GHz is one of several important factors in system performance. Speed and bandwidth of the bus is attaches to is another factor, as is the efficiency built into the CPU architecture itself (multithreading, cache size(s), etc.) to maximize the power derived from every available cycle.
Oblig car analogy: GHz = engine rpms, bus = transmission, cpu architecture = multivalve overhead cam cylinder heads with a supercharger strapped on top.
I'd expect them to complain of other symptoms as well, like headache and drowsiness. Since some of the delusions happen outside in crowds, I would think that any potential CO exposure would need to come from elsewhere, and would lessen in an outdoor environment (eg, hearing laughing noises in crowds) as blood CO levels gradually get lower.
to be fair you really would only see the cases where this happens.
Not all my drug experience is tied to volunteer efforts. Plenty comes from my own life. A friend of mine went through Oxy withdrawral just last year. His back injury kept him on serious pills for a long time before the surgery could be done. He knew that he would likely face w/d symptoms when he was weaned off them. He slugged his way through it. Not every addict is faced with a hopeless situation. I guess that's one of the big reasons I dislike the idea of feeding junk to addicts rather than trying to rehabilitate them. If free or damn cheap drugs were legally available, how many would remain addicts rather than clean up?
Well if you're going to ban things which hurt productivity then slashdot will be public enemy number one.
Should you be made a criminal for taking actions which might hurt you? if you follow this line then just about anything can be banned.
First, I have never in this whole thread argued for criminalizing addiction. I am arguing against publicly funded support for it. Second, banning all things that detract from productivity is a strawman. (And personally, I would argue that YouTube would beat slashdot.) I'm not in favor of regulating everything, or creating a nanny state. I do believe that society has a right to defend itself against the worst things that undermine it. Hard drugs fit that category. I'm not saying that the current approach in the US is the best, but that doesn't mean that a free-for-all is the solution.
Look at your arguments and then look up the arguments put forward by various priests back in the days of prohibition, they're quite similar and both revolve around the idea that we'd have to wade through a sea of addicts lying on the streets if not for the laws currently in place.
Huh? I'm arguing against funding addiction. I'm arguing against the government artificially sustaining and prolonging deadly, health-destroying addictions. That's not what prohibitionists were arguing against in the early 20th century. To complete the analogy, your avocation of free drugs to addicts would be similar to opening up free government bars for alcoholics.
Either that "busting down doors and (...)" was an accidental submission, or the funniest damn Andy Kaufman-esque post I have ever read. I hope it was the latter. Bravo.
I replied to someone who advocated "free" in their post, otherwise would not have suggested it. However, "free" was the linchpin to his premise of eliminating the illicit drug marketplace by making it unprofitable for illegal dealers. By charging, you establish a market price, and the possibility that illegal trade could still flourish.
Not free, but cheap enough that an addiction could be sustained through legal employment without the need to resort to crime.
Not all addictions are created equal, and most should not be sustained at all. My need for a cup of coffee in the morning does not make me useless for a period of time. Not so for coke/heroin/meth. My need for a cup of coffee could be broken over a week or two of mild headaches and some irritability. Not so for coke/heroin/meth.
Government spending would be limited to licensing and regulatory oversight, such as it already does for other areas of commerce, which would be offset by sales tax. The cost of regulation would be far reduced from the current regulatory costs of police and prisons.
I have a serious moral issue with the government funding a bureaucracy through selling drugs to addicts, however well-meaning it may be. I have never seen a government willingly give up a revenue stream once it has started, despite mountains of documented promises. Money is the drug of choice of government. They will not give up their addiction any easier than a meth junkie. I understand that jailing addicts is not the answer. I also realize that addicts who are jailed are generally in jail for the property or trafficking crimes they committed, not because of their addiction per se.
Would such a system increase drug use overall? I believe statics from Holland after the decriminalization of cannabis showed an initial spike which tailed off after a few years and back to pre-decriminalization levels.
Decriminalization is different than legalization, and cannabis is a far cry from crack, heroin, and meth. I too would expect usage to trend up after decriminalization, and while that hardly worries me with cannabis, the thought of greater hard drug usage (and therefore addiction) is truly staggering.
Many if not most drug users, use drugs responsibily and in moderation, while living normal and productive lives, but for obvious reasons generally don't discuss their drug use with non-drug users.
With cannabis, sure, maybe with other hallucinogens like LSD and psilocybin. With others, I don't buy that. My experience with hard drug users (heroin, cocaine, meth, & similar) is that use may start "in control", but at some point spirals out of control, and takes the user's life with it.
