  Who denied marijuana can be harmful? And what comparative measure of "harm"? Drink/smoke up, chump, you're hallucinating again.
31. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Common+Joe · 2014-01-04 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  True, some would still OD, but there wouldn't be as many. Not everyone doing drugs is careless with their life.
32. Re: Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  On the other hand his drug use pointed to an overdose as the perfect kill.
33. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  Drug use has been part of the human experience for as long as there were humans to experience it. Some would still overdose if drugs were decriminalized and safe supplies were made available, but the overall number of overdoses would reduce drastically -- there is no single "druggie" phenotype. Don't let perfect be the enemy of far, far better.
  You probably use alcohol, which is a dangerous drug (ref: Lancet), but I bet you're confident you can avoid drinking yourself to death.
34. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-04 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Buddy, if that's a dark concept, you need to move a planet closer to the sun.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
35. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-04 09:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I've yet to see any proof that wasn't just heresay from those with a profit to protect.
  Come, bring your evidence.
  If you bring a researcher, bring his benefactor as well. You will see patterns form.
  Marijuana is harmful to profits, THAT is the ONLY harm there EVER was from the use of marijuana.
  Even smoking has produced no cancers. No deaths. Not even hangnails.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
36. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-04 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  I keep hammering away too. Apparently, stronger strains and large volumes aren't going to do the trick.
  I was actually thinking the Bibles recipe for anointing oil might do the trick if I were to soak in a bathtub of it.
  6 lb. and sundry ingredients makes a liter concentrated in olive oil.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
37. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  .45 mg/L of the benadryl is *nowhere near* a lethal dose, combined or not. (19 mg/L)
  I find it fishy it's listed as part of cause of death.
38. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-04 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  1 .have a good idea of what you have. Experience helps.
  2. purity will ALWAYS be diluted by every hand it passes through. If you go to a higher source, expect more purity.
  Yes, legalizing everything would work nicely.
  Those without a predisposition to indulge, don't.
  Laws protect no one but legislators.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
39. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by smittyoneeach · 2014-01-04 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking of Ace of Spades over on Twitter.
  
  --
  Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
40. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  "Why he also chose to throw benadryl and Xanax on top of that deadly mix is beyond me"
  Strong opiates can really make you itch. Benadryl is supposed to help with that. He probably took the Xanax to go to sleep. Heroin does make you sleepy, but you don't really sleep, its more of a twilight sleep. He probably took the Xanax to knock himself out and really go to sleep.
41. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by LoRdTAW · 2014-01-04 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Did a little searching and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese_(drug)
  Either he was taking it legitimately for allergies or was trying to make it do something else.
42. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Papaspud · 2014-01-04 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  As some one that was heavily involved with drugs 20 years ago, I know for a fact that people that might rat, or owe too much money are sometimes given what is called a hotshot. The overdose kills them and the police don't really investigate- heck just another druggie ODing, why should they care. It is the perfect way to kill some one and get away with it.
  
  --
  Everything above is my opinion....YMMV
43. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by DaveV1.0 · 2014-01-04 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  You know what else would have prevented this overdose? Not doing drugs. Really simple way not to OD.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
44. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by DaveV1.0 · 2014-01-04 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, damn those druggies because they don't have to be doing drugs at all, asshole.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
45. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  Is this satire? A troll? Or just some incredible buffoon? Honestly, I can't tell anymore.
46. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  So Alchohal, a legal drug, kills more people than the illegal drugs. During prohibitiion there were fewer alchohal deaths even if you take into account all the deaths due to the alchohal war. This is a basic fight between the right of a state to protect its citizens, and the right of individuals to profit off the suffering of others. Drug dealers profit off of the suffering of others. Before the Kennedys came into politics they were alcohol runners. A similar thing is happening today. The government officials see there is a profit to be made in taxing drugs. So there is a big push for legalization. Today it is fashionable to support legalization. Yet the same people who support legalization say it is deplorable what the British Empire did to China in forcing them to allow the sale of opium. Would you say the USian collonist were justified in selling Alchohal to American Indians. I think not. If you live where I live you will realize that drugs are a MAJOR fucking problem. I am all for keeping drugs illegal. What we need is a REAL war on drugs. Lets use drones to launch hellfire missles into the houses of drug dealers. Noone should go to jail for abusing / using drugs. They are like little children and are victims. However if you are selling drugs you should have you balls cut off and fed to a dog. Read a scanner darkly by phillip dick. There you will see the affect of drugs. We don't need legal drugs. Quick question: Where is drug use most prevalent in society? In prison. If the guards can not keep drugs out of a prison where you can isolate one person from every outside influence as long as he is in jail, what does that mean? It means that the guards are on the take. The only way prisoner are allowed to use drugs is if the guards are allowing it to happen. It is all about doing the right thing vs making a profit. Today the gang stars and law enforcement and government officials are working hand in hand to ensure you kids are high. If it weren't for the war on drugs profits would be low. If it weren't for the war on drugs police would not be making the salaries they are, nor have half the cool gear they do. If you are a drug user, the last thing you should want is drugs legalized. First off the state will tax the fuck out of the drugs. Prices will rise. Also you will get less quality. No longer will pot be grown in basements by people who care about the quality of the product. Instead it will be grown on industrial scale farms using GMO and who knows what the fuck else. I said earlier that the war on drugs was responsible for keeping profits high. However the only reason there is a push for legalization is if the powers that be know they can make even MORE profit by legalizing the shit.
  Seriously every time you use drugs you are doing exactly what the state wants you to do by throwing your life away and making money for the corporations that sell the equipment that is used to make the shit. Fuck the government, who indirectly control the sale of drugs (both legal and illegal), and fuck drugs. Be a rebel stay clean.
47. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by koan · 2014-01-04 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  If it's legal, is pure powdered THC far behind? So an overdose and death is possible.
  
  --
  "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
48. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by koan · 2014-01-04 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Marijuana makes you stupid, that's why they call it dope.
  
  --
  "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
49. Re: Hackers are the new Rock Stars by marcello_dl · 2014-01-04 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  > and will likely continue to believe whatever they want to believe?
  Yep I tend not to change idea, especially when people use tricks (this one is called "poisoning the well") in their rebuttal.
  So the guy liked to party? Interesting. So he might have ODed in many occasions. It happened shortly before his most potentially influential presentation. What did your data point bring? Oh yes the GF point is moot now. He still fucked with the dosage at a very wrong moment. All of this is irrelevant 'till the presentation comes out.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
50. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Pav · 2014-01-04 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  This is important... in a well functioning society there's a social cost for betraying trust, and that is being viewed with suspicion in future. Even if you believe a mundane explanation is most likely it's still a social duty to regard certain entities with suspicion.
51. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 14:53 · Score: 0
  
  You were asked for a citation. The fact that you chose to respond in a manner that did not include a citation is all the proof we need that you are not worth listening to.
  
  Remember, if you want us to pick your side, you are going to have to convince us. We are not going to do your work for you, because we are perfectly happy with the side we are presently on.
52. Re: Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Sean · 2014-01-04 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not debating you. You may think you're the voice of reason here, but you really don't know anything about the situation, and I don't care what you think.
53. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 15:50 · Score: 0
  
  Dope is heroin, you damn dirty ape.
54. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 15:54 · Score: 0
  
  Hash oil is over 80% THC (and ridiculously sticky) when it's properly prepared and free of solvents. Nobody (to my knowledge) has died from doing hash spots, though I've seen people green out (cognitively not present, but still conscious). I doubt the bump from 80% to 100% is going to cause any fatalities.
55. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 16:08 · Score: 0
  
  That's real easy when you're not a drug addict.
  For most drug addicts, "Not doing drugs" is somewhere between trying not to eat (drugs make this easier) and trying not to breath.
  It's only a "Really simple way not to OD" when you're not already addicted.
56. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 16:34 · Score: 0
  
  It is really harmful to those with a rare mutation called "Val(158)Met-Val" on a COMT*1 (catechol-o-methyltransferase) gene allele. To learn more start with article doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2008.01265.x .
  1- As it's name implies this gene is really important in the intra-cellular metabolism of Catecholamines. The 3 most important catecholamines in the human brain are, in alphabetical order, adrenaline, dopamine and noradrenaline.
57. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by rtb61 · 2014-01-04 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  Which is exactly why cheap easy access tends to solve it own problem, evolution in action. They die happy and peaceful (except of course alcohol) and we don't suffer from drug related crimes or pay the extreme cost of imprisonment in order to destroy their lives to save them from 'er' dying happy.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
58. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 16:47 · Score: 0
  
