Slashdot Mirror


FBI Need Potheads To Fight Cybercrime

An anonymous reader writes "The rate of cybercrime is growing and growing, and law enforcement is struggling to keep up. The FBI is in the process of beefing up its headcount, but they're running into a problem: many of the hackers applying for these jobs have a history of marijuana use, and the agency has a zero tolerance policy. FBI Director James Comey said, 'I have to hire a great work force to compete with those cyber criminals and some of those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview.' However, change may be on the horizon: Comey said the FBI is changing 'both our mindset and the way we do business.' He also encouraged job applications from former pot users despite the policy."

48 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by davydagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait a second, I thought potheads were worthless burnouts who will never amount to anything?

    Looks like one bullshit stereotype driven war is affecting our ability to fight another bullshit stereotype driven war.

    The irony is fucking killing me.

    1. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes you have, you just don't know it because they aren't advertising that they smoke.

    2. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by NotInHere · · Score: 5, Funny

      Smoke from what? Too much current? Its pretty hard to make a pothead smoke!

    3. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When has admitting that you smoke pot to a law enforcement officer ever turned out to be "good" for you? Seriously, if you hack and smoke pot, don't work for the FBI. Not until pot becomes legal everywhere in the US.

    4. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pot use just doesn't happen in this industry.

      ...and there are no gays in Iran. Right. :-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm an accomplished software developer, i smoke pot, i make 6 figures have a family and kids. I have many friends who smoke pot, they include directors of large telecommunications companies, several engineers of different disciplines, and of course other developers. We all have nice houses, cars some of us have boats, yachts and horses. We all hang out and smoke pot together, work on recreational software/hardware projects some private some public, some open source some closed.

      We have an uncanny ability to find our own kind like most other subcultures and like many we don't advertise it.

    6. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      You are forgetting the possibility that your sample may not be representative. They may self-select against jobs that drug test, or they may be good at passing drug tests through various means.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    7. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by dcollins · · Score: 2

      Maybe you were too drunk to notice.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    8. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by flyneye · · Score: 2

      As one of the top 4% of minds in the world, I have smoked an average of two oz. of cannabis a month for the last 38 years. Ive blow it all off over time,designed everything from military weapons to consumer electronics, interviewed more celebrities than youll ever meet in a lifetime,received two bullshit doctorates from Ivy league Universities and have the gall to offer my top of the line archtop guitar for a cool $35k U.S. This is only from my hobbies.
      What have you done lately?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    9. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or they all detected your attitude and so didn't mention it.

    10. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More likely you're a straight-laced prude that no professional who smoked would reveal themselves to for fear of being turned in to the authorities. If I were to guess from my own experiences I'd say somewhere around 20-40% of computer professionals I've known smoke at least on the weekends - more among the creative programmer types.

      Ask yourself this - how many computer professionals would you estimate drink alcohol? Now, how many of those would you be able to guess if they never mentioned the fact around you? And how many do you suppose would mention the fact in your presence if it were illegal? The fact is you can't tell what drugs somebody uses just by looking at them, unless they are heavy addicts. A stoner, drunk, etc. is obvious, but they're never going to make it in the professional world anyway. The responsible users who have a glass of wine or smoke a bowl after dinner look just like everyone else once they sober up.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    11. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      In case that's sarcastic, it was too subtle for internet use.

      Look around you at work. Look left. Look right. If there's more than 5 people in the room, one of them is a regular user. If not, things are VERY different in your home country than in mine (and no, this here ain't the Netherlands where stuff like that would be legal).

      I don't, I noticed that stuff doesn't do jack to me but making me incredibly sleepy. If I wanted that, I'd go to more meetings, they have quite the same effect on me, are not only cheaper but I'd even get paid for it. But some people enjoy it as a way to unwind. Personally, I don't care. There's no drug tests in my department. Mostly 'cause I know how they'd end...

      The ONLY thing I care about is whether someone can do his work and is sober when he's on the clock. If you can accomplish that, why should I care what you smoke, sniff or snort in your spare time? If it affects your work, your ability to do it or your efficiency, we have to talk. The same applies to everything else, btw, if your pastimes cut into your work, if you're injured every other week 'cause of a high risk sport, we are also going to have a problem.