Even if drug use where to increase, would the cost to society increase?
Well, increased usage of hard drugs leads to addiction and loss of productivity. People lose jobs because of addictions. They can't afford to support themselves or their families. Yes, if we try to protect those who fall to the bottom of the barrel, the cost to society will increase.
From a medical point of view, quality controls on production and the provision of medical quality information on effects, dosage, pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions (such as provided with prescription drugs), compared to buying a white power of unknown purity on the black market from a person without any associated information.
Yes. And it is still perfectly possible to kill yourself or end up in the gutter with pharma-grade junk.
Most recreational drugs can be relatively safe if used responsibily and in moderation, just like alcohol.
And like alcohol, there will be addicts who can't stop themselves from throwing their lives away. Addiction removes (or at least
Typical judgmental armchair idiot. You have no idea what kindness I do for people worse off than myself. Over the past several years, I have volunteered for and donated to various nonprofits. I've been involved in supporting an inner-city free healthcare clinic, a soup kitchen, animal shelter, various youth groups, and the list goes on. Come with me to a local soup kitchen and I'll show you a number of people who are intelligent, educated, and were gainfully employed prior to their addiction.
I'll introduce you to a friend and former neighbor of mine whose marriage was wrecked by the pills he took (is still taking, AFAIK). He hasn't resorted to crime to fund his addiction, but that hasn't meant that no harm was done. He used to be the father-of-the-year type. Hardly gets to see his kids anymore.
You also don't see the struggle I'm in to educate, clothe, feed, and house my family. Where is the justice in forcing me to pay to support someone else's addiction? Yeah, I hear a lot about how it costs less than jailing them, but that doesn't make it any less wrong to take my kids' college fund and spend it on maintaining the buzz of someone who at one point chose to put drugs in their body.
Since alcohol is a drug, and alcoholism is an addiction, what about providing free booze? What about cigarettes? I need a cup of coffee every morning. Does that fall under this new government program? Are they gonna bring me a hot cuppa joe?
Long-term, feeding a addict their drug only serves to continue keeping them chemically enslaved. I don't think the government has any business doing that.
So, the world's problems depend on a jackass like me, huh? You don't have the slightest idea of what the hell you are talking about.
If you don't limit the free drugs, the scope of addiction will only get wider. I'm not a "please think of the children" kind of guy. I tend to think kids learn better through experience. However, in the case of many drugs, learning through experience is NOT advisable.
On a lighter note, how can you think of putting all those DEA agents out of work in an economy like this?;)
Step 1: Provide free high quality drugs to people already addicted
First of all, this means that I, while drug-free and busting my ass to support my family, am also required to support the drug habit (through free govt-supplied drugs) of some addict, ostensibly forever, or until the addict dies. Excuse me, but fuck that. My beer, wine, or bourbon isn't free. Why the hell should his line of coke or shot of heroin be free?
IF you're going to pay for drugs out of the govt purse (out of MY purse, in other words), you'd better do something first about all the people out there suffering from diseases they didn't inflict on themselves. Kids with cancer, etc. When you do that, you'll find out that it raises my taxes considerably, which I can't afford. I'm pretty sure that after paying for universal healthcare, I sure won't have anything left to fund a addict maintenance program.
If I get the gist of your argument, you are saying that an anti-drug laws essentially create a vacuum, and that illegal commerce is like a leak that tries to fill that vacuum. Legalization eliminates the vacuum, destroying the illegal market.
Also, I saw that you mentioned "to people already addicted", which I take to mean that you would NOT be providing drugs to non-addicts, correct? Who determines who is an addict? The user? A doctor? Is there anything preventing a non-addict from claiming they are an addict and getting a govt-paid dose of a drug they have an itch to try? If you give the drugs only to certified addicts, then there still remains a "vacuum" of non-addicted, curious, rebellious, risk-taking thrill seeker kids who want to know what "high" feels like, and are a ripe market for illicit drug use.
You cannot eliminate the black market for drugs. Human curiosity and peer pressure will still drive new illicit use.
Also, I would expect that existing addicts will experience craving will drive the demand side of the illicit supply/demand equation, and sustain or create a new black market for drugs. (You've already been to the clinic today, and had your dose, but the craving came back before you're allowed more... better find that dealer again.) A crack high is gone within minutes, and the need to use again comes back fast. If you supply it as fast as the addict wants it, well, you're going to be busy. Not to mention that your crackhead is going to be useless to society.