  Trusting stupid sayings and endorsing legal, yet more harmful substances makes YOU stupid. That's why I call YOU dope. FTFY
59. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 16:49 · Score: 0
  
  no you cant because THC and its natural derivative are only partial reversible agonists, this is why heavy pot smokers hit a plateau were you cannot get higher with more THC independently of how you ingest it... The same would not be true of a full irreversible agonist like well I cannot find any in the scientific literature.... the stronger one HU-210 is know to promotes proliferation, but not differentiation, of cultured embryonic hippocampal neural stem and progenitor cells likely via a sequential activation of CB1 receptors, Gi/o proteins, and ERK signaling. It was also indicated by this increased neural growth to entail antianxiety and antidepressant effects and to be implicated in preventing the inflammation caused by amyloid beta proteins involved in Alzheimer's disease, in addition to preventing cognitive impairment and loss of neuronal markers.
  So yeah real dangerous stuff :P
60. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by noh8rz10 · 2014-01-04 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  Even smoking has produced no cancers. No deaths. Not even hangnails.
  you're telling me that there are no chronic risks to inhaling lungfuls of smoke and burning plant matter? I call bull spit.
61. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by noh8rz10 · 2014-01-04 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  just under the skateboarding duck
  link please
62. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 18:50 · Score: 0
  
  The 5 or so people I know who died from this sort of thing pretty much all of them were f-ng around with xanax.
  You seem to think if it says 300mg on the side of something it magically makes it less likely to OD? Maybe? However the 2 of the 5 I knew were all with prescription pills, metadone, and xanax. Both had measured doses. They didnt bother to tell the doctors what they were doing.
  When they start using again
  I have met many people who do drugs. *All* and I mean *ALL* say they 'know what they are doing'. They are all perfect experts on how much to take. Yeah they are experts on how to get fucked up. Not on how much is 'good/bad' for you. Having the amount on the side of the bottle would not change their views. In fact it would make it easier for them to do it in the manner you speak (which is kind of perverse in its own way).
  Xanax is a powerful depressant. People take it because it makes the feel pretty good before passing out. Good rule of thumb is if you are playing with other opiods avoid it.
63. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 19:59 · Score: 0
  
  Marijuana makes you stupid, that's why they call it dope.
  And it makes niggers rape white women. Yes, we've heard all your "facts" plenty of times.
64. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 22:57 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think that benadryl by itself causes anything. The fact he used benadryl in his already deadly cocktail contributed to the wild side effects that were already there.
65. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-05 00:01 · Score: 0
  
  IMHO, the anonymous coward you responded to is just a pot user looking for a soapbox for his drug of choice. I'm thinking he's not talking about "safe access" to heroin or meth.
  I think they're sniffing gas and paint thinner because it's a ridiculously cheap/free high for addicts (aka druggies) to attain - NOT because they don't have safe access to "$40 top shelf 1/8ths". Why do some hardcore alcoholics resort to drinking mouthwash when they have safe access to real alcohol & drinking mouthwash for the alcohol does who knows what else? (because they are addicts)
66. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by SternisheFan · 2014-01-05 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  This might be of interest to you...
  http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/active-ingredient-in-pot-sets-off-a-feedback-that-reduces-intoxication/
67. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-05 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks. I did not know about that feedback loop but irreversible agonist are dangerous nonetheless and that goes for any receptor, as they are usually called neurotoxin ;)
68. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by itsdapead · 2014-01-05 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  just under the skateboarding duck
  link please
  Ok: "And finally, over to Sally for a story that may seem a bit 'quackers'!"
  
  --
  In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
69. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-05 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  And some people are allergic to peanuts too.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
70. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-05 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen no chronic risks.Have you? Especially if you cook with it. Preferably you should cook with it.
  I did ask you for citation , rehmat saliva doesn't work.
  Likely it is CBD or CBN which are credited as cures for cancer, diabetes and just about everything else, that keeps you from having much more than a sore throat.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
71. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by noh8rz10 · 2014-01-05 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  In general, inhaling smoke carries acute and chronic risks. I assume MJ is no different
72. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-05 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  Some call it hashish.
  But if you isolated ONLY THC, then it really ISNT marijuana at that point.
  Hops in your beer has THC as well.
  Moot point, sorry.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
73. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-05 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  I had actually heard that elevated CBD (highest in vegetative marijuana, as opposed to blooming marijuana, and medically useful at that) can increase your tolerance to THC.
  Yes, it is interesting to me, thank you.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
74. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-05 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I've been smoking CHRONICALLY (2+ oz. per mo.) for over 35 years now.
  My last doctor visit a few months ago, to a new doctor, popped up the question" you have a little congestion, do you smoke"?
  To which I replied. I've been having allergies, but, I have smoked pot for 35 years, no cigarettes since I was a teen.
  He nearly crawled on top of me to get his light down my throat, then stethoscoped me , front and rear and said "WOW, you are in GREAT SHAPE, even for your age!
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
75. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-05 14:19 · Score: 0
  
