This idea that I should devote all this time to a resource that I find to be completely marginal is absurd.
I'm not sure who you feel is asking you to "devote all this time" to wine. It takes less than 5 minutes to fill out a bug report. Nobody is asking you to write code or do any kind of intense work. Just show them what went wrong. Generally the STDERR / STDOUT from trying to invoke wine is sufficient. If you're too busy to capture those and send them in, then why are you trying to lead a migration between two very different operating systems, anyways?
there turned out to be TONS of industry specific applications, and they were mostly not portable
I hope that wasn't a surprise to you...
The first one we'd really counted on Wine; we'd worked out how to use every application that they said they needed in Wine, and we deployed it based on that. They were wrong, basically,
Could you clarify who are you are ferring to by "they"? Do you mean your client, or the wine people? Or some other they that excludes you?
For that matter, which part was wrong, the method or the application list? Did the client perhaps spring some applications on you that you weren't expecting?
This was in 2004, so not exactly state of the art, but the target Windows was 98, so we'd thought it was a safe bet.
I can tell you from personal experience that wine has come a long way since 2004. I had a lot of applications that I was trying to run on my FreeBSD box that did not work in wine in 2004 that now work. A lot of capabilities that were previously missing are now available.
And FreeBSD is one OS that generally gets next-to-no attention from the wine people
I'd be happy to use a Wine that delivered reliably, and maybe I'll spend some more time playing with 1.0
I think you could do us both a favor by spending some time with 1.0 to begin with. Really, any amount of time would be "more time" than none.
Though really, if you want a professional deployment of wine, why haven't you tried the commercial version? If you're willing to dish out money on terminal server, I don't see why you would be afraid to dish out money for wine.
No, I haven't used Wine in about a year, and even then it was for my personal stuff, and no business purpose.
So of course that tells us a lot about why we should revere you as an expert in wine, then...
I don't see that expecting a product to work is necessarily a character flaw on my part, any more than not being willing to devote my life to Wine and Wine issues.
I haven't seen anyone asking you to do anything resembling devoting your life to wine.
However, you seem to believe that your own incessant complaining will somehow resolve the problem. That could well be viewed as a character flaw, as you are contributing nothing towards solving the problems that bother you. Even submitting a bug report would accomplish a lot more than posting your complaints here.
The first and worst was some goddamn proprietary banking interface
Ended up using Win4Lin which is an emulator, and almost solved all my problems. Fucking FONT corruption, I shit you not, on two goddamn custom applications which, I'm sure I don't have to even say it, was completely unacceptable to the client.
One obvious question here is did the client actually say they wanted to move away from windows? It isn't clear by your statement that you were actually trying to fulfill a legitimate request from your client by moving them to Linux. Indeed, you haven't even told us what it was that your client was paying you to do...
So I ended up using terminal services. Whole thing was a disaster. And the lesson I took out of it was "Wine is completely unreliable."
If these three statements are related, it would appear that since terminal services was a disaster, you concluded that you hate wine. Interesting conclusion, for sure.
But even if that isn't the case, I still don't see why we should agree that your hatred is justified. You said you haven't used wine in about a year, and your example is based on software that you don't appear to be very fond of. But yet you seem to anyways want to launch into a bad-PR campaign to discredit the project.
Who is going to help you with that?
As I and several others have already said, there is the codeweavers project that does do commercial work with wine. You can chose that route if you wish. It isn't even particularly expensive.
Who is going to compensate you for all the time spent trying to make it work? It's not worth paying people to make it work, and there is no point unless you're trying to capture a specific niche.
I would be interested in knowing what it was that you were trying to accomplish - or even better, what you were paid to do - as it would help explain why you made the decisions you made.
Maybe someone will read this, and think twice about trying to build anything commercial around Wine, thereby profiting from my experiences with it.
So in other words you'd rather put your energy into torpedoing the project than actually contribute towards its improvement? Well, you are free to do that, as well. Its your own choice.
you can't even be bothered to read my whole post?
Which part of your original post then did I apparently not read? You swore up and down in that first post that Wine is emulation, and I stated that it isn't. Please let me know where I missed something.
And yes, I see that now you are claiming that it might not be. But that doesn't change what you said the first time.
"Wine is not easy" or "Wine is not efficient" or "Wine is nasty excrement"
Oooh, ooh, are you one of those really creative types, like the ones who make new acronyms for FORD? I've got one - "Freakin' owner's really dumb!" Now can I play too?
Version 1.0 is usually buggy, but most times it doesn't take 15 years for version 1.0 to make it to the "buggy" stage.
I'm probably not the only person who would still like to know what the last version was that you used.
I'm guessing you haven't run 1.0, since it just came out. So how can you claim it to be buggy?
And on top of that, consider everything that has been added to windows in the past 15 years. How much of that needs to be added to wine in order for it to be useful for a significant number of users?
Even if you get an app working, chances are it will break with every update.
I will just again suggest you read the AppDB before complaining. You'll find that the list is growing of applications that have been stable for many consecutive releases.
How do you sell that to someone?
Actually, it sells pretty well. Take a look at the CodeWeavers commercial wine release.
There are applications that you've never heard of that 2 companies in the world still use
That is a nice example, but you still haven't told us what application has infuriated you so badly, or what version of wine you were trying to run it in.
I don't for a minute doubt that there is plenty of windows software out there that I haven't heard of. But yet for some reason you seem to doubt that your anger will do anything to help the situation of software that doesn't work properly in wine.
having 99% compatability means 3 days a year where that is a problem
Not necessarily. It could also mean that only 1 user in 100 will have a problem with it. I've been running Open Office for well over a year without encountering any problems (in Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD) that prevented me from getting my work done.
And as someone else already pointed out, even MS products don't accomplish 100% compatibility. I've had more problems with moving files between different versions of Microsoft Office than between Microsoft Office and Open Office (or different versions of Open Office).
That it's finally bug-free?
When is the last time that version 1.0 of anything was bug-free? For that matter, when was the last time that a commercial release of anything was bug-free on the first iteration of any version?
That I won't have to spend hours working with each individual application?
When was the last version you used? More importantly, when was the last time you checked the AppDB or the bugzilla? If you're trying to use a commercial application, has it occurred to you that you might not be the only person on the planet who would like to get said application running in wine?
not half-assed emulators
Congratulations on not even reading the front page of winehq.org. Or even breaking down the acronym - "Wine Is Not Emulation". But if you want to call it an emulator, you're still free to do so. You just happen to be incorrect.