      Else... have fun.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by DeathElk · · Score: 4, Funny

      At least he doesn't smoke crack, unlike you...

    13. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by JimSadler · · Score: 2

      Call me silly but shouldn't we always want to hire people who obey the law before any consideration is given to people who do break the law?

    14. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      actually, no. You want people who can understand the people their chasing...and this is the FBI basically admitting that it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, and their missing out on thousands of highly effective hackers because of duPont Chemical's need to protect their profits against hemp paper and the racist policies of the past. Hire a criminal to catch criminals!

    15. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by rgbatduke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When I was much (decades) younger (and still smoked) I wrote code all of the time when high. In fact, it was one of life's pleasures -- the concentration focus was fantastic. And yes, the code was very complex, was thousands of lines long (when finished) and ran perfectly when I was done as far as I was ever able to tell.

      With that said, not everybody could do what I did and work effectively high. But I knew a fair number who could and did, and of course I knew a few who were useless when high. Of course, I knew a fair number or people who were useless coders stone cold straight. This isn't terribly surprising -- the world is full of functional alcoholics too. Pot is different from alcohol, though, in so many ways. Alcohol eventually puts you into a stupor, then kills you. Pot at worst puts you to sleep and has no known fatal dose. It is considerably safer than aspirin or caffeine -- the former you can easily overdose on or it can kill you outright with e.g. Reyes' Syndrome. Caffeine is lethal at doses somewhere between 2 and 20 grams (depending on your metabolism and weight) -- not easy to ingest in coffee, easy to ingest if you put a couple of spoonfuls of legal, over the counter caffeine powder onto your morning post toasties. Cigarettes, don't get me started -- a single cigarette can kill a small child if accidentally ingested, and nicotine makes a dandy insecticide even when highly diluted.

      In addition to being amazingly safe compared to almost anything humans consume outside of brocolli, pot is basically a non-prescription (openly illegal in many states) antidepressant. Lots of people who smoke (or drink, for that matter) are self-medicating or compensating for the fact that their lives suck for reasons utterly beyond their control. Is it a good medicine compared to SSRIs or other prescription medicines? I don't know. I do know that drug companies don't want you to have the choice. I do know from bitter experience that the law enforcement industry from police through the lawyers and the courts make a living from pot. I know that the biggest single risk for pot smokers isn't anything associated with pot itself -- it is being arrested, charged, jailed, forced to pay thousands of dollars for bail, forced to pay thousands more for lawyers, forced to pay fines and court costs, forced to endure probation, forced to pay for "rehabilitation". It is being fired, not being hired, not getting into college not because of your grades or intelligence (both of which can be just fine) but because of your "police record". And the penalties scale up enormously for the poor and stupid who often smoke weed because life as a janitor or store greeter or one of the dudes who has to put on a costume and wave at passing cars to get them to file their taxes or patronize a failing store sucks, but weed makes the menial and mindless jobs you can get a bit more tolerable without ruining your liver.

      If pot has a flaw as a recreational substance, it is that it can, by making a shitty situation tolerable, act as an ambition suck. Hamlet on pot:

      To be, or not to be: that is the question:
      Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
      The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
      Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
      And by opposing end them? Or just get high
      And suffer no more; and by suffer to say we end
      The head-ache of the thousand natural schlocks
      That life is heir to, 'tis a consummation
      Devoutly to be wish'd. So don't bogart that joint,
      My friend, pass it on over to me...