Is it a limited supply per person or unlimited? If it is limited, see above where I mention cravings and illegal use. If unlimited, rest assured that the addict will share/sell/distribute some to others. If they don't OD first.
Not to mention that this only works with drugs you can reasonably maintain yourself on. I don't see this working with a raging meth addict.
Leaflets? They would be as useless as the warnings on cigarettes (I can't speak for the UK, but the US has have them for decades). People generally know the hazards, but try cigs/drugs/alcohol anyway. Then they become addicted, and can't quit even when they want to.
Ahh, and the rest of the world wonders why the US doesn't join the World Court. Small fucking wonder. This kind of persecutory monkey business is exactly the problem.
And if your computer swaps memory pages to a tmp file or swap space on HDD, and some of those pages have your decrypted-in-memory-because-you-are-viewing-it supersecret fap material, and someone does a forensic analysis of said HDD, you are still screwed.
fungus-based systems are done every day of the year in the basements of homebrewers, many of the/.ers.
Hell, yeah. 10 gallons of stout (og 1.064) are sitting next to my desk as I type this, just about finished secondary fermentation. 5 gallons going into the kegerator, 5 gallons going into bottles to share.
Just wait 'til they have a hombrewer strain of the diesel fungus out. I'll be ready.
We talk to dictators. The difference between McCain's and Obama's positions is that McCain would only meet after certain conditions were met. The carrot-and-stick method of diplomacy only works if you a) don't give them the carrot up front, and b) are willing to wield the stick effectively.
IRCC, DPRK has something like 10,000 conventional mortars aimed at the heart of downtown Seoul, populated by millions of people. Even without considering their nuclear abilities, invading them would trigger the killing of more civilians than twenty Iraq invasions.
Actually, that's an example of the opposite. After years of isolation, sanctions, etc., Libya decided to open up. As they met conditions, sanctions were lifted, and higher and higher level diplomatic talks were held.
Slashdot Mirror
GHz is one of several important factors in system performance. Speed and bandwidth of the bus is attaches to is another factor, as is the efficiency built into the CPU architecture itself (multithreading, cache size(s), etc.) to maximize the power derived from every available cycle.
Oblig car analogy: GHz = engine rpms, bus = transmission, cpu architecture = multivalve overhead cam cylinder heads with a supercharger strapped on top.
I'd expect them to complain of other symptoms as well, like headache and drowsiness. Since some of the delusions happen outside in crowds, I would think that any potential CO exposure would need to come from elsewhere, and would lessen in an outdoor environment (eg, hearing laughing noises in crowds) as blood CO levels gradually get lower.
Please mods, for the love of all that is good, mod this one up. I've got coffee all over my keyboard now.
to be fair you really would only see the cases where this happens.
Not all my drug experience is tied to volunteer efforts. Plenty comes from my own life. A friend of mine went through Oxy withdrawral just last year. His back injury kept him on serious pills for a long time before the surgery could be done. He knew that he would likely face w/d symptoms when he was weaned off them. He slugged his way through it. Not every addict is faced with a hopeless situation. I guess that's one of the big reasons I dislike the idea of feeding junk to addicts rather than trying to rehabilitate them. If free or damn cheap drugs were legally available, how many would remain addicts rather than clean up?
Well if you're going to ban things which hurt productivity then slashdot will be public enemy number one. Should you be made a criminal for taking actions which might hurt you? if you follow this line then just about anything can be banned.
First, I have never in this whole thread argued for criminalizing addiction. I am arguing against publicly funded support for it. Second, banning all things that detract from productivity is a strawman. (And personally, I would argue that YouTube would beat slashdot.) I'm not in favor of regulating everything, or creating a nanny state. I do believe that society has a right to defend itself against the worst things that undermine it. Hard drugs fit that category. I'm not saying that the current approach in the US is the best, but that doesn't mean that a free-for-all is the solution.
Look at your arguments and then look up the arguments put forward by various priests back in the days of prohibition, they're quite similar and both revolve around the idea that we'd have to wade through a sea of addicts lying on the streets if not for the laws currently in place.
Huh? I'm arguing against funding addiction. I'm arguing against the government artificially sustaining and prolonging deadly, health-destroying addictions. That's not what prohibitionists were arguing against in the early 20th century. To complete the analogy, your avocation of free drugs to addicts would be similar to opening up free government bars for alcoholics.
Either that "busting down doors and (...)" was an accidental submission, or the funniest damn Andy Kaufman-esque post I have ever read. I hope it was the latter. Bravo.