Every time I have needed Wine to work on a piece of commercial software I have been disappointed.
Then file a bug report and contribute to the solution, rather than just complaining about the problem. Or is there some reason to believe that your complaining will somehow resolve the situation?
This sounds great... but I couldn't find any downloads that run on Windows!
Not sure if you're trying to be funny here, but you actually could run wine in windows, if you really want to. Just install Cygwin on your windows box, and install wine through there.
I seem to recall hearing at one point that some of the testing in wine is actually done through a similar mechanism.
Nah... Get it before Microsoft sues.
Sues them for what? If you read the website, you'll see that the wine release is 100% microsoft-free. I think they'd have a hard time coming up with something to sue over.
Only one problem, Adams swore that he did not write jokes in base thirteen. Sadness. Otherwise, we might be able to figure out the next answer to be 3C.
Good work, there. Except that you forgot that there are multiple ways to interpret "not writing jokes in base thirteen".
If indeed, he wrote it not as a joke, but as a statement (in base thirteen), then the math is correct and the question is solved.
You advocated the current law, which means significant jail time for possession of weed, whether smoked in public, private or never at all.
First, define what you mean by "significant jail time".
Then, find one good example of someone who has been busted for possession, and possession only. That was what we started by discussing here. Find someone who did nothing else to attract attention of police, and was busted only for possession.
it doesn't say a night in the cells if stoned in public, like I said stand by your arguments.
If you are such an expert on the law, tell us what people serve for possession only. Of course, you'll have to find someone who was busted for possession only in order to find that example. I'll be waiting, but I doubt you'll find an example before this thread is closed.
However, as for the second - did you actually read the portion of that article titled "origins of racially disproportionate arrests"? You'll find that actually a lot of the drug arrests - for marijuana as well as other drugs - comes down to where police enforcement is most prevalent. Police enforcement is generally more concentrated in higher density, lower income neighborhoods. You can't really say that the laws themselves are targeting minorities because of the way police departments assign their officers.
If you want to accuse the police departments of racism, there is plenty of evidence against a number of large agencies for that. But your argument of the laws themselves being racist is pretty flaky.
sexually harass Raping
Interesting that I said harassment and you inserted rape. Un-welcomed advances can be prosecuted, even if they don't lead to rape. But if you don't want to differentiate between the two, I can't force you to.
try to do to get money Robbing
Why are you trying so hard to put words into my mouth? I suppose its because that has been the basis of your argument the whole time. However, I never said anything about robbery. Haven't you ever lived in a city with panhandling laws?
But clearly I can't do anything to get you to actually read what I write for what I write. You will continue to take what I write, apply your own beliefs to it, and then regurgitate it to somehow (very weakly) buttress your claim of "persecution". And you're welcomed to do that. You don't have to agree with me, nor do you have to agree with the law. You are free to do as you wish in defiance of the law or the wishes of society, at your own risk.
As I've said before, I would prefer you take those risks in private so that those of us who chose not to partake in recreational drugs won't be subjected to the effects of you on drugs. If I chose to wander drunk down Main Street - on foot, bicycle, horseback, in a car, or other such means - I can expect there is a good chance I will be arrested for drunk in public. Why is it that people who chose to smoke pot should be not subjected to the same?
That is all that I asked for, and all that I have supported. Everything else you have accused me of thus far has been based on your own interpretation of what I have said.
You really do have a problem with reading comprehension.
Wow, that is an amazing example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Considering that you have hardly bothered to read anything that I have written here, I don't know how you could possibly be so arrogant as to say that.
If they've done something wrong, jail them for that and ignore the pot. Punishing someone for having or using Cannabis is never ok. Not ever.
That is your own opinion, which is counter to the opinion of the state. You don't seem to be accomplishing anything to change the mind of the state - I advise you either get active in politics or move to a country that has no laws against pot.
And you've yet to demonstrate any threat to the public safety because of marijuana use.
I already listed several plausible scenarios that could arise from pot use. But you chose not to read them. They are still back there, if you'd like to look at them again.
Likewise, if you say "I support leaving marijuana laws the way they are" and current marijuana law prescribes imprisonment for marijuana possession, it necessarily follows that you support that.
You are simply wrong on that one. Again, please go back and read what I said. I said I could care less about possession. Furthermore I said I feel it is a waste of time and resources to change the law or the enforcement thereof, because of the way that the laws are enforced in reality. Feel free to respond by showing your propaganda-laden misinterpretation of laws, enforcement, or reality.
But I have a feeling you're not too good at this logic thing.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but that does not make it fact.
Arrest is just state sponsored assault (and kidnapping). If I were to slap cuffs on you and take you to a cell, I'd be charged with both. The only difference with arrest is that the perpetrator wears a uniform.
So should we disband all police forces and forbid arrest? Should we not care about any law enforcement anymore because you feel that arrest is the same as assault and kidnapping?
Have you ever been present at an arrest of any kind, or are you just taking police brutality cases from the media and using that to pass judgment against law enforcement?
There is no such risk involved with Cannabis. If you disagree, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate any such risk.
I've already addressed this, you have already ignored it. There's no point in continuing to argue it because you appear to believe that pot is safer than milk.
I've already said this once, but as a member of the public I have a right to use the public space as long as I don't interfere with anyone else's use of it. Being stoned in no way interferes with anyone else's use of the public space.
I'm not sure how you can support that statement. Particularly when you are under the influence and your own conception of reasonable use at the time likely is not the same as that of those around you that are not under the influence.
Previously, you wanted to compare pot usage to sex addiction. If they are comparable, then why can't my wife and I go have sex in the middle of the city park?
If your drug usage is so great that we should all be subjected to it, then if I'm having great sex with my wife, why shouldn't everyone else be subjected to that as well? If I think that being drunk is great, then why shouldn't everyone be subjected to me when I am drunk?
In other words, where do you get your sense of entitlement from? Why is it that your way of getting off is inherently so much better for everyone else that you should be able to do it in public?
If the comment of being a bigot wasn't directed at me, then why was it included at all? Being as it was included in your reply to me, why should I not expect that you were directing it at me?
I don't know my neighbors, I don't really care to.
Then put up a privacy fence. Or move to someplace where you aren't so close to your neighbors. Or smoke pot indoors where they can't see you.