      Sometimes, though, it really is better to take arms against the sea of troubles and by opposing end them. Pot can make it a bit too easy to suffer the slings and arrows and end up trapped in a life that consists of little else. Or not. Or it can do so for a while, and then people grow up. Ultimately, it ain't nobody's business but your own, and it certainly isn't a positive predictor of failure -- or success. Like anything, for some people (especially some of the me

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    16. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by rgbatduke · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...contradictory, inconclusive, and (as even Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN finally came to realize and stated in public when he changed his stance on pot) the result of decades of research funded for the sole purpose of finding something wrong with pot. If 96% or more of all research grants are titled "Investigating Marijuana as a risk factor of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia", and the only way to have a grant renewed is to find some positive (that is, negative) effect, it is hardly surprising that 96% of all research results turn up something negative about pot. What is really interesting is that in spite of subjecting it to a microscope far more demanding than we have ever applied to any other substance under similar circumstances, so very little has been double-blind confirmed as a "risk" to pot smokers. It "interferes with" (but certainly does not "prevent") the formation of short term memory -- for the duration of the time you are high, with no long-term effects. It is indeed used as self-medication for lots of different kinds of dysphoria, and can by preventing or ameliorating dysphoria keep people from making beneficial life changes. Sometimes one does need to take action instead of endure when life sucks. Other times, its gonna suck regardless of what you do, and then sure, pot can help make it suck less.

      The other really interesting thing about pot is the number of myths straight out of the War on Drugs are still being perpetuated by people who heard some pithy thing about it twenty or thirty years ago and never thought to doubt the veracity of their government or question its interest in the whole matter.

      http://www.drfranklucido.com/p...

      http://medicalmarijuana.procon...

      The government itself is pretty schizophrenic on the issue. There are several places one can get to (compilations of) original papers on pot, and (allowing for the confirmation bias that is rampant in medical science these days, especially when reporting anecdotal "evidence" rather than double blind, placebo controlled studies) it really is pretty benign compared to ever so many other things that are quite legal. The same cop who arrests you, the judge who sits on your case, and the lawyer who gets you off can easily be functional alcoholics. I'm guessing alcohol and bipolar disorder or schizophrenia don't mix real well either -- but that is never mentioned or discussed, for some reason...

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    17. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by dcollins117 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Occasionally (depending on the individual LEO, the circumstances, and your flawless delivery) you can use a truthful response to your advantage during a roadside interview.

      Anything you say can and will be used against you. Keep your trap shut.

    18. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by mrxak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This whole "problem" the FBI has would be solved by legalization. It would solve a lot of other problems, too, like our overcrowded prisons and a fair bit of untaxed organized crime.

      I've never smoked marijuana, and I don't think I've ever even smelled it. If it was suddenly legal tomorrow, I probably wouldn't become a major pothead (and neither would anyone else who isn't already). I still support legalization. It is such a waste to keep marijuana illegal. It should just be like alcohol or tobacco, both of which are more dangerous and addictive than marijuana.

      We all know how alcohol prohibition turned out. Everybody can see how marijuana prohibition is turning out. Everyone who wants to can still get their hands on it, and it's only encouraged a black market largely run by organized crime. The FBI complaining they can't hire any good cyber security experts is just the latest in a long line of absurdities resulting from this nonsense.

      Can we please get whatever equivalent to the twenty-first amendment it'll take to end the madness over reefer?

      Yes, I went there.

    19. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being financially successful is not the same thing as being useful to society. In fact, often enough people who are harmful to society are financially successful.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    20. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Funny

      Top 3%, designed everything from anti-matter weapons to consumer teleportation devices, been an a-list celebrity, received 3 doctorates from Oxford universties, all on the subject of bovine defecation and have the gall to offer my top of the line Theramin for $35,000.25

    21. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by careysub · · Score: 2

      I know that the biggest single risk for pot smokers isn't anything associated with pot itself -- it is being arrested, charged, jailed, forced to pay thousands of dollars for bail, forced to pay thousands more for lawyers, forced to pay fines and court costs, forced to endure probation, forced to pay for "rehabilitation"

      The way they put it, back in the day was: "Pot is dangerous to your health because it can cause your body to get thrown in jail."

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    22. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, no and double no. You will never, ever get out of an arrest for drug possession by admitting to possessing drugs. It doesn't matter if the nice police officer man says he'll "go easy on you if you just admit it," he won't. He's lying to you, because he's allowed to lie to you. There is no reward system in place for "how many honest drug users did you let off the hook today?" There is only a reward system for "how many violators of the law did you apprehend today?"