  I take your point, as heroin is to the poppy...
76. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-05 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  mmmm, not exactly.
  Heroin is a synthetic produced from the poppy.
  Hashish is the dried tricomes that grow on the flower and flower leaves of marijuana. The frosty part.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
77. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by noh8rz10 · 2014-01-05 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  maybe you shouldn't smoke that much pot? there are other things in life you know.
78. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Keyboard+Rage · 2014-01-05 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, Life has killed more than a few people. In fact, it ends up killing everyone and their little dog!
  Conclusion: Life must be BANNINATED!
79. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-05 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  I live a full life. Is there something to suggest that I dont?
  Im not a TV/Movie character in some Cheech and Chong fantasy any more than people here resemble TV/Movie nerds and geeks and their lives.
  I seem to have more on the ball than most, work a job AND a career, care for a family,raise an orchard and vineyard and a host of other things that insure my time is at a premium. Marijuana has worked like Ritalin for me since I was a teen. WIthout it , my life would not be possible or probable.
  You keep your filthy pills. Ive been to doctors only a handful of times in my life for other than routine checkups. In some of those cases, marijuana made superior pain management to the pills prescribed. I dont support the medical industries hit and miss phony ass medicines that have more caveats than features. I have ACTUAL medicine that my bodies endo-cannabinoid system utilizes as it is EVOLVED to do. Nice try science, but you cause MORE problems than you alleviate and you cost FAR too much.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
80. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-05 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  Might as well roll one up.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
81. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Xest · 2014-01-06 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  Okay I'm not really on either side of the fence on this one, I don't smoke marijuana but nor do I give the slightest toss if anyone else does, it's upto them. Therefore, I really don't have a horse in this race at all.
  But your post... it stinks of hypocrisy. Your argument is that the other guy hasn't provided any evidence, yet you throw out some wild conspiracy theory as to how it's about the profits? What profits? whose profits? are you referring to the tobacco industry or something? why wouldn't they benefit from legalisation? they'd have a whole massive new product line open to them which they could take off the current illegal sales that are worth hundreds of millions, maybe billions.
  So where is your evidence? where is your proof that there's some arbitrary and undefined nonsensical profit motive behind the ban?
  I don't expect rationality from you though, it seems you've already dismissed the fact that there are impartial studies showing at least some harm as "It's all about the profits man!" wild conspiracy theory nonsense. You may claim your anecdote of having suffered no ill effects from your 35 years of smoking the stuff non-stop or whatever it was you said is evidence of it being harmless, I might equally argue that your anecdote of smoking so much of the stuff whilst spewing some nonsense argument involving a vague undefined profit based conspiracy theory is evidence that the statistically significant level of increased paranoia found amongst marijuana smokers in some studies is clearly fact.
  I don't care if you want to argue for legalisation, that's fine, go for it, I really couldn't care, but your post is so logically bankrupt it's unbelievable. You've added nothing to the discussion other than a personal anecdote and a conspiracy theory that you've not even really defined. You'll need something a little more convincing than that if you're going to achieve your goals and you're doing your case no favours by completely failing to engage in rational and logical discussion - on the contrary, it only adds weight to your opposition's portrayal of pot smokers as a bunch of irrational paranoid nutjobs.
  I'm not arguing against legalisation, I am arguing against people who come up with the most retarded and hypocritical arguments going - you're only hurting your own case.
82. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by noh8rz10 · 2014-01-06 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Rollin down the street smokin endo drinkin gin and juice, laid back.
83. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by SternisheFan · 2014-01-06 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Just read in todays NY Daily news that you can now buy "Pot-E-Cigs" legally in Colorado. One 150 milligram cartridge ($15), or a 500mg ($45). The large size will last even a heavy user for weeks. A 'visitor' to the state can buy 47, residents can buy 188 at a time. Illegal to leave the state with them. Just FYI...
84. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-07 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Oh it is not conspiracy theory, it is a widely discussed matter. From the beginning marijuana was made illegal due to big business. You see, the Hearsts (newspaper moguls) owned forests and paper mills. Hemp makes that nice paper you find in old books whose pages havent rotted like a newspaper. Obviously Hearst did more than print papers, he sold paper. He also funded all or at least most of those campy anti-marijuana movies from the period, like Reefer Madness and bought the legislation that made marijuana illegal.
  Marijuana was also widely used as an ingredient in loads of medicines. This dissappeared with its legality. Today, since marijuana cannot be copyrighted, it is pretty useless to the pharmaceutical makers, who couldnt profit from it or make protected intellectual property from it. SO, since they DO have their half assed, poorly similar chemical chains, intended to work the same way, and protected by copy, they have an interest in its continued illegality in order to sell their own garbage sans the competition of medicine that can be produced by the consumer or sold by non-pharma companies.
  It doesnt take a crystal ball (although you can make a youtube analogy) to see that people are finding marijuana superior to pharmaceuticals. Even and especially the medicine that comes from vegitative (pre-psychoactive) plants that treat everything from cancer to Parkinsons and diabetes. No stoners using that. Do a Youtube search for Rick Simpson Oil or Run From the Cure and you will begin to see people who have been healed/cured/controlling their ailments.
  There is NO record anywhere of any harmful effects of marijuana, no victims. Find some evidence if you can. Prove me wrong, that was the original premise of my post. Youve only brought uninformed opinion based on anecdotal heresay pounded in to you by those opposing marijuana, no citations.
  Sorry, my style of entering the conversation rubs you the wrong way, but then, I do it to weed out the idiots.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
85. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Xest · 2014-01-07 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  "Marijuana was also widely used as an ingredient in loads of medicines. This dissappeared with its legality. Today, since marijuana cannot be copyrighted, it is pretty useless to the pharmaceutical makers, who couldnt profit from it or make protected intellectual property from it."
  This makes zero sense. The same is true of carrots, tobacco, water, and many other things, yet companies still make a profit off of these things because there is money in producing a brand surrounding the product. All your comment does is show us you have no concept of how businesses can make money from products rather than provide any real actual insight as to why any company in this day and age would profit from it being banned. Even here though with a product like this there is a lot of scope for companies like the big pharma groups to produce their own copy protected strain of the product that is superior or at least marketed to be so so even intellectual property concerns are a non issue for them. It's long been established in law that you can get intellectual property protections on certain strains of plants you have created.
  I'm not in this debate to prove you wrong that people have been harmed because that'll never happen, even if I do provide an example you'll dismiss it as propaganda, a lie, made up by your mystical conspiratorial opponents. I'm not playing that game because it's pointless. However, why not just search for yourself if you genuinely want evidence? This would be the obvious starting point and unlike you it provides citations for it's claims:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis
  What I do ask however is that if you are going to demand others provide citations for their claims that you play by the same rules, that you provide evidence of your profit-based conspiracy as to why companies in this day and age would profit from a ban on marijuana.
  You just don't seem to grasp the fundamental concept that there is a market for marijuana, a highly profitable market, but one that is currently illegal. It's illegality does not change the fact that it is a market however. This means that no business has anything to lose profit-wise by this market because they could equally enter the market upon legalisation and take their share of the profit from that market that already exists. If pharmaceutical companies are going to lose marketshare of their products to marijuana based products then that simply means they can enter that market and replace lost marketshare by their own branded marijuana products - there's no net loss for them, but potential for net gain, something every business will actively encourage the potential for.
  But last but not least, you've still not provided any evidence for your argument despite asking anyone else to do so, all you've done is spout more nonsense and make stupid claims about weeding out idiots, despite just making yourself look more like an idiot.
  You're not entering the conversation, your spouting nonsense you've completely and utterly failed to back up without any evidence whilst suggesting someone else is wrong because they've done the exact same thing you have.
  Prove your point or accept you are just spouting personal opinion, not any kind of established fact. That's what you demanded of the other guy, that's what I'm demanding of you.
86. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-07 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  I also just saw, there is a shortage already and there are caps on amounts you can purchase.
  I expect the police will have just about as much luck protecting their borders as the states along Mexico.
  I still wouldnt reccomend leaving with any. Why do you think they call it a vacation? Colorado is going to be the NEW Amsterdam. No passport needed.(given you are from the states)
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
87. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-08 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  What can I say? If you dont believe me, go to one of the marijuana news sites for the latest in whats happening.
  None of what I say is any secret or even considered theory by anyone, I suppose, but you.
  Many companies profit from marijuana. From head shops to marijuana shops in CO, for example. That wasnt what I said.
  I said the PHARMACEUTICAL companies cannot profit from it due to their inability to make intellectual profit from it, therefore it becomes a COMPETITIVE market. Pharmaceuticals vs. Marijuana. Sorry, but I dont have the patience to draw any ascii diagrams.
  Im also sorry if Ive misunderstood you. I figured I would be conversing with someone who was somewhat up to speed.
  It all seems to be some surprise to you as though you had just woken like Rip Van Winkle.
  Besides, I think I initially asked for citations to the contrary of my assertions.
  Got any? Thought not. NEXT!
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
88. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-08 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  oops Intellectual property not intellectual profit.
  Lol got my mind on my money and my money on my mind.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
89. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Xest · 2014-01-08 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  It seems all you can do is coming up with more nonsense and no evidence.
  But what else can I expect? You're suggesting marijuana news sites are an objective source of information. Do you really not see that's like saying Sarah Palin's blog is the best source for objective news about the democrats? you really don't realise how stupid that sounds?
90. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-08 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  Its no such thing.
  You were asked for citation to begin with.
  If you can t provide it, youve no challenge to my declaration.
  Do you know how stupid you sound?
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
91. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by Xest · 2014-01-11 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  If ever there was a poster child for "Marijuana does no harm" then you're not it, you claim to smoke loads and then you come here spouting nonsense conspiracy theories whilst being unable follow the conversation, you're an example of someone whose mind is clearly completely messed up so how can you then say "Hey look at me, weed causes no problems!" when you're clearly mentally deficient?
  It wasn't me that needed to provide a citation, I'm not the original guy you demanded a citation from, I'm someone who saw you demanding a citation from someone whilst making spurious claims that you haven't provided citations for. I merely asked you to adhere to the same standards you're asking someone else to adhere to, something you still have not done, and given that you're not willing to adhere to the standards of conversation you're demanding of someone else then how can anyone think your point has any validity? You're a hypocrite.
  I did however provide a link giving some examples of harm that you seem to have glossed over, so even when I have adhered to the standards you're demanding of someone else but have failed to adhered to yourself you still seem to ignore their existence.
  So I mean what is that? are you brain damaged from smoking weed? were you that full of shit to start with even before you ever tried it? Either way you're making no sense, either way you can't back up your claims, either way you're pretending to want facual debate by demanding citations whilst ignoring those that are given and refusing to give any of your own.
  This tells us one thing, you're most certainly wrong, you just don't want to admit it. If you weren't wrong you'd provide some objective unbiased sources, you'd respond to citations provided to you. The fact you can't do that tells us everything we need to know.
  So keep getting high all the time, I mean, look on the bright side, even if there are side effects you can't exactly get any more paranoid and stupid than you already are can you? It's already too late for you so you might as well keep on at it.
92. Re:Hackers are the new Rock Stars by flyneye · 2014-01-13 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  I still see no citations to prove that YOU arent full of shit.
  I have a world of people who understand that theyve been handed a load of bullshit like the link to wikipedia you posted, which offers the same old government issue warnings of maybes, mights, coulds and probablys. All of which, no one has ever seen outside a government sponsored study. Not full blown research, studies, performed and carefully worded for their benefactors to ensure more financial support to follow for writing an agreeable review. You might as well just have claimed the world is flat because the church says so.
  No one has seen any cognitive impairment in children exposed for long periods of time. Produce one.
  Show me one person who has sustained ANY of the mental health issues involved. 0 zero ZERO
  Gateway drug? Prescription pills definitley are. A good reason to switch to marijuana for medication.
  No your silly link is full of the reasons people dont believe government studies. Evidence is before their eyes and that of their neighbors and friends. But you, just keep on letting Uncle Sam take care of you and protect you, after all, Omama knows best.
  Dumbass.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
The real question is . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 02:37 · Score: 0