You've chosen to not be friends with your neighbors.
Are you denying that the case of Johnathan Magbie is factual?
I am denying that your source is trustworthy to represent the full facts of the case. You offered only a link to a website hosted by a group with an obvious agenda.
It is about as trustworthy as a link to a story about Obama posted by Newsmax.com.
But you really have to be stupid (yes this time I'm calling you stupid) if you don't believe people go to jail for marijuana possession.
I'm not surprised that you are again resorting to name calling. But I'll let it slide (again).
I've asked you to show an example of someone who was busted only for possession. You have yet to come up with one. I never denied that people have been busted for possession, I said that people are not busted solely for possession. Police don't just go around beating people up and kicking down doors simply because of suspicion of possession. People who get busted for possession have already done something else to arise suspicion. You are still welcomed to show an example to the contrary, but you have thus far failed to do so.
Have *you* not heard of psychological dependency?
You are the one who placed it in quotations after I used it. Your response treated it as if you thought I made up the term entirely.
you can't just prohibit something because it could cause psychological dependency
Bravo on twisting two different arguments into one and coming to a completely bogus conclusion. I didn't say I support the current laws because of addiction problems. If you would read what I wrote (try it some time, for the both of us) you'll see that I support the laws from a public safety standpoint. Just like the alcohol laws.
Again, if you are going to deny the simple fact that people go to jail for possession of Cannabis every day, there's simply no hope for you.
I didn't deny that people do get charged for possession. I denied that people get charged only for possession. You have yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Can you find even one verifiable case where someone was stopped, searched, and jailed, only for possession?
the only logical conclusion is that you want people who possess marijuana to go to jail. What other conclusion am I to draw?
The logical conclusion would be to read the part where I wrote that I am fine with the current enforcement of the drug laws, and how in reality their enforcement is the same as the alcohol laws. Perhaps if I repeat myself enough on this, you'll actually read what I write instead of what you want to see written.
I'll stand by my point, a stoned person is no greater danger to anyone around them than a sober person.
If a stoned person is that safe, and that remarkably similar to a sober person, then what is the purpose of getting stoned in the first place?
Why would you take a psycho-active drug, unless you want the psycho-active properties of said drug?
And what agenda is fallacyfiles.org laden with? They're anti-fallacy, that's hardly an agenda anyone can disagree with.
Their agenda is to overturn laws that they disagree with, and their willing to distort or omit the truth in order to accomplish th
According to your logic, it's ok that Iran has the death penalty for gay people because it doesn't catch most of them, it's ok that Sudan stones women to death for having sex outside marriage, because it doesn't catch most of them.
That is not even remotely close to what I've said. Holding someone overnight for being intoxicated in public is nowhere near the same as executing someone for what they've done in private.
If you are going to make a stupid argument, stand by it to it's stupid conclusion
I'm glad to see that you aren't going to reduce yourself to name calling, either.
knowing that if sheriff takes a dislike to you he could come round to your house at any time and find your coffee stash
I will extend the same challenge to you that I extended to the previous commenter - show an example of this happening. Nobody has been able to show an example of this actually occurring. Every example has come from obviously biased sources, and has then been propagated by paranoid individuals.
You don't seem to understand why selective persecution is a bad thing
You don't seem to understand that this whole "persecution" argument is crap. Nobody in this conversation has yet provided an example of actual persecution. If these laws are so evil, and so many people are being pulled off the street for nothing other than possession, it shouldn't be hard for any of you to show an example of it happening.
If this is all about persecution, then please, show me examples of persecution from these terrible laws.
Have some consistency and logic in your arguments
Kindly settle down, take a deep breath, and read what I wrote instead of what you want it to say. I have been consistent. It is just the spin that you, hatta, and others have put on my statements that has been inconsistent.
have the courage of your convictions and say you think weed is evil and makes people into raping, robbing sociopaths, its what you have hinted at through all your posts, so why not just say it?
Kindly demonstrate where I hinted at that. I will then show that you are taking my words and twisting them at your own convenience. I never made any such allegation, in any post I have ever made here.
Please, do us all a favor. Read what you are replying to for what it says, not what you want it to say.
Wow, this seems familiar. People calling me names because I won't agree with their propaganda. But anyways...
Besides, my relationship with my neighbors has nothing to do with the legal status of Cannabis.
I would be inclined to believe that your neighbors wouldn't care if you were smoking up in your yard if you had a positive relationship with them. You've already shown that you dislike your neighbors - what then is in it for them to be accommodating towards you?
But you've also said that you haven't actually been busted for it anyways, so really this stems from your own paranoia of your neighbors. Or your paranoia of the law.
I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. Sending someone to jail for marijuana is simply not justifiable, no matter how it was found.
We were discussing law enforcement finding contraband material while conducting a legitimate search. But if you're opposed to that, then so be it.
I don't personally know anyone, but it happens. Are you going to deny that people like Johnathan Magbie [november.org] exist? People go to jail for possession.
You don't know anyone who has been busted only for possession, but yet you read a story from a group with an agenda against the drug laws, and you believe it whole-heartedly. And you base your paranoia and anger on that?
Why should we believe that a group with an obvious agenda is being honest in their reporting?
You can get "psychologically addicted" to anything, food, sex, the internet. Should people go to jail for doing that too?
Have you never heard of a psychological dependency? Is this a new term for you?
But to answer your question, most jurisdictions would indeed throw you in jail if you were having sex in public - that is generally considered public indecency.
Failing doesn't stop them from hurting millions of people along the way. You'd be irate too if you were persecuted by your own government.
You haven't backed up this accusation of "persecution". You have already said that you smoke often and you have never been arrested. You also said that you don't know anyone who has ever been busted for possession. Tell us again how this is persecution? How is this different from alcohol laws?
And you'd send him to jail for it! No wonder he didn't want to talk to you.
Your statement is 100% wrong. You came to that conclusion based on how you wanted to read what I have written, rather than what I have actually said. He has been on private property the entire time, not interacting with anyone.
But thanks for playing. Feel free to continue with your agenda, as we already know you will.
Face it, you don't know what a sober person will do in public. Any one at any time could assault you. But if you actually try to find out, instead of just appealing to ignorance [fallacyfiles.org], you'll find that marijuana does not make people aggressive.
Did you read what I wrote? I'm guessing the answer is no. Because if you did, you would have seen that I never suggested an aggressive behavior. But thank you for another agenda-laden link.