      Do. Not. Talk. To. Cops.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    23. Re:Let me know when you win that war on drugs? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Congress should pass a law preventing the FBI from hiring these people. If they're flouting the drug laws, then they have no business working for the government which enforces those laws and refuses to rescind them. If the FBI can't fill their staffing needs as a result, and cybercrime goes unpunished, then that's the price they need to pay for their bad policies.

  2. Colorado Attorney General by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 4, Interesting
    When Colorado passed the recreational Marijuana law last year, the AG stated that he expected to review employment-discrimination cases by the end of this year. It's going to be interesting when it comes to companies that do business in Colorado and other states, since current doctrine allows companies to have policies dependent on individual state laws, but I don't believe any of then conflict with national policy.

    Regardless of your stance on the morality of it, maybe we just start treating one drug (MJ) like another (Alcohol or Tobacco) from a legal perspective? Contrary to Mr. Christie, Denver is a fantastic place to live, and I genuinely believe the recreational industry has improved it even more.

    --
    Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
  3. Drunk by dickplaus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look I'm all for allowing them to smoke on their own time, but I don't show up to interviews or work buzzing off of a couple bloody marys. Relax the drug screenings yes, but showing up high? That's just immature IMHO.

    1. Re:Drunk by Jmc23 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      About as immature as all those people showing up to work buzzed on caffeine.

      Different bodies function differently. Just like the majority of people need something to speed them up, some people need something to slow them down.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    2. Re:Drunk by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      It used to be fairly common to have a couple drinks at lunch.

    3. Re:Drunk by Jmc23 · · Score: 2
      I've been both, and caffeine is the only one I can't deal with or do any work on.

      Did you even read the second line I wrote? Try understanding it.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    4. Re:Drunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really? Here is a study about the effects various recreational pharmaceuticals have on how spiders construct their webs:

      http://www.trinity.edu/jdunn/spiderdrugs.htm

      There is no picture for alcohol - probably because it would have killed the spider. However, Marijuana did far better than Caffeine. In fact, all the webs were far better than Caffeine except sleeping pills but that's only because the spider didn't get far enough to complete anything.

      I'm not suggesting the hyper-perfect structures of the tripping spider's webs means we should trip at work (or at all for that matter). What I am suggesting is that to a rational person, the legality of a substance isn't directly correlated with its effects on people making decisions in the work place. Caffeine seems to create a state of ADHD and that is the last person I'd want making complicated decisions such as network design, risk management, corporate strategy, company policy, etc.,... You know, things that need to be well planned, stable for long periods of time because they are not easily changed - things that require a commitment.

      One of the senior managers where I work is like this. Its amazing how much havoc her energy drinks cause on a daily basis. I know it's the Caffeine - she went cold turkey for a while and was drinking green tea instead. She was all of a sudden rational, could hold complicated thoughts could follow things through multiple cause/effect trees, etc.,... Then back on the Caffeine and she was once again like the scatter brained Caffeinated (redundant) spider.

      A cup of joe in the morning is one thing just like a single beer at lunch - probably not really an issue as far as job performance. However, with both Alcohol and Marijuana, someone doesn't cause MORE havoc the more they take. Instead, they pass out or space out. I'd much rather have someone produce nothing than produce pure chaos.

    5. Re:Drunk by Jmc23 · · Score: 2

      Ah, one of the drug addicts on state approved drugs.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  4. Re: I call BS by dickplaus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Must be true. You are statistically significant.

  5. Re:Interview on Weed?! by NotSanguine · · Score: 2

    If you have to smoke weed just to make it to the interview I seriously doubt you'll be able to do the job. Some recreational usage might be fine but it you need it to just get out of your apartment to go to a job interview then you have issues and problems that should disqualify for most any job out there.

    A good point. if you can't stop long enough to pass a drug test for which you know the date, you likely have a problem. One issue is that the FBI loves to do polygraphs. Even though they're not reliable enough to be used in criminal proceedings, they use them for employment screening all the time.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  6. Re:Interview on Weed?! by Shados · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unrelated to the topic, but being qualified for the job and being qualified for the interview is 2 totally different things in the IT and software development field, since there's so many bad interviewers out there.