Government supplied drugs do not need to be free,
I replied to someone who advocated "free" in their post, otherwise would not have suggested it. However, "free" was the linchpin to his premise of eliminating the illicit drug marketplace by making it unprofitable for illegal dealers. By charging, you establish a market price, and the possibility that illegal trade could still flourish.
Not free, but cheap enough that an addiction could be sustained through legal employment without the need to resort to crime.
Not all addictions are created equal, and most should not be sustained at all. My need for a cup of coffee in the morning does not make me useless for a period of time. Not so for coke/heroin/meth. My need for a cup of coffee could be broken over a week or two of mild headaches and some irritability. Not so for coke/heroin/meth.
Government spending would be limited to licensing and regulatory oversight, such as it already does for other areas of commerce, which would be offset by sales tax. The cost of regulation would be far reduced from the current regulatory costs of police and prisons.
I have a serious moral issue with the government funding a bureaucracy through selling drugs to addicts, however well-meaning it may be. I have never seen a government willingly give up a revenue stream once it has started, despite mountains of documented promises. Money is the drug of choice of government. They will not give up their addiction any easier than a meth junkie. I understand that jailing addicts is not the answer. I also realize that addicts who are jailed are generally in jail for the property or trafficking crimes they committed, not because of their addiction per se.
Would such a system increase drug use overall? I believe statics from Holland after the decriminalization of cannabis showed an initial spike which tailed off after a few years and back to pre-decriminalization levels.
Decriminalization is different than legalization, and cannabis is a far cry from crack, heroin, and meth. I too would expect usage to trend up after decriminalization, and while that hardly worries me with cannabis, the thought of greater hard drug usage (and therefore addiction) is truly staggering.
Many if not most drug users, use drugs responsibily and in moderation, while living normal and productive lives, but for obvious reasons generally don't discuss their drug use with non-drug users.
With cannabis, sure, maybe with other hallucinogens like LSD and psilocybin. With others, I don't buy that. My experience with hard drug users (heroin, cocaine, meth, & similar) is that use may start "in control", but at some point spirals out of control, and takes the user's life with it.
Even if drug use where to increase, would the cost to society increase?
Well, increased usage of hard drugs leads to addiction and loss of productivity. People lose jobs because of addictions. They can't afford to support themselves or their families. Yes, if we try to protect those who fall to the bottom of the barrel, the cost to society will increase.
From a medical point of view, quality controls on production and the provision of medical quality information on effects, dosage, pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions (such as provided with prescription drugs), compared to buying a white power of unknown purity on the black market from a person without any associated information.
Yes. And it is still perfectly possible to kill yourself or end up in the gutter with pharma-grade junk.
Most recreational drugs can be relatively safe if used responsibily and in moderation, just like alcohol.
And like alcohol, there will be addicts who can't stop themselves from throwing their lives away. Addiction removes (or at least
Typical judgmental armchair idiot. You have no idea what kindness I do for people worse off than myself. Over the past several years, I have volunteered for and donated to various nonprofits. I've been involved in supporting an inner-city free healthcare clinic, a soup kitchen, animal shelter, various youth groups, and the list goes on. Come with me to a local soup kitchen and I'll show you a number of people who are intelligent, educated, and were gainfully employed prior to their addiction.
I'll introduce you to a friend and former neighbor of mine whose marriage was wrecked by the pills he took (is still taking, AFAIK). He hasn't resorted to crime to fund his addiction, but that hasn't meant that no harm was done. He used to be the father-of-the-year type. Hardly gets to see his kids anymore.
You also don't see the struggle I'm in to educate, clothe, feed, and house my family. Where is the justice in forcing me to pay to support someone else's addiction? Yeah, I hear a lot about how it costs less than jailing them, but that doesn't make it any less wrong to take my kids' college fund and spend it on maintaining the buzz of someone who at one point chose to put drugs in their body.
Since alcohol is a drug, and alcoholism is an addiction, what about providing free booze? What about cigarettes? I need a cup of coffee every morning. Does that fall under this new government program? Are they gonna bring me a hot cuppa joe?
Long-term, feeding a addict their drug only serves to continue keeping them chemically enslaved. I don't think the government has any business doing that.
So, the world's problems depend on a jackass like me, huh? You don't have the slightest idea of what the hell you are talking about.
I've got a funny feeling that we are about to see an unholy alliance between two corporate giants.
If you don't limit the free drugs, the scope of addiction will only get wider. I'm not a "please think of the children" kind of guy. I tend to think kids learn better through experience. However, in the case of many drugs, learning through experience is NOT advisable.