Did he get those drugs the old fashioned way, or did he get them from the Silk Road (or whatever has replaced it in hackerspace these days).
1. Re:The real question is . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  Why would that be "the real question"?
2. Re:The real question is . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  We have determined the other questions to be decoys.
3. Re:The real question is . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  Because it sounds good in the "title" section of a post
TV show. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 02:42 · Score: 0

If this was a TV show, it would be pretty obvious the girlfriend did it. "He used drugs regularly." Yeah, right :)
CIA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 02:42 · Score: 1

I think he hacked into the CIA and found some nasty shit. So, the CIA hired some goombas to take him out and discredit him - no one takes a drug addict seriously.
1. Re:CIA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 03:17 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Don't forget that they paid off his girlfriend to say he was a drug user.
  This smells to high heaven like a conspiracy.
2. Re:CIA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  He probably was a drug user, the TLA just needed to spice up his supply a bit. Everyone's got something they can hang by.
3. Re:CIA by citizenr · 2014-01-04 05:15 · Score: 2
  
  Hacked into CIA? He worked under DoD Darpa contracts. Whole L0pht does.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tPPD0MRX7I
  "hackers" are now feds.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
4. Re:CIA by Connie_Lingus · 2014-01-04 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  ...well of course...the CIA hired the Illuminati to do it, with the Tri-lateral commission's blessing.
  
  --
  never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
5. Re:CIA by Cito · 2014-01-04 06:39 · Score: 2
  
  The guy was a known hardcore junky, some of the live cam crap he posted on zoklet "totse replacement" was crazy, everyone told him he was gonna be a "Brandon Vedas" aka "Ripper" who od'd in irc and on webcam
Hacked? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 02:48 · Score: 0

It is not out of the realm of possibility that a motivated party found his vuln (recreational drugs) and hacked them (increase purity) to obtain a fatal result. Don't expect to see a presentation on it, though.
1. Re:Hacked? by ColdWetDog · 2014-01-04 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  It is not out of the realm of possibility that a motivated party found his vuln (recreational drugs) and hacked them (increase purity) to obtain a fatal result. Don't expect to see a presentation on it, though.
  It is also not out of the realm of possibility that an alien probe caused a fatal heart dysrythmia. It's just not remotely probable.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You mean it wasn't a conspiracy ? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2014-01-04 02:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Slashdot is really letting itself go, when posts describing the mundane reality take precedence over a good conspiracy story.
Or could it be that the coroner was bought by the peacemaker manufacturing lobby to give that statement? Hmm...

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
1. Re:You mean it wasn't a conspiracy ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot is really letting itself go, when posts describing the mundane reality take precedence over a good conspiracy story.
  Or could it be that the coroner was bought by the peacemaker manufacturing lobby to give that statement? Hmm...
  If the coroner really was bought by the "peacemaker" manufacturing lobby then the cause of death should have been:
  Acute lead poisoning occasioning death.
2. Re:You mean it wasn't a conspiracy ? by mcgrew · 2014-01-04 03:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's easy to get away with murdering a drug user. Even if the guy's a speed freak and he dies of a barbiturate overdose, it's automatically an accident.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
3. Re:You mean it wasn't a conspiracy ? by phantomfive · 2014-01-04 05:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Or could it be that the coroner was bought by the peacemaker manufacturing lobby to give that statement?
  It was heroin. Someone else could have injected it.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
4. Re:You mean it wasn't a conspiracy ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot is really letting itself go, when posts describing the mundane reality take precedence over a good conspiracy story.
  Or could it be that the coroner was bought by the peacemaker manufacturing lobby to give that statement? Hmm...
  I was looking for this too. It's pretty much the only reason I come to slashdot these days--to laugh at all the crazy conspiracy theories that get modded +5 insightful.
5. Re:You mean it wasn't a conspiracy ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  RIP Jane.
  Sweet, sweet Jane.
6. Re:You mean it wasn't a conspiracy ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  or replaced cut heroin with uncut, or mixed heroin with a drug with which it interacts poorly, or probably several other things. We know the level at which these guys play. That much is not speculation.
7. Re:You mean it wasn't a conspiracy ? by deconfliction · 2014-01-04 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  This is another good argument for not using drugs like heroine and coke which you can OD on. I forget the exact quote, but it goes something like "The L.D.50 of cannabis is a 5kg brick thrown from the 7th floor of a high rise".
8. Re:You mean it wasn't a conspiracy ? by leehwtsohg · 2014-01-04 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  And why is being hit in the head by a brick a better way to die?
9. Re:You mean it wasn't a conspiracy ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 11:48 · Score: 0
  
  While true - comparing the two is disingenious.
  Weed users, even the hardcore ones, use it to get in the zone to get happy... to get in their comfortable frame of mind.
  Heroin users shoot up to not feel sick.
  When you have a roaring heroin addiction, there is no choice between heroin or weed - weed doens't even register on the scale of what heroin does to you.
  Same with coke.
10. Re:You mean it wasn't a conspiracy ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 16:43 · Score: 0
  
  "And why is being hit in the head by a brick a better way to die?"
  See that is tricky. If you've transitioned from being a wet bandit into a sticky bandit, you can take several blows to the head from a brick thrown from a tall building.
11. Re:You mean it wasn't a conspiracy ? by quantaman · 2014-01-04 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  Or could it be that the coroner was bought by the peacemaker manufacturing lobby to give that statement?
  It was heroin. Someone else could have injected it.
  It's possible, lots of things are possible. Where's the evidence that it happened?
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
12. Re:You mean it wasn't a conspiracy ? by phantomfive · 2014-01-04 19:09 · Score: 1
  
  In all likelihood, there are at least three errors in the news report of the story. Whether there's evidence or not, it will be hard for us to know.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
13. Re: You mean it wasn't a conspiracy ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-05 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  haha nice home alone reference
"See this gun?" by netsharc · 2014-01-04 02:53 · Score: 0

The way I see it, the men in black pointed the gun at him and said "Take those drugs! Now!"...

--
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
1. Re:"See this gun?" by CanHasDIY · 2014-01-04 03:27 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Our government vehemently believes it has the right to remove you from your home and incarcerate you with no charges or due process.
  Does anyone believe that a government with such a mercurial attitude towards civil liberties wouldn't resort to assassinating citizens who makes a nuisance of themselves?
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
2. Re:"See this gun?" by boundary · 2014-01-04 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  It's OK - he was from New Zealand. Your constitution is safe.
3. Re: "See this gun?" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  The why not simply incarcenate him without due process instead. Would be far more clean.
Bad things by onyxruby · 2014-01-04 02:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

These medications are bad for you, people die once in while, were going to sue and try to ban them. This seems to get just about everyone's approval. However these other medications that were made in a garage or jungle or other unsanitary conditions and routinely kill untold numbers of people but just happen to get people high. Let's legalize them!
If an alien species were to look and observe these types of things they would mark "do not contact" after determining the human race was crazy as hell.
1. Re:Bad things by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  'Legalize it' is talking about marijuana. I guess 0 is an 'untold number'.
2. Re:Bad things by mikeabbott420 · 2014-01-04 03:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Legal drugs aren't made in jungles or unsanitary conditions regardless of any intoxicating property. This is actually one of the arguments for legalizing recreational drugs, e.g. people buying weed in Colorado are far less likely to buy weed that has been sprayed with toxic chemicals like pesticides.
  