If your main concern is just public intoxication, would you agree to the statement "I support legalizing the possession of marijuana for home use, but continuing the prohibition of public intoxication."
Frankly, I don't see how that would be different than how the system currently works. How many times have you purchased pot or had it on your person? You don't have to share that number, just tell us what fraction of those times ended with you being arrested for possession. We already know the answer to that is zero.
Yes, alcohol is allowed in most public parks around here. Do you really think people use those grills without beer?
Those are two different statements. Just because people do drink in parks near you doesn't mean that they are allowed to do so. I don't know where you live. I do know that in the places I have lived thus far, alcohol has been banned in public parks. Which of course doesn't mean that 100% of the patrons obey that, but it was banned nonetheless.
Some dumb old lady sees me
It doesn't sound like you have very good relationships with your neighbors. I would suggest you try working on that and perhaps the problem won't be as significant.
me sitting back there, freaks out, calls the cops, and I go to jail. It happens.
But has it happened? Has the neighbor you don't like actually called the cops on you? Have you actually served jail time? Or are you just speculating this situation because you don't get along with your neighbor?
Doesn't matter if they're specifically looking for pot or not. If they find it, I go to jail. That's wrong.
The cop who stopped me asked if I had knives, guns, or grenades. If I had grenades and he found those, would that be wrong? After all, the officer did have just cause to pull me over.
Really, there's little difference between a pot smoker being arrested for doing what gives him pleasure, and a homosexual getting beaten up for doing what gives him pleasure. Except that the former is worse, since it's enforced by the state.
That is an interesting comparison - comparing a biological urge (sex) to a psychological one (drug use). You have already told us you smoke pot. I'm going to guess you didn't just start spontaneously, and you probably know others who smoke as well. How many of them have been arrested just for smoking pot or having pot on their person? That is, how many of them weren't doing something in public that attracted attention?
Where I did my undergraduate, there was a student who was known for walking around campus with a 3 foot glass bong. He was never arrested for having the bong (which he carried in plain sight).
I will point out that it's much less addictive than caffeine
Are you considering only the physical addiction to smoking pot? Really you should be concerned with the psychological addiction to being under the influence.
I quit caffeine years ago, it was not very difficult, even for someone like me who used to drink nearly a gallon of soda in a day. Conversely, I know someone who refuses to socialize without smoking a joint. He just went on the pot equivalent of a week-long bender last week and never spoke to anyone. He is psychologically addicted to the state of being under the influence of weed.
continuing to fail at prohibiting it.
If we are failing at prohibiting it, then why are you so angry? I am content with the laws as they are. You seem to be quite irate over them.
If someone is disturbing the peace, charge them with that. If someone is drunk and minding his own business, then leave him alone.
How do you know which drunk person in public will cross that line and which one won't?
There, "potential danger". Arresting someone for being a "potential danger" amounts to precrime.
First, that still doesn't support your conclusion of what I said. You are trying to implicate me as wanting to arrest anyone who has pot. I never said that. It is pretty easy to determine who is under the influence of pot, alcohol, or other substances. And if they choose to be in public while under the influence, they are choosing to be oblivious to the risks of their decisions to the public.
You said leaving the current laws alone. If I were to take a joint with me to the park and enjoy it during a picnic, I'd stand a very good chance of being assaulted by a police officer. Hell, if I were to enjoy a joint in my own damn backyard during a BBQ, I'd stand a very good chance of being assaulted.
I can't drink alcohol in public parks - maybe they're different where you live. And where is your backyard relative to public property? Does your backyard butt up against an alleyway or park? Or perhaps some other public property?
No, I don't claim that at all.
I didn't say you claimed it. I said people claim it. You are likely human, but I did not say that all humans claim it. I didn't even say that all pot smokers claim it, for that matter.
But they do randomly search cars for no reason.
That depends on your jurisdiction. I was stopped by a NY state trooper for talking on my cell phone and informed that there is no right to privacy inside a car in NY state. Just because they are searching doesn't mean they are looking specifically for pot.
They do send police into concerts looking for pot smokers.
Do you really believe that is the only human behavior they are looking for? There is a lot more than just pot smoking that happens at concerts. If it happens that they only catch pot smoking, then that's all they caught.
Pot smokers are persecuted in this country, and they don't care if you're responsible or not. Persecuted? That is an interesting application of the term. Persecution is more often applied to people who are held to unjust laws that harm them based on something beyond their own control. I'm not aware of anyone who was forced to smoke pot. And after all, if pot propaganda pushers want us to believe that it is entirely non-addictive, then obviously people who currently smoke it are doing it entirely of their own free will.
Have you noticed that you can go out to just about any restaurant and have yourself a cocktail
But the restaurant takes the liability for you getting home safely if you have too much to drink. There is no mechanism for a restaurant to take on the liability of someone's actions when influenced by pot.
And either way, it is private property. I haven't seen a city hall anywhere in this country that serves alcohol.
Punish people who actually hurt people, not people who you think might hurt someone.
So then would you favor repealing drunk in public statutes? Because they are punishment for people who could hurt someone.
What you are saying here is that people who possess pot should be punished for a crime that hasn't been committed, and probably never will be committed.
I would like you to please show where I said that. I never said anything to support your conclusion of that. I said enforcement should be the same as for alcohol, which is applied to people that are intoxicated. Please read what I say rather than what you want to see me saying.
Except that proceeding out into public with a little herb poses negligible danger to anyone. Again, I commented on the use, not the possession.
If you would assault and kidnap (arrest and imprison) me just for kicking back with a bowl after work, then *you* are the dangerous one.
When did I say arrest and imprison? How many people do you know who have been arrested just for using marijuana in a responsible manner?
There are plenty of people who claim that cops go around kicking in doors and beating the hell out of people just for smoking pot in their homes. But yet there is almost no evidence of that happening to recreational users.
The way that the laws are enforced for drugs are essentially the same as the way they are enforced for alcohol. Whether you chose to get drunk, stoned, or otherwise influenced by a substance, if you do it at home, your realistic chance of being arrested is zero. On the other hand, if you chose to do it at home, and then proceed out in public where your choices pose a potential danger to society, then your chances of being arrested climb dramatically.
legalize all drugs
If you consider the drugs that spammers have been trying to sell me recently, I don't think many people would agree with your idea.