    I wish I could screen for the interview before agreeing to do it. Would save me a lot of trouble.

  7. Re:I call BS by x0ra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let me guess. You probably dress in a shirt with a tie and wear some clean pants. On casual Friday, you *might* switch to a polo. Guess what ? You might not be what the FBI is looking for..

  8. Re:Good idea by x0ra · · Score: 2

    Do you mean as they do by all the way you can be charged with a felony, and even more controlled afterward ?

  9. Riiiight. by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

    The only FBI agent I have ever known reasonably well was a scoutmaster and used his boy scout troop as couriers to deal weed. True story.

  10. Re:I call BS by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    So what are the tech wages like in Salt Lake City?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  11. Re:I call BS by Pax681 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been programming professionally for just over thirty years, and in that time I got a BS in Comp Eng in 1993 and a MS in Comp Sci in 2001. I have never even seen pot. I can't remember ever hearing anyone in this field mention using it. It just isn't common in our field. Of course when I was hiring for a new janitorial position here, I couldn't find a single male that could pass the drug test so it appears to be only the uneducated that use it.

    that's because all the people who DO smoke it KNOW you are a prick and thus don't mention it near you

  12. Re:Interview on Weed?! by _merlin · · Score: 2

    THC accumulates in fat cells. It can be detected up to three months out if you're a regular user. One of my friends, who was fucking smart but also a serious stoner and a bit of a womaniser, stayed of the whacky tobacky for six weeks before trying to get into the Royal Australian Air Force, but still failed the drug test. A few years later he successfully got into the army after not smoking weed for about six months.

  13. Re:Good idea by flyneye · · Score: 2

    History is NO liar (provided it is not a govt. approved textbook)

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  14. Re:ended pretty much by the end of the 80s by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A combination of forces has pretty much made the liquid lunch history(at least in technical fields). Neoprohibitionists (MADD, which is no longer about driving, but about drinking, per se), employer paranoia about "impaired employees", etc.

    Not really. I have a beer at lunch once in a while. I do so in plain view of my boss. The way some of you guys describe jobs, I really wonder why you don't leave. You're in a technical field, jobs really aren't that hard to find. Take a pay cut, go work for a startup, get more freedom. Still a ton of work and insane hours, but you're not going to get your boss writing you up for an official warning from HR because you had a beer during lunch.

    Now, though, you get text messages during your (working) lunch asking for a response "soonest", and somehow I think that if you texted back "sorry, getting a couple pints with the guys, get back to you tomorrow", the next text would be "we'll ship your stuff to you at the last address you had on file with HR".

    Holy shit, tomorrow?? Yeah, I wouldn't blame them for firing you in that case, I would too. The guy you're responding to said a couple of drinks, not get plastered and blow the afternoon off. Somehow I think if you instead texted back, "sorry, I'm currently at lunch. I'll get to it as soon as I'm back in the office," it wouldn't be that big of a deal. It's still a workday, dude.

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  15. Pot will be legal before too long by riverat1 · · Score: 2

    Like gay marriage the prohibition of marijuana will start falling state by state. Colorado and Washington have already done so. When people see that it isn't going to be a huge disaster other states will follow suit and eventually it will become untenable to maintain the prohibition. It's just a matter of time.

  16. Would they just put up with it for a key hire? by swb · · Score: 2

    Assuming you've got a track record as a top-notch white hat hacker and security guy and you had some unique experience/skill mix that the FBI really felt they needed, would they just kind of put up with it, maybe/especially if you lived in a state like Colorado or had a medical card in California?

    How do companies like Apple/Oracle/Google/MS/Amazon handle it in California now? My first hand experience and everything I've read in the media makes pot seem pretty well accepted in California and there's certainly a counter-culture kind of attitude among a lot of technology people. If you get recruited to Google because you're something special, do they give you a piss test and then tell you they won't hire you?