  --
  This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
3. Re:Bad things by onyxruby · 2014-01-04 03:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The legalizing it trend is about far more than marijuana and it always has been. Don't fool yourself.
4. Re:Bad things by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  How is this blathering insightful? You're a moron, shouldn't you be listening to Family Radio?
5. Re:Bad things by Immerman · 2014-01-04 03:51 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Actually medications are very rarely banned - what usually happens is doctors just stick to prescribing the safer drugs unless they prove ineffective, in which case they switch to the riskier ones. You know, that whole "Do no harm" oath they take.
  As for the recreational stuff - the point of legalization is not necessarily to voice approval, its an acknowledgement that prohibition doesn't actually work and never has, no matter how draconian the punishments (remember that story about a couple people in a garden and an apple? Or maybe the one about Al Capone?). And that most of the evils associated with the drug trade are due to it's illegal nature, not the drug itself. Since it can't be stopped we may as well legalize it so we can deprive the really horrible, violent people who control the black market of the massive revenue stream that provides most of their funding. Not to mention bringing production into a safer more regulated environment and stopping the militarization of the police force and the erosion of civil liberties. And of course improving the security of the borders - do you really thing a foreign terrorist would try to smuggle his dirty bomb through customs when he can just buy a ticket on a well-established drug run instead? Oh, and reducing human trafficking - slavery is more profitable when you can piggyback on established drug routes instead of having to do everything yourself.
  Besides which, the only recreational drug currently getting any traction towards legalization in the US is marijuana, which is far safer than alcohol by any measure you care to name. And most of the really nasty synthetic stuff was explicitly created as a cheaper or legal alternative to something illegal. If you could buy medical grade cocaine at the corner store with only the usual commercial markup, how many people do you suppose would choose black-market heroin instead?
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
6. Re:Bad things by Cyfun · 2014-01-04 04:10 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Illegal narcotics are made in garages and jungles in unregulated conditions BECAUSE they can't be made legally. One of the main reasons they cause so much harm to people is BECAUSE of these poor manufacturing conditions and how they're cut. We should legalize them simply to allow us to create and distribute them in a safer manner that we can regulate and monitor.
  Besides, people die many times more from prescription drug abuse than illegal drug abuse.
  And alien races likely avoid us because of or proclivity for violence over diplomacy, greed over innovation, and utter lack of common sense. If anything, legalizing narcotics and spending the money treating addicts instead of just tossing them in jail would make it MORE likely that aliens would see us as sensible motherfuckers and contact us.
  So... let's legalize drugs so we can meet some hot green Orion women already!
  
  --
  In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
7. Re:Bad things by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  No, they would just try to avoid you. Legalizing means regulation, sanitation, exact ingredients, purity, proper procedures, proper information, scientific studies, known effects, etc. etc.
  Basically, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
  Instead: Hey, let's give money and power to druglords by completely banning something and going totally bonkers destroying the lives of our youths!
  Captcha: negator
8. Re:Bad things by Fnord666 · 2014-01-04 04:49 · Score: 2
  
  Actually medications are very rarely banned - what usually happens is doctors just stick to prescribing the safer drugs unless they prove ineffective, in which case they switch to the riskier ones. You know, that whole "Do no harm" oath they take.
  You must be seeing different doctors that I do. It seems like a lot of doctors these days prescribe whichever new drug the pharmaceutical rep is pushing this month. Even more so if the pharmaceutical company is providing a multi-day "informational" or "familiarization" conference that happens to be on a cruise ship in the Caribbean.
  
  --
  'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
9. Re:Bad things by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  I have to reply to this because it is at +5 and so hideously wrong.
  Medications are sold not just as a chemical, but as a guarantee. They are given rigorous testing to try to make sure that they will solve a certain health problem, while not causing any other significant health problems.
  Substances sold for recreation like tobacco, alcohol and marijuana are NOT sold with this guarantee or anything like it. In fact, there are very visible warnings on the products themselves and constant awareness campaigns about their ill effects.
  Secondly, the issue of unsanitary drug production is one of the arguments FOR legalization, because it brings that part of the economy out of the control of gangsters who sure as hell don't give a shit about FDA regulations.
  After legalization, the "untold numbers" become a known quantity which we can then monitor to make sure the product they consume is as safe as it can be. They can also be more easily targeted by support groups to help them out of their addiction.
  Not to mention the billions you've suddenly taken out of the cash flow of criminal empires.
  The alien species you talk about would still dismiss us - they would marvel at our collective inability to see the bigger picture.
10. Re:Bad things by fermion · 2014-01-04 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Death is often related to drug abuse. Like guns, the drug does kill, the person does, usually themselves. Right now I would say the bigger issue is abuse of prescription drugs. On big problem is the doctors are complicit. The famous drug addict Rush Limbaugh, for instance, get all his drugs legally. There a millions of people who are addicted to legal prescription drugs, and death rates are as high, or higher, than 20 in 100,000 of the population.
  Again, what we need to look for and provide help for is drug abuse which kills many people every year. For instance about 100,000 people a year die directly or indirectly from alcohol every year, in addition to the huge costs in place on society to to medical care such as liver transplants. We learned the way to solve this was not to ban alcohol, but to provide help and punish irresponsible behavior. For instance if the doctor who supplies Limbaugh were to be locked up for 20 years, others doctors might be less likely to supply drugs o known addicts.
  In the past two generations the idea that drugs are the path to peacefulness and health has taken complete hold of our society. This is not a completely inappropriate idea. Drugs can help quality of life, and an intelligent person can often self medicate to solve many problems. However, the idea that personal behavior is totally outside of the realm of possibility is a problem. For instance I know people who take drugs because of acid reflux. Instead of taking personal responsibility and change their diet, the pop a pill every day. I really don't see any difference between this and someone who does cocaine. In either case it is medicating something that could probably be handled another way.
  Finally there is enforcement. The fact is that some people are allowed to abuse and smuggle drugs and some aren't. Again we can look at Limbaugh. He was caught smuggling a schedule iii drug into the US. If were serious about stopping drugs and drug smuggling he would have been sentenced to up to 10 years of prison time. However, as we are just serious about harassing people, he was let go and has served no prison time.
  
  --
  "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
11. Re:Bad things by Zynder · 2014-01-04 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  The Prohibition trend is about far more than marijuana and it always has been. Don't fool yourself.
  
  We see through your bullshit.
12. Re:Bad things by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  And alien races likely avoid us because of or proclivity for violence over diplomacy, greed over innovation, and utter lack of common sense.
  Because alien races will certainly be one-dimensional, ill-concieved attempts at driving the plot forward. Oh, yes.
  Aliens would be all over our shit with trade agreements, if only to sell deviant human porn to their perverted masses.
13. Re:Bad things by ColdWetDog · 2014-01-04 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that Limbaugh lied his ass off to get the drugs. He received them from multiple physicians in several states. It is unclear how carefully the various doctors screened Limbaugh for misuse and I will bet that a majority of them didn't do due diligence, but the 'patient' has more than a little complicity here.
  Drug abusers (including alcoholics, who are famous for this) lie all of the time. When we do urine drug screens on patients we see all sorts of interesting results. "No, doc, never took any methadone. My cousin gave me a vitamin the other day, that must of been it....."
  Abusable prescription drugs ARE a problem, but they have valid uses as well. We are a long way from figuring out how to solve the problem. Big Pharma has been complicit (some of those executives probably need some jail time), but tossing a whole bunch of doctors in jail isn't going to help much. Might make you feel better.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
14. Re:Bad things by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  Despite having a lot of rules on paper, there is no regulatory body and no way to ensure any of the marijuana in Colorado is being grown safely. It's largely a show of saying "Look, we're responsible!" but in the end it's still 20-something drug dealers selling pot to 20-something potheads, with all the e-coli, fungus, mold, and insect parts that you'd get from any other dispensary.
  Colorado is making a big deal about selling marijuana responsibly, but there is no mechanism to ensure any of that. It's a promise you can only take at face value.
15. Re:Bad things by deconfliction · 2014-01-04 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  If you could buy medical grade cocaine at the corner store with only the usual commercial markup, how many people do you suppose would choose black-market heroin instead?
  I'm curious, since I like your comment generally- was this a 'typo' or did you really mean this. If so, please explain your reasoning. I.e. one is a stimulant, the other a depressant.
16. Re:Bad things by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit. Factory farms are all about spraying their product with pesticides. If you legalize drugs this is what you are going to get. No longer will the shit be grown by some 53 yo hippy in his basement. Instead it will be mass produced in fields,sprayed with pesticides, genetically modified and made round up ready. Instead of being used to feed people this new profit making crop will be genetically modified and pesticided to make people high.
17. Re:Bad things by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  On one hand you are saying the problem with illegal drugs is that the drugs are made anywhere using who know what. This makes them dangerous. On the other hand you admit that prescription drugs (using the tightest FDA safeguards possible) kill more people than the illegal drugs. To me this seems to counteract your argument. Fact: during prohibition there were far fewer per capita deaths due to alcohol (even if you include all the deaths due to the war on alcohol) than there are today when it is legal. We do not need to legalized drugs.
  I do agree with you about treating addicts though. No one should be thrown in jail for using drugs. They should be treated. We should kill the drug dealers though. ( I guess that would include the CEO's of some big pharma companies) . But this will never happen because the drug dealers (both illegal and legal) are making too much money and giving too many bribes (umm political contributions) to the powers that be.
  Fun fact. Before the Kennedys came into politics they were booze runners. I guess there was more profit to be made taxing the legal stuff than running the illegal stuff.
18. Re:Bad things by Immerman · 2014-01-04 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, I could have sworn... wiki...,wiki...,wiki...
  Oops, good catch. It was opiates that heroin was created to replace. It's amphetamines that were created to replace cocaine.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
19. Re:Bad things by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 16:14 · Score: 0
  