;)
On a lighter note, how can you think of putting all those DEA agents out of work in an economy like this?
Step 1: Provide free high quality drugs to people already addicted
First of all, this means that I, while drug-free and busting my ass to support my family, am also required to support the drug habit (through free govt-supplied drugs) of some addict, ostensibly forever, or until the addict dies. Excuse me, but fuck that. My beer, wine, or bourbon isn't free. Why the hell should his line of coke or shot of heroin be free?
... better find that dealer again.) A crack high is gone within minutes, and the need to use again comes back fast. If you supply it as fast as the addict wants it, well, you're going to be busy. Not to mention that your crackhead is going to be useless to society.
IF you're going to pay for drugs out of the govt purse (out of MY purse, in other words), you'd better do something first about all the people out there suffering from diseases they didn't inflict on themselves. Kids with cancer, etc. When you do that, you'll find out that it raises my taxes considerably, which I can't afford. I'm pretty sure that after paying for universal healthcare, I sure won't have anything left to fund a addict maintenance program.
If I get the gist of your argument, you are saying that an anti-drug laws essentially create a vacuum, and that illegal commerce is like a leak that tries to fill that vacuum. Legalization eliminates the vacuum, destroying the illegal market.
Also, I saw that you mentioned "to people already addicted", which I take to mean that you would NOT be providing drugs to non-addicts, correct? Who determines who is an addict? The user? A doctor? Is there anything preventing a non-addict from claiming they are an addict and getting a govt-paid dose of a drug they have an itch to try? If you give the drugs only to certified addicts, then there still remains a "vacuum" of non-addicted, curious, rebellious, risk-taking thrill seeker kids who want to know what "high" feels like, and are a ripe market for illicit drug use.
You cannot eliminate the black market for drugs. Human curiosity and peer pressure will still drive new illicit use.
Also, I would expect that existing addicts will experience craving will drive the demand side of the illicit supply/demand equation, and sustain or create a new black market for drugs. (You've already been to the clinic today, and had your dose, but the craving came back before you're allowed more
Is it a limited supply per person or unlimited? If it is limited, see above where I mention cravings and illegal use. If unlimited, rest assured that the addict will share/sell/distribute some to others. If they don't OD first.
Not to mention that this only works with drugs you can reasonably maintain yourself on. I don't see this working with a raging meth addict.
Leaflets? They would be as useless as the warnings on cigarettes (I can't speak for the UK, but the US has have them for decades). People generally know the hazards, but try cigs/drugs/alcohol anyway. Then they become addicted, and can't quit even when they want to.
Ahh, and the rest of the world wonders why the US doesn't join the World Court. Small fucking wonder. This kind of persecutory monkey business is exactly the problem.
An alien face-vagina capable of speaking English? My kids wouldn't know whether to puke or laugh. Probably laugh.
That's because you were going blind from all the porn and masturbation, not just the proximity of the monitor.
Personally, I went with contacts.
See what happens when you believe in peace? You go extinct.
My wife's driver's license is porn?
And if your computer swaps memory pages to a tmp file or swap space on HDD, and some of those pages have your decrypted-in-memory-because-you-are-viewing-it supersecret fap material, and someone does a forensic analysis of said HDD, you are still screwed.
According to Rule 34, there must be at least 1 set of photos for which those conditions would not be mutually exclusive.
fungus-based systems are done every day of the year in the basements of homebrewers, many of the /.ers.
Hell, yeah. 10 gallons of stout (og 1.064) are sitting next to my desk as I type this, just about finished secondary fermentation. 5 gallons going into the kegerator, 5 gallons going into bottles to share.
Just wait 'til they have a hombrewer strain of the diesel fungus out. I'll be ready.
So why the limit?
Well, because W7 only requires ~ 250 cores right now in beta, so they just binary-rounded to 256.
We talk to dictators. The difference between McCain's and Obama's positions is that McCain would only meet after certain conditions were met. The carrot-and-stick method of diplomacy only works if you a) don't give them the carrot up front, and b) are willing to wield the stick effectively.
IRCC, DPRK has something like 10,000 conventional mortars aimed at the heart of downtown Seoul, populated by millions of people. Even without considering their nuclear abilities, invading them would trigger the killing of more civilians than twenty Iraq invasions.
You need to learn better control.
Please excuse me if I don't believe al-quaida, or anything alleged to have come from them.
Actually, that's an example of the opposite. After years of isolation, sanctions, etc., Libya decided to open up. As they met conditions, sanctions were lifted, and higher and higher level diplomatic talks were held.