    1. Re:Would they just put up with it for a key hire? by BigDish · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Funny...you think tech companies drug test. I worked for MS for 5 years - I *NEVER* heard of an FTE there getting a drug test, even on hire. I never took one. I've since left and work for another tech company. Most of the owners (it's a ~30 person company) know I smoke, and I've smoked with some of them. I have friends at Apple, Google, and Amazon. Again, no drug tests.

      Tech companies basically can't drug test - they would have to fire 1/2 of their employees.

  17. Re:Reminds me of my time in the Navy by afxgrin · · Score: 2

    Sounds like a trap to nab a whole bunch of pot smokers imho.

  18. Why is it still illegal? by Hamsterdan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously... Ever see a stoner get violent? Many drunks get violent, yet alcohol is legal. Weed is not the same as hard drugs, and more people than you think indulge (or have indulged) in the stuff.

    Besides, if you use a vaporiser, it's not that harmful, and I don't think weed kills more brain cells than beer.

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  19. Re: I call BS by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Must be true. You are statistically significant.

    At a young age I learned to read beyond the words of humans. Frequently the ignorant will have valid points when they talk on subjects even if they are unable to speak on the pertinent issue with the nuance it requires.

    I wrote my first wireframe 3D game while stoned. I hadn't been taught trig yet so I invented vector math independently after discovering what you'd call the "unit circle" by drawing a radiant diagram of line slope ratios represented in decimal form; Ultimately I ended up creating the equivalent to sin(), cos() and dot() functions because I didn't know what those were useful for (seriously 'online' documentation sucks sans Internet). It was one of the most productive nights of my young life. I doubt I'd have come to the conclusions about connectedness between the mathematic properties in geometry with just a knowledge of linear equations, a glorified graphing calculator, and no mind expanding chemicals. The next school year I realized there was no such thing as Genius. I couldn't understand the reverence my teacher had for these dead dudes: If a stoned kid could discover in a single night much of what took Pythagoras decades to do when confronted with the same problem spaces, then maybe we're just teaching kids wrong... I digress.

    We do have a bit of research which found that downers are less common among Hackers. We typically don't like things that make us stupid or slow. Today's Marijuana is very potent compared to the 70's or even 90's, so many Hackers tend to shy away from what I would call an overdose (meaning above recommended, the term does not imply lethal). IMHO, a brownie shouldn't put you out of commission; Eat herbal confections responsibly. However, for those that Marry Jane doesn't dance with in 'detrimental' ways it's not uncommon to do some light buzzed hacking sometimes with surprisingly clever results (especially for harder problems). Indeed, after I woke the next afternoon I was refreshed and amazed at my output. I was only confounded by a single block of dense hand optimized code with only the comment, // Refactored symbiotic slope system to remove branching. Whether such "here be dragons" comments in code should be taken as quite literal statements or if they arise from the ceremonial chemistry itself is still a great mystery each code-fu master must overcome for themselves. Mine turned out to be matrix math sans matrix idiom.

    Think about it: Hackers like exploiting systems for interesting or clever results; Drugs are the tools we hack organic computers with... Well, that and tDCS, but the latter may blow your fuses before our stem-cell and n.net replacements are ready. As with even alcohol, caffeine or self modifying instructions: Moderation is the key when dealing in any form of computer altering substance.

    Now reconsider the GP's post: Here is someone who has since the early 90's never heard of anyone enjoying recreational mind expanding chemicals in programming. However, when we polled Usenet via trial balloon that's not what we found at all among hackers. Consider that the corporate-clone workplace strongly filters against non-authoritarian approved drug use with the help of the state. The environment itself even hackers find somewhat hostile. Consider that many people sacrifice their pleasures if these are made to cause their livelihood risk. Consider that Hackers do have ways of defeating many unjust social systems such as these. Consider that we may be letting some great minds slip through the cracks for no other reason than a form of Orwellian thought control. Even consider that GP is posting AC and propagating anti-drug propaganda, just as we've seen since the 60's and 70's. With a bit of context even a seemingly dumb comment can stir up the probability matrix quite well. The trick is not to assume anything absolutely or concretely,