  If you could buy medical grade cocaine at the corner store with only the usual commercial markup, how many people do you suppose would choose black-market heroin instead?
  Every junkie who's not a cokehead, assuming they couldn't also get medical grade heroin or oxycodone from the same corner store.
20. Re:Bad things by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 23:32 · Score: 0
  
  Wiki is such a treat, isn't it? :>
Why do we care? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 02:55 · Score: 0

So, some idiot can't handle his drugs and he died. Happens all the time Why is this news? Just because he was a hacker? So what. If you're going to use drugs, be informed. Mixing opiates with benzos is stupid. Opiates are strong enough respiratory depressants on their own. I feel bad for his girlfriend, but not for him.
If James Bond had died this way by TheloniousToady · 2014-01-04 02:55 · Score: 5, Funny

From the Top Secret coroner's report on 007's death:

Witnesses report that the decedent ingested a cocktail of drugs just prior to death. When they tried to revive him, he was shaken, but not stirred.
"girlfriend" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 02:56 · Score: 0

The chick she picked up a few days/weeks/months before from some bar, where she suddenly appeared and looked "so promising" ?
Yeah. Of course she tells he has been a drug addict for ages ;)
"Just sprinkle some crack on him..." by rmdingler · 2014-01-04 02:57 · Score: 1

here

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
British sevret service style. by serviscope_minor · 2014-01-04 03:15 · Score: 1

Should have gone MI5 style. He died of a drug overdose. The 45 calibre hole in his head was from the needle. The doors and windows were smashed inwards in a suspected altercation with his dealer.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
1. Re:British sevret service style. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-01-04 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  The 45 calibre hole in his head was from the needle.
  Reminded me of this...
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
Barnaby who??? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 03:22 · Score: 0

Yeah, this guy's no rock star.
Don't do drugs, kids! by Max+Threshold · 2014-01-04 03:50 · Score: 4, Funny

If you do drugs, the CIA will definitely use an overdose to assassinate you.
1. Re:Don't do drugs, kids! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  If you've pissed off the CIA, isn't that the nicest way to go?
2. Re:Don't do drugs, kids! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Let em try. I only smoke weed.
3. Re:Don't do drugs, kids! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  If the CIA wants to assassinate someone, I'm sure they'll find a way to do it even if drugging them isn't an option.
4. Re:Don't do drugs, kids! by antdude · 2014-01-04 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  "Drugs are bad, mmkay?"
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
5. Re:Don't do drugs, kids! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-05 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  I Really dont put it past some parts(Read all) of the US Government from killing him.
  still thinking thats what's actually happened.
Don't believe it. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 04:08 · Score: 0

Usually if there is a suspicious death... the cause is "drug overdose"
Diphenhydramine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 04:40 · Score: 0

I get all hoped up on diphenhydramine all the time. I don't think there's a warning about combing it with heroine, cocaine, and Xanax though.
hacker with a girlfriend? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 04:46 · Score: 0

obviously she was planted and in on it.
The reality of drugs are very grim by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 04:51 · Score: 0, Troll

I'm sorry to hear a talented hacker died because he foolishly believed recreational drug use was normal or acceptable.
Despite people claiming drug use is normal, natural, and safe, history is filled with dead rock stars, artists, musicians, and regular Joes who struggled and succumbed to drug addiction. Even "safe" drugs like marijuana have been scientifically proven to be addictive, induce depression, schizophrenia, and reduce motivation. Pets are dying from eating marijuana edibles, and edibles make small children so ill they have to go to the ER.
There's a reason every society on Earth thinks drugs are bad, and it isn't due to a government or pharmaceutical conspiracy. Any drug, even legal prescription drugs, have severe side effects, and can be damaging or fatal. Drugs need to be used only when necessary, and recreational drug use is practically the definition of self-injury. Portugal's experiment with drug decriminalization just ended up with a huge body of people who needed rehabilitation, and they now have more support groups for addicts than any country on Earth. There are no legal drug success stories, unless you only look at the financial gain of the drug dealers and criminals who run pot dispensaries.
And yes, all this applies to alcohol. I'm saying that before any potheads fire back with the same tired "But, Prohibition!" arguments in a desperate attempt to justify their mistake.
1. Re:The reality of drugs are very grim by Zynder · 2014-01-04 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Does Narcotics Anonymous pay you to post on Slashdot? This sounds like something straight out of The Book.
Weird stuff in the Medical Report by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 05:09 · Score: 1

I am unsure why Heroin is in the mix. He didnt seem to use Heroin. More weird stuff:
The report says there were abrasion on the cheeks, and contusions in the fingers. There was an "electrocardiographic monitoring electrode on the left chest".
Conspiracy theorist have a lot of ammo here.
1. Re:Weird stuff in the Medical Report by Oligonicella · 2014-01-04 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  **Air** Is ammo for a friggin' conspiracy not.
2. Re:Weird stuff in the Medical Report by ColdWetDog · 2014-01-04 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  I am unsure why Heroin is in the mix. He didnt seem to use Heroin. More weird stuff:
  The report says there were abrasion on the cheeks, and contusions in the fingers. There was an "electrocardiographic monitoring electrode on the left chest".
  Conspiracy theorist have a lot of ammo here.
  The EKG lead is easy. EMS is going to put one on you to see if you have any sort of heart rhythm.
  I guess you conspiracy guys are going to have a field day with the contusions and abrasions. However, you might want to try being dragged about in a body bag before you publish everything.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re: Hacker Barnaby Jack Died of Drug Overdose by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 06:26 · Score: 0

Shut up.NSA can not fool whole world. Barnaby Jack was killed by NSAand now NSA comes up with the most foolish explanation in collusion with medical board of that place in USA.
I am really ashamed that a genius was killed and now after his killinghe is being maligned. Barnaby’s girlfriend is a co-conspirator with NSA to kill Barnaby. She can not fool..at least me.
Sincerely,
Kulvinder. (From New Delhi..India)
E. mail : kulvinder.bifm@gmail.com
Mobile Numbers: +91-9015697285
+91-9017911981
Re: Hacker Barnaby Jack Died of Drug Overdose by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 06:29 · Score: 0

Shut up.NSA can not fool whole world. Barnaby Jack was killed by NSAand now NSA comes up with the most foolish explanation in collusion with medical board of that place in USA.
I am really ashamed that a genius was killed and now after his killinghe is being maligned. Barnaby’s girlfriend is a co-conspirator with NSA to kill Barnaby. She can not fool..at least me.
Sincerely,
Kulvinder.
E. mail : kulvinder.bifm@gmail.com
Mobile Numbers: +91-9015697285
+91-9017911981
Re: Hacker Barnaby Jack Died of Drug Overdose by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 06:34 · Score: 0