I know I, for one, would rather not have people in public that are doped up on morphine/vicodin/valium. And of course when you consider these same offers are also scalping at least 8 different varieties of erectile dysfunction drugs...
Granted, certain peopleswear consistently that I must be a Nazi because I support leaving the marijuana laws alone. So of course you are entitled to your own opinion in the matter.
Of course when the botnet spammers are profiting off the spamvertised sales of drugs, the botnet will grow. The money from said sales likely goes back into storm botnet development.
If the same study had been done several years ago (before broadband at home became so common) the results would have been the same, with pirated software substituted where drugs are now. We can also thank the idiotic health care system in the US for this - some people are willing to try almost anything to save money on office visits and prescription costs.
And based on the spam I've seen lately, we may soon see replica watches, knock-off purses, and wannabe designer shoes rising through the ranks of profitability for spammers.
It seems that they managed to take a completely toothless act, and make it even less helpful.
I guess it is no wonder that congress has managed to somehow attain an even lower approval rating than our current commander-in-chief, seeing as they managed to squirt out something like this instead of dealing with important national issues.
does your coupe have a limited slip differential?
Yes, my current coupe does have the limited slip diff. However, I previously drove through several winters in Minnesota with a coupe with an open diff. I can tell you from that experience that while the limited slip does help, a little common sense (and some experience) helps even more.
As you pointed out, your drive system can help you to get out of a bad driving situation. But of course its even better to know how to not get into that bad situation in the beginning.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure who you feel is asking you to "devote all this time" to wine. It takes less than 5 minutes to fill out a bug report. Nobody is asking you to write code or do any kind of intense work. Just show them what went wrong. Generally the STDERR / STDOUT from trying to invoke wine is sufficient. If you're too busy to capture those and send them in, then why are you trying to lead a migration between two very different operating systems, anyways?
there turned out to be TONS of industry specific applications, and they were mostly not portable
I hope that wasn't a surprise to you...
The first one we'd really counted on Wine; we'd worked out how to use every application that they said they needed in Wine, and we deployed it based on that. They were wrong, basically,
Could you clarify who are you are ferring to by "they"? Do you mean your client, or the wine people? Or some other they that excludes you?
For that matter, which part was wrong, the method or the application list? Did the client perhaps spring some applications on you that you weren't expecting?
This was in 2004, so not exactly state of the art, but the target Windows was 98, so we'd thought it was a safe bet.
I can tell you from personal experience that wine has come a long way since 2004. I had a lot of applications that I was trying to run on my FreeBSD box that did not work in wine in 2004 that now work. A lot of capabilities that were previously missing are now available.
And FreeBSD is one OS that generally gets next-to-no attention from the wine people
I'd be happy to use a Wine that delivered reliably, and maybe I'll spend some more time playing with 1.0
I think you could do us both a favor by spending some time with 1.0 to begin with. Really, any amount of time would be "more time" than none.
Though really, if you want a professional deployment of wine, why haven't you tried the commercial version? If you're willing to dish out money on terminal server, I don't see why you would be afraid to dish out money for wine.
So of course that tells us a lot about why we should revere you as an expert in wine, then...
I don't see that expecting a product to work is necessarily a character flaw on my part, any more than not being willing to devote my life to Wine and Wine issues.
I haven't seen anyone asking you to do anything resembling devoting your life to wine.
However, you seem to believe that your own incessant complaining will somehow resolve the problem. That could well be viewed as a character flaw, as you are contributing nothing towards solving the problems that bother you. Even submitting a bug report would accomplish a lot more than posting your complaints here.
The first and worst was some goddamn proprietary banking interface
Ended up using Win4Lin which is an emulator, and almost solved all my problems. Fucking FONT corruption, I shit you not, on two goddamn custom applications which, I'm sure I don't have to even say it, was completely unacceptable to the client.
One obvious question here is did the client actually say they wanted to move away from windows? It isn't clear by your statement that you were actually trying to fulfill a legitimate request from your client by moving them to Linux. Indeed, you haven't even told us what it was that your client was paying you to do...
So I ended up using terminal services. Whole thing was a disaster. And the lesson I took out of it was "Wine is completely unreliable."
If these three statements are related, it would appear that since terminal services was a disaster, you concluded that you hate wine. Interesting conclusion, for sure.
But even if that isn't the case, I still don't see why we should agree that your hatred is justified. You said you haven't used wine in about a year, and your example is based on software that you don't appear to be very fond of. But yet you seem to anyways want to launch into a bad-PR campaign to discredit the project.
Who is going to help you with that?
As I and several others have already said, there is the codeweavers project that does do commercial work with wine. You can chose that route if you wish. It isn't even particularly expensive.
Who is going to compensate you for all the time spent trying to make it work? It's not worth paying people to make it work, and there is no point unless you're trying to capture a specific niche.
I would be interested in knowing what it was that you were trying to accomplish - or even better, what you were paid to do - as it would help explain why you made the decisions you made.
I've noticed.
Maybe someone will read this, and think twice about trying to build anything commercial around Wine, thereby profiting from my experiences with it.
So in other words you'd rather put your energy into torpedoing the project than actually contribute towards its improvement? Well, you are free to do that, as well. Its your own choice.
you can't even be bothered to read my whole post?
Which part of your original post then did I apparently not read? You swore up and down in that first post that Wine is emulation, and I stated that it isn't. Please let me know where I missed something.
And yes, I see that now you are claiming that it might not be. But that doesn't change what you said the first time.
"Wine is not easy" or "Wine is not efficient" or "Wine is nasty excrement"
Oooh, ooh, are you one of those really creative types, like the ones who make new acronyms for FORD? I've got one - "Freakin' owner's really dumb!" Now can I play too?
Version 1.0 is usually buggy, but most times it doesn't take 15 years for version 1.0 to make it to the "buggy" stage.
I'm probably not the only person who would still like to know what the last version was that you used.
I'm guessing you haven't run 1.0, since it just came out. So how can you claim it to be buggy?
And on top of that, consider everything that has been added to windows in the past 15 years. How much of that needs to be added to wine in order for it to be useful for a significant number of users?
Even if you get an app working, chances are it will break with every update.
I will just again suggest you read the AppDB before complaining. You'll find that the list is growing of applications that have been stable for many consecutive releases.
How do you sell that to someone?
Actually, it sells pretty well. Take a look at the CodeWeavers commercial wine release.
There are applications that you've never heard of that 2 companies in the world still use
That is a nice example, but you still haven't told us what application has infuriated you so badly, or what version of wine you were trying to run it in.
I don't for a minute doubt that there is plenty of windows software out there that I haven't heard of. But yet for some reason you seem to doubt that your anger will do anything to help the situation of software that doesn't work properly in wine.
Not necessarily. It could also mean that only 1 user in 100 will have a problem with it. I've been running Open Office for well over a year without encountering any problems (in Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD) that prevented me from getting my work done.
And as someone else already pointed out, even MS products don't accomplish 100% compatibility. I've had more problems with moving files between different versions of Microsoft Office than between Microsoft Office and Open Office (or different versions of Open Office).
Although of course, your mileage may vary.
Anyone else find it ironic that this story about runaway development projects came right after the story on the release of wine 1.0?
Considering how many different sets of expectations exist for wine, one would expect it to be on the verge of becoming a runaway project itself...
Hmm, their webserver appears to be having trouble keeping up with the traffic.
I wonder if they were running IIS through wine to serve the page?
When is the last time that version 1.0 of anything was bug-free? For that matter, when was the last time that a commercial release of anything was bug-free on the first iteration of any version?
That I won't have to spend hours working with each individual application?
When was the last version you used? More importantly, when was the last time you checked the AppDB or the bugzilla? If you're trying to use a commercial application, has it occurred to you that you might not be the only person on the planet who would like to get said application running in wine?
not half-assed emulators
Congratulations on not even reading the front page of winehq.org. Or even breaking down the acronym - "Wine Is Not Emulation". But if you want to call it an emulator, you're still free to do so. You just happen to be incorrect.
Every time I have needed Wine to work on a piece of commercial software I have been disappointed.
Then file a bug report and contribute to the solution, rather than just complaining about the problem. Or is there some reason to believe that your complaining will somehow resolve the situation?
Not sure if you're trying to be funny here, but you actually could run wine in windows, if you really want to. Just install Cygwin on your windows box, and install wine through there.
I seem to recall hearing at one point that some of the testing in wine is actually done through a similar mechanism.
Sues them for what? If you read the website, you'll see that the wine release is 100% microsoft-free. I think they'd have a hard time coming up with something to sue over.
Of course, as we watch the US dollar continue to lose value, we can take advantage of an increasing budget limit for the same here in the states.
Good work, there. Except that you forgot that there are multiple ways to interpret "not writing jokes in base thirteen".
If indeed, he wrote it not as a joke, but as a statement (in base thirteen), then the math is correct and the question is solved.
I wish you an improbably nice day.
First, define what you mean by "significant jail time".
Then, find one good example of someone who has been busted for possession, and possession only. That was what we started by discussing here. Find someone who did nothing else to attract attention of police, and was busted only for possession.
it doesn't say a night in the cells if stoned in public, like I said stand by your arguments.
If you are such an expert on the law, tell us what people serve for possession only. Of course, you'll have to find someone who was busted for possession only in order to find that example. I'll be waiting, but I doubt you'll find an example before this thread is closed.
Oh look, Black people are more likely to be charged when found with drugs than white people! my my, what do we call this? Racist persecution. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/18/drugsandalcohol.ukcrime [guardian.co.uk] http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-05.htm [hrw.org]
First of all, the first link you gave was for the UK. I won't pretend to be knowledgeable on UK drug laws. You can feel free to do so if you wish.
However, as for the second - did you actually read the portion of that article titled "origins of racially disproportionate arrests"? You'll find that actually a lot of the drug arrests - for marijuana as well as other drugs - comes down to where police enforcement is most prevalent. Police enforcement is generally more concentrated in higher density, lower income neighborhoods. You can't really say that the laws themselves are targeting minorities because of the way police departments assign their officers.
If you want to accuse the police departments of racism, there is plenty of evidence against a number of large agencies for that. But your argument of the laws themselves being racist is pretty flaky.
sexually harass Raping
Interesting that I said harassment and you inserted rape. Un-welcomed advances can be prosecuted, even if they don't lead to rape. But if you don't want to differentiate between the two, I can't force you to.
try to do to get money Robbing
Why are you trying so hard to put words into my mouth? I suppose its because that has been the basis of your argument the whole time. However, I never said anything about robbery. Haven't you ever lived in a city with panhandling laws?
But clearly I can't do anything to get you to actually read what I write for what I write. You will continue to take what I write, apply your own beliefs to it, and then regurgitate it to somehow (very weakly) buttress your claim of "persecution". And you're welcomed to do that. You don't have to agree with me, nor do you have to agree with the law. You are free to do as you wish in defiance of the law or the wishes of society, at your own risk.
As I've said before, I would prefer you take those risks in private so that those of us who chose not to partake in recreational drugs won't be subjected to the effects of you on drugs. If I chose to wander drunk down Main Street - on foot, bicycle, horseback, in a car, or other such means - I can expect there is a good chance I will be arrested for drunk in public. Why is it that people who chose to smoke pot should be not subjected to the same?
That is all that I asked for, and all that I have supported. Everything else you have accused me of thus far has been based on your own interpretation of what I have said.
Wow, that is an amazing example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Considering that you have hardly bothered to read anything that I have written here, I don't know how you could possibly be so arrogant as to say that. If they've done something wrong, jail them for that and ignore the pot. Punishing someone for having or using Cannabis is never ok. Not ever.
That is your own opinion, which is counter to the opinion of the state. You don't seem to be accomplishing anything to change the mind of the state - I advise you either get active in politics or move to a country that has no laws against pot.
And you've yet to demonstrate any threat to the public safety because of marijuana use.
I already listed several plausible scenarios that could arise from pot use. But you chose not to read them. They are still back there, if you'd like to look at them again.
Likewise, if you say "I support leaving marijuana laws the way they are" and current marijuana law prescribes imprisonment for marijuana possession, it necessarily follows that you support that.
You are simply wrong on that one. Again, please go back and read what I said. I said I could care less about possession. Furthermore I said I feel it is a waste of time and resources to change the law or the enforcement thereof, because of the way that the laws are enforced in reality. Feel free to respond by showing your propaganda-laden misinterpretation of laws, enforcement, or reality.
But I have a feeling you're not too good at this logic thing.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but that does not make it fact.
Arrest is just state sponsored assault (and kidnapping). If I were to slap cuffs on you and take you to a cell, I'd be charged with both. The only difference with arrest is that the perpetrator wears a uniform.