Oh Dearest Barnaby..you were an idiol to billions on this globe...including me...
Shut up.NSA can not fool whole world. Barnaby Jack was killed by NSAand now NSA comes up with the most foolish explanation in collusion with medical board of that place in USA.
I am really ashamed that a genius was killed and now after his killinghe is being maligned. Barnaby’s girlfriend is a co-conspirator with NSA to kill Barnaby. She can not fool..at least me.
Sincerely,
Kulvinder.
E. mail : kulvinder.bifm@gmail.com
My Mobile Numbers: +91-9015697285
+91-9017911981
Drug prescriptions ... by King_TJ · 2014-01-04 06:36 · Score: 1

Yep.... I remember a while back, taking my kid to see the psychologist the school recommended, after a lot of prodding that she needed to see someone about her apparent ADHD. (While not a big fan of all the use of drugs for this, I relented because I'm divorced, with pretty much full custody of my kid. Today's combination of public schools and child services means they can quickly make things get ugly for you if you say no to their repeated suggestions.)
Anyway, the doctor looked over some of the notes the school made and some of her homework assignments, spent a few minutes interviewing her (and me), and pretty quickly wrote up a prescription for a particular ADHD medication. Having done a little research myself first (plus knowing other families with kids on these meds), I asked him why he was prescribing the one he did, vs. an alternative I felt might make more sense to try first. His answer? "Oh, there are a number of options out there, but I just like this one because it's the one I'm most familiar with." (A quick survey of his office revealed several promotional items around from guess which drug company? Yep....)
I mean, come on.... if you're in this field, shouldn't you be "familiar with" pretty much ALL of the drugs for something as common as ADHD?
1. Re:Drug prescriptions ... by TheGratefulNet · 2014-01-04 09:06 · Score: 2
  
  general practitioners are not super smart people. they had to be, once, to pass their exams, but they quickly forget most of their training and now just hawk the pharma products they were told to.
  I once had a really bad medical condition that lasted for several months. I was on short-term disab due to this and I kept going to the doctor to find out what was wrong. their approach? try this antibiotic for a few weeks and come back. we'll see how it worked. if that didn't do it, we'll try this one. and then that one.
  shit! I could have done that myself (if I could get access to those). is this 'training'? no! its a sequential list of trials with no analysis done at all. this is what passes for 'medical knowledge' in many cases, today.
  I used to travel to the UK pretty regularly and once when I was sick there, I simply went to a dispensing chemist (like a pharmacy in the US, but they have much more ability to mix and prescribe drugs, removing the need for the 'search/try list' doctor visit). I was amazed (and the thing that he mixed up, literally, for me in that bottle did the trick). didn't have to go to a dr. and didn't have to waste time or money.
  for simple things, I'd much rather just go to my pharmacist. they seem to know the drugs WAY better than doctors, for the most part. for surgery, sure, go to a dr. but for drugs, doctors rarely know what the hell they're doing. they know general guidelines but they are not chemists and most forgot all their bio/chem lessons and are 'mechanics', at best).
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
2. Re:Drug prescriptions ... by vlueboy · 2014-01-04 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  His answer? "Oh, there are a number of options out there, but I just like this one because it's the one I'm most familiar with." (A quick survey of his office revealed several promotional items around from guess which drug company? Yep....)
  I mean, come on.... if you're in this field, shouldn't you be "familiar with" pretty much ALL of the drugs for something as common as ADHD?
  Put yourself in their shoes by replacing "drugs" with Operating System and problem with "Viruses." Do slashdot pros know *all* the choices for something as "common" as an OS choice?
  Just like slashdot pros can choose to be offering/installing their favorite OS (Windows, Linux favors or Macs), in the end, the doctor is doing what they know. That's better than EXPERIMENTING on your child as step 1. If step 1 fails, then they begin unpacking the lesser known alternatives and outliers. Or you can get a second opinion if they're adamant.
  And regarding the evidence for promotial packages, it's only logical that the doctor would have something around the office for the product they know, and you can't bet that this was the work of advertisement, rather than a well-formed medical school standard or defacto choice of the field.
  Wouldn't you find in your own shop some evidence of what you're familiar with? what would YOU have in your environment that betrays your allegiance, and why? Wouldn't a few penguins plush dolls on people's desks, or anti-windows wallpapers, or for the Windows choosers, you'd perhaps find surplus job training paraphernalia or trial CD's because keeping it is "free". Even the Intel inside, or Windows 7 stickers count.
3. Re:Drug prescriptions ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-05 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  Except he said he took his kid to see a psychologist, who being one recommended by the school presumably has quite a few patients with ADHD, not a GP.
Occam's Razor by westlake · 2014-01-04 06:42 · Score: 2

It was heroin. Someone else could have injected it.
It was a drug cocktail.
Evidence of long-tern drug and alcohol abuse isn't likely to escape the notice of a competent pathologist.

The autopsy report has now been made available and says Mr Jack had shown "no visible or palpable evidence of trauma".
Instead, his physical symptoms indicated an accidental overdose of heroin, cocaine, and prescription drugs.
The report said Mr Jack's girlfriend had found him lying in bed unresponsive, with "multiple bottles of beer and champagne in the garbage can".
Elite Hacker Barnaby Jack 'overdosed on drugs'
1. Re:Occam's Razor by ColdWetDog · 2014-01-04 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  The report said Mr Jack's girlfriend had found him lying in bed unresponsive, with "multiple bottles of beer and champagne in the garbage can".
  There. That's it. The smoking gun. No self respecting whacked out druggy is going to put the bottles in the trash can. He'd recycle them.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Let's come to a moderate conclusion. by eyenot · 2014-01-04 07:36 · Score: 1

If we can, let's put this death into the form of a something like a "Dead Schroedinger's Cat" and put it in a box for the time being.
You don't know for sure why this dead cat is dead, because you don't know enough about it, so you, being no sort of authority on the hidden and ever-changing features of the sub rosa, cannot make well-founded claims as to the causes behind this guy's death.
The "cat" is either dead from a legitimate overdose, or the "cat" is dead from being administered a bad cocktail by some agent of the empire. Unless you open the box, you don't know which it was.
The thing is, it's a dead fucking cat. And either way you look at it, drugs were involved. Does it matter if the guy was chasing his personal dragon and fucked up, or whether somebody showed up at his place and interrogated and killed him with his own drugs and some stuff found in the medicine cabinet? Allow me to carry the "penetration" analogy that some others in comments have mentioned, that in either case, the vector of "attack" is the drugs, the "attacker" being death.
Why would you want to fuck around with things like heroin or cocaine? I'm not a total drug-prude or something. I once spent an entire year, sans three days, high on some weed from Afghanistan. My cousin owns a successful pot shop in Colorado, and he's digging the new legalization just as much as I am. Of course, I can't smoke right now because it ruins my concentration and I'm going through college (a little late I might add) but that's all cool, smoke away, nobody ever died of a fucking pot overdose. I once did a couple doses of crystal MDMA, it was nice (nothing like what ravers describe Ecstacy to be), I felt super relaxed for the first time in my life since, like, adolescence, and it has had a nice, long-term residual effect, so that I don't think I will need to add to it for quite a number of years. But I would never contribute to my death with something known to be instantly lethal like cocaine or heroin. So many friends of mine have died using heroin, it's sort of a lost cause to tell me that there's A World Where heroin is okay to use. Cocaine is notoriously addictive and life-ruining, not to mention associated with heart disease (though some say it's a good agent against cholesterol levels). I tended to my Grandfather on his deathbed while I observed his decline accelerating due to his prescribed addiction to Xanax. So that's me, that's where I'm coming from.
I say it's stupid to do hard or addictive drugs. Look at what you're setting yourself up for: addiction and potential death. Where's the trade-off? "An altered state of mind"? There are plenty of safe hallucinogens to use. "Oh, I do it for the energy" that's bullshit, since I quite using caffeine and smoking cigarettes I have more energy than I ever did before. This is a documented side-effect of quitting systemically harmful drugs, especially stimulants. You don't have to worship L Ron Hubbard to know that some substances are plainly fucking stupid on their face.
And now look at the other possible quantum state of Dead Schroedinger's Cat, here. Suppose he DID get nipped by some secret agent spy-man. What was the cover-up? The guy's drug usage which some here believe is a made-up story but others have pointed out was a fact the guy himself made known. What would we be looking at if there wasn't this handy cover-up available, and a handy stash of drugs and well-stsocked medicine cabinet nearby to aid the implement of destruction? In all likelihood there would be a much more questionable medical examiner's report. So, again, the drug use serves up more "cons" than pros, this time directly to the people who are concerned with this guy's life -- fans, or whatever. You weren't getting high from this guy's drug use. There's no benefit to his drug use at all to you, but now that you're scratching your head wondering "WTF", there's definitely a major drawback to it, wouldn't you say?
So whether the dead cat inside is dead of its own cause, or somebody intervened to hasten d