So should we disband all police forces and forbid arrest? Should we not care about any law enforcement anymore because you feel that arrest is the same as assault and kidnapping?
Have you ever been present at an arrest of any kind, or are you just taking police brutality cases from the media and using that to pass judgment against law enforcement?
There is no such risk involved with Cannabis. If you disagree, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate any such risk.
I've already addressed this, you have already ignored it. There's no point in continuing to argue it because you appear to believe that pot is safer than milk.
I've already said this once, but as a member of the public I have a right to use the public space as long as I don't interfere with anyone else's use of it. Being stoned in no way interferes with anyone else's use of the public space.
I'm not sure how you can support that statement. Particularly when you are under the influence and your own conception of reasonable use at the time likely is not the same as that of those around you that are not under the influence.
Previously, you wanted to compare pot usage to sex addiction. If they are comparable, then why can't my wife and I go have sex in the middle of the city park?
If your drug usage is so great that we should all be subjected to it, then if I'm having great sex with my wife, why shouldn't everyone else be subjected to that as well? If I think that being drunk is great, then why shouldn't everyone be subjected to me when I am drunk?
In other words, where do you get your sense of entitlement from? Why is it that your way of getting off is inherently so much better for everyone else that you should be able to do it in public?
That wasn't directed at you.
If the comment of being a bigot wasn't directed at me, then why was it included at all? Being as it was included in your reply to me, why should I not expect that you were directing it at me?
I don't know my neighbors, I don't really care to.
Then put up a privacy fence. Or move to someplace where you aren't so close to your neighbors. Or smoke pot indoors where they can't see you.
You've chosen to not be friends with your neighbors.
Are you denying that the case of Johnathan Magbie is factual?
I am denying that your source is trustworthy to represent the full facts of the case. You offered only a link to a website hosted by a group with an obvious agenda.
It is about as trustworthy as a link to a story about Obama posted by Newsmax.com.
But you really have to be stupid (yes this time I'm calling you stupid) if you don't believe people go to jail for marijuana possession.
I'm not surprised that you are again resorting to name calling. But I'll let it slide (again).
I've asked you to show an example of someone who was busted only for possession. You have yet to come up with one. I never denied that people have been busted for possession, I said that people are not busted solely for possession. Police don't just go around beating people up and kicking down doors simply because of suspicion of possession. People who get busted for possession have already done something else to arise suspicion. You are still welcomed to show an example to the contrary, but you have thus far failed to do so.
Have *you* not heard of psychological dependency?
You are the one who placed it in quotations after I used it. Your response treated it as if you thought I made up the term entirely.
you can't just prohibit something because it could cause psychological dependency
Bravo on twisting two different arguments into one and coming to a completely bogus conclusion. I didn't say I support the current laws because of addiction problems. If you would read what I wrote (try it some time, for the both of us) you'll see that I support the laws from a public safety standpoint. Just like the alcohol laws.
Again, if you are going to deny the simple fact that people go to jail for possession of Cannabis every day, there's simply no hope for you.
I didn't deny that people do get charged for possession. I denied that people get charged only for possession. You have yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Can you find even one verifiable case where someone was stopped, searched, and jailed, only for possession?
the only logical conclusion is that you want people who possess marijuana to go to jail. What other conclusion am I to draw?
The logical conclusion would be to read the part where I wrote that I am fine with the current enforcement of the drug laws, and how in reality their enforcement is the same as the alcohol laws. Perhaps if I repeat myself enough on this, you'll actually read what I write instead of what you want to see written.
I'll stand by my point, a stoned person is no greater danger to anyone around them than a sober person.
If a stoned person is that safe, and that remarkably similar to a sober person, then what is the purpose of getting stoned in the first place?
Why would you take a psycho-active drug, unless you want the psycho-active properties of said drug?
And what agenda is fallacyfiles.org laden with? They're anti-fallacy, that's hardly an agenda anyone can disagree with.
Their agenda is to overturn laws that they disagree with, and their willing to distort or omit the truth in order to accomplish th
That is not even remotely close to what I've said. Holding someone overnight for being intoxicated in public is nowhere near the same as executing someone for what they've done in private.
If you are going to make a stupid argument, stand by it to it's stupid conclusion
I'm glad to see that you aren't going to reduce yourself to name calling, either.
knowing that if sheriff takes a dislike to you he could come round to your house at any time and find your coffee stash
I will extend the same challenge to you that I extended to the previous commenter - show an example of this happening. Nobody has been able to show an example of this actually occurring. Every example has come from obviously biased sources, and has then been propagated by paranoid individuals.
You don't seem to understand why selective persecution is a bad thing
You don't seem to understand that this whole "persecution" argument is crap. Nobody in this conversation has yet provided an example of actual persecution. If these laws are so evil, and so many people are being pulled off the street for nothing other than possession, it shouldn't be hard for any of you to show an example of it happening.
If this is all about persecution, then please, show me examples of persecution from these terrible laws.
Have some consistency and logic in your arguments
Kindly settle down, take a deep breath, and read what I wrote instead of what you want it to say. I have been consistent. It is just the spin that you, hatta, and others have put on my statements that has been inconsistent.
have the courage of your convictions and say you think weed is evil and makes people into raping, robbing sociopaths, its what you have hinted at through all your posts, so why not just say it?
Kindly demonstrate where I hinted at that. I will then show that you are taking my words and twisting them at your own convenience. I never made any such allegation, in any post I have ever made here.
Please, do us all a favor. Read what you are replying to for what it says, not what you want it to say.
If someone is an anti-pot bigot,
Wow, this seems familiar. People calling me names because I won't agree with their propaganda. But anyways...
Besides, my relationship with my neighbors has nothing to do with the legal status of Cannabis.
I would be inclined to believe that your neighbors wouldn't care if you were smoking up in your yard if you had a positive relationship with them. You've already shown that you dislike your neighbors - what then is in it for them to be accommodating towards you?
But you've also said that you haven't actually been busted for it anyways, so really this stems from your own paranoia of your neighbors. Or your paranoia of the law.
I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. Sending someone to jail for marijuana is simply not justifiable, no matter how it was found.
We were discussing law enforcement finding contraband material while conducting a legitimate search. But if you're opposed to that, then so be it.
I don't personally know anyone, but it happens. Are you going to deny that people like Johnathan Magbie [november.org] exist? People go to jail for possession.
You don't know anyone who has been busted only for possession, but yet you read a story from a group with an agenda against the drug laws, and you believe it whole-heartedly. And you base your paranoia and anger on that?
Why should we believe that a group with an obvious agenda is being honest in their reporting?
You can get "psychologically addicted" to anything, food, sex, the internet. Should people go to jail for doing that too?
Have you never heard of a psychological dependency? Is this a new term for you?
But to answer your question, most jurisdictions would indeed throw you in jail if you were having sex in public - that is generally considered public indecency.
Failing doesn't stop them from hurting millions of people along the way. You'd be irate too if you were persecuted by your own government.
You haven't backed up this accusation of "persecution". You have already said that you smoke often and you have never been arrested. You also said that you don't know anyone who has ever been busted for possession. Tell us again how this is persecution? How is this different from alcohol laws?
And you'd send him to jail for it! No wonder he didn't want to talk to you.
Your statement is 100% wrong. You came to that conclusion based on how you wanted to read what I have written, rather than what I have actually said. He has been on private property the entire time, not interacting with anyone.
But thanks for playing. Feel free to continue with your agenda, as we already know you will.
Face it, you don't know what a sober person will do in public. Any one at any time could assault you. But if you actually try to find out, instead of just appealing to ignorance [fallacyfiles.org], you'll find that marijuana does not make people aggressive.
Did you read what I wrote? I'm guessing the answer is no. Because if you did, you would have seen that I never suggested an aggressive behavior. But thank you for another agenda-laden link.
If your main concern is just public intoxication, would you agree to the statement "I support legalizing the possession of marijuana for home use, but continuing the prohibition of public intoxication."
Frankly, I don't see how that would be different than how the system currently works. How many times have you purchased pot or had it on your person? You don't have to share that number, just tell us what fraction of those times ended with you being arrested for possession. We already know the answer to that is zero.
Why bother changing the laws that are on t
Wasn't that one of the utterances that Timmy would proclaim between saying his own name?
Yes, alcohol is allowed in most public parks around here. Do you really think people use those grills without beer?
Those are two different statements. Just because people do drink in parks near you doesn't mean that they are allowed to do so. I don't know where you live. I do know that in the places I have lived thus far, alcohol has been banned in public parks. Which of course doesn't mean that 100% of the patrons obey that, but it was banned nonetheless.
Some dumb old lady sees me
It doesn't sound like you have very good relationships with your neighbors. I would suggest you try working on that and perhaps the problem won't be as significant.
me sitting back there, freaks out, calls the cops, and I go to jail. It happens.
But has it happened? Has the neighbor you don't like actually called the cops on you? Have you actually served jail time? Or are you just speculating this situation because you don't get along with your neighbor?
Doesn't matter if they're specifically looking for pot or not. If they find it, I go to jail. That's wrong.
The cop who stopped me asked if I had knives, guns, or grenades. If I had grenades and he found those, would that be wrong? After all, the officer did have just cause to pull me over.
Really, there's little difference between a pot smoker being arrested for doing what gives him pleasure, and a homosexual getting beaten up for doing what gives him pleasure. Except that the former is worse, since it's enforced by the state.
That is an interesting comparison - comparing a biological urge (sex) to a psychological one (drug use). You have already told us you smoke pot. I'm going to guess you didn't just start spontaneously, and you probably know others who smoke as well. How many of them have been arrested just for smoking pot or having pot on their person? That is, how many of them weren't doing something in public that attracted attention?
Where I did my undergraduate, there was a student who was known for walking around campus with a 3 foot glass bong. He was never arrested for having the bong (which he carried in plain sight).
I will point out that it's much less addictive than caffeine
Are you considering only the physical addiction to smoking pot? Really you should be concerned with the psychological addiction to being under the influence.
I quit caffeine years ago, it was not very difficult, even for someone like me who used to drink nearly a gallon of soda in a day. Conversely, I know someone who refuses to socialize without smoking a joint. He just went on the pot equivalent of a week-long bender last week and never spoke to anyone. He is psychologically addicted to the state of being under the influence of weed.
continuing to fail at prohibiting it.
If we are failing at prohibiting it, then why are you so angry? I am content with the laws as they are. You seem to be quite irate over them.
If someone is disturbing the peace, charge them with that. If someone is drunk and minding his own business, then leave him alone.
How do you know which drunk person in public will cross that line and which one won't?
There, "potential danger". Arresting someone for being a "potential danger" amounts to precrime.
First, that still doesn't support your conclusion of what I said. You are trying to implicate me as wanting to arrest anyone who has pot. I never said that. It is pretty easy to determine who is under the influence of pot, alcohol, or other substances. And if they choose to be in public while under the influence, they are choosing to be oblivious to the risks of their decisions to the public.
the burden o
I can't drink alcohol in public parks - maybe they're different where you live. And where is your backyard relative to public property? Does your backyard butt up against an alleyway or park? Or perhaps some other public property?
No, I don't claim that at all.
I didn't say you claimed it. I said people claim it. You are likely human, but I did not say that all humans claim it. I didn't even say that all pot smokers claim it, for that matter.
But they do randomly search cars for no reason.
That depends on your jurisdiction. I was stopped by a NY state trooper for talking on my cell phone and informed that there is no right to privacy inside a car in NY state. Just because they are searching doesn't mean they are looking specifically for pot.
They do send police into concerts looking for pot smokers.
Do you really believe that is the only human behavior they are looking for? There is a lot more than just pot smoking that happens at concerts. If it happens that they only catch pot smoking, then that's all they caught.
Pot smokers are persecuted in this country, and they don't care if you're responsible or not.
Persecuted? That is an interesting application of the term. Persecution is more often applied to people who are held to unjust laws that harm them based on something beyond their own control. I'm not aware of anyone who was forced to smoke pot. And after all, if pot propaganda pushers want us to believe that it is entirely non-addictive, then obviously people who currently smoke it are doing it entirely of their own free will.
Have you noticed that you can go out to just about any restaurant and have yourself a cocktail
But the restaurant takes the liability for you getting home safely if you have too much to drink. There is no mechanism for a restaurant to take on the liability of someone's actions when influenced by pot.
And either way, it is private property. I haven't seen a city hall anywhere in this country that serves alcohol.
Punish people who actually hurt people, not people who you think might hurt someone.
So then would you favor repealing drunk in public statutes? Because they are