--
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
1. Re:Let's come to a moderate conclusion. by VortexCortex · 2014-01-04 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Does it matter if the guy was chasing his personal dragon and fucked up, or whether somebody showed up at his place and interrogated and killed him with his own drugs and some stuff found in the medicine cabinet?
  Yes, as a matter of fact it does. You see, if you overdose yourself, then the overdoser is dead. However, if someone else did it, then they're still out there, ready to overdose someone again. As a scientist I need no False Schroedinger "cat" Dichotomy. I can attribute percentages of likelihoods as to the cause beyond all or nothing. Right now I'm leaning towards a conclusion of self overdose rather than foul play, but I don't eliminate the latter possibility. Using this mental model I can make informed guesses as to the apt response: If you use drugs and you're making the state agencies look bad, you might want to stop drugging it up and make it very clear that everyone knows so. Additionally it says some other non-conspiratorial advice: Ensure you can trust your significant other and friends if you're going to get loaded, and also have a designated dialer -- Someone not loaded up to call or drive you to the paramedics in case someone does OD.
  The point is that by avoiding the false dichotomy I can come to better informed hypotheses and methods for survival than only considering one cause or the other.
  Additionally, You seem to be a bit hypocritical: "Why would you want to fuck around with things like heroin or cocaine?" You know full well or you wouldn't be using mind altering substances:
  
  I once spent an entire year, sans three days, high on some weed from Afghanistan. My cousin owns a successful pot shop in Colorado, and he's digging the new legalization just as much as I am. Of course, I can't smoke right now because it ruins my concentration and I'm going through college (a little late I might add) but that's all cool, smoke away, nobody ever died of a fucking pot overdose. I once did a couple doses of crystal MDMA
  Note my aforementioned advice applies to you. Your Afghani weed could be laced with crystal meth, crack-cocaine, rat poison, etc. Additionally, your history of experimenting with drugs besides pot opens the doorway for conspiratorial operatives to plausibly have you "accidentally" overdose on laced weed rather than a harder drug cocktail.
  
  So, if this dead guy is some great big deal to you and you feel like you've really lost something here, then why don't you grieve his use of "hard" drugs?
  Humans are tool using creatures, and drugs are a tool. I've witnessed lives saved through drugs, and also individuals achieving new ways of thinking through experiencing mind altering chemicals and/or devices. Who's to say the person would have achieved admiration without the drugs they used? Your classification of "hard" drugs is suspect, since no such line exists in nature. Some would call LSD or MDMA hard drugs; Others would call marijuana a hard drug because its effects last so long compared to alcohol or coke; Still others would call anything other than over the counter drugs -- even prescription drugs -- as "hard" drugs. You'd do better grieving for the lack of medical technology to revive the fellow, and/or to allow the safe use mind altering substances. If you sample the grieving you'll find it primarily stems from the fact the guy is dead, not that he altered his mind and body with drugs. Don't be a fool.
2. Re:Let's come to a moderate conclusion. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 11:25 · Score: 0
  
  I once spent an entire year, sans three days, high on some weed from Afghanistan.
  Note my aforementioned advice applies to you. Your Afghani weed could be laced with crystal meth, crack-cocaine, rat poison, etc.
  The hell you say, that's quality weed! We JUST invaded Afghanistan in a police action, and no one is doing anything illegal there any more! In fact, we are still there, policing the hell out of them! Whoever heard of a Moslem holding a grudge?!?
Heath Ledger died the same way, minus cocaine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 08:50 · Score: 1

I read the coroners report and the typical cause of death with this particular cocktail is "acute respiratory failure due to depression of the central nervous system". Cocaine is used to offset the nodding-off effect so the user can enjoy the opiate and benzo-induced euphoria without falling asleep ("why put frosting on the cake if you can't taste it" is a common sentiment among opiate users). This is common knowledge in the medical community.
CNS depressants all carry this danger, particularly when combined. The fluid found in Jack's lungs (the edema noted in the coroners report) is consistent with the noted cause of death, especially given that rigor mortis had already set in, indicating Mr. Jack had been dead for a few hours.
No conspiracy here, just another casualty of our society's tendency to self-medicate and lack of education regarding the effects of certain drug combinations.
Something else I found of interest in the report was the presence of levamisole. This nasty stuff has been used to cut cocaine for a number of years and should not be smoked/snorted/injected by anyone who prefers to keep their organs and body tissue in semi-decent working order.
Uhm, excuse me, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 09:32 · Score: 0

I'm not a nerd. I am John Q Public that has an interest in science. With that, I must say that I am seriously not joking when I ask who the fuck Barnaby Jack was, or why I should care that he, like millions of other druggies, overdosed? If I've never heard of him, I highly doubt he could be equated to a rock star. A rock star in nerd circles, maybe, but not in normal-people circles.
1. Re:Uhm, excuse me, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  I know using google is beyond many people these days, but putting in a slight amount of effort, like - typing his name in, would have taken you a long way.
  https://www.google.com/search?q=barnaby+jack
2. Re:Uhm, excuse me, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  Too much effort to Google a topic I care so little about.
  Hell, I care so little about it that I also consider it to be too much effort to click on the link you provided.
How Convenient by 7dragon · 2014-01-04 10:56 · Score: 1

And his "girlfriend says" he regularly used drugs.
So convenient, and full of hearsay, to explain it all away...
That's must what "they" want you to believe by gelfling · 2014-01-04 11:14 · Score: 1

The truth is out there.
Nope by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 12:59 · Score: 0

Heroine is dope, not Marijuana.
No, it's not. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 13:09 · Score: 0

The content of street drugs is just as problematic as "mix and match". Whenever you hear someone die of a Heroine OD, it's usually not cause they shot-up the whole bag or railed a twenty along with it... it's because they got some "bad shit".
I used to have friends in the "businses", they would cut their shit with all kinds of nasty garbage. Heroine cut with draino, cocaine cut with rat-poison, marijuana laced with formaldehyde or cheap/banned pesticides etc...
You never know what you're putting into your body with street drugs, it's a constant fear that even simple potheads deal with and 9/10 the cause of most "overdoses".
That isn't to say that many people don't overdose on Oxycottin or Xanax, but that in no way takes away from the dangers of ingesting chemical cocktails delivered to you by out of control violent criminals and thugs.
smh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 13:17 · Score: 0

You don't have to get on the internet at all you fucking nerd.
You don't have to ever engage in sexual activity you pervert.
You don't have to eat chocolate fat piece of shit.
You don't have to drive a car you lazy fuck.
You don't have to drink alcohol you fucking booze hound.
yadayada....
lol by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 13:22 · Score: 0

Yes, if only he had never left his mother's arms nothing bad would ever have happened to him.
smh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 13:33 · Score: 0

Yeah, cause aliens probing people and high-profile individuals working in politically sensitive areas being conveniently murdered are in the same area of plausibility.
Next you'll be telling us that the Gulf of Tonka incident was real and only schizophrenics doubt the official Govt/Media story.
"I WARNED HIM!" - The Real Joker, Jack N. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-04 16:47 · Score: 0

NT
No surprise. by couchslug · 2014-01-05 01:46 · Score: 1

Drugs can be great fun if used wisely. Why would he not indulge?
Some drugs are often fatal (booze and nicotine especially), and others can be if one gets silly. Not everyone is Keith Richards so some folks croak. No big deal and not a surprise.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Drug Testing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-06 02:59 · Score: 0

I thought computer security experts were drug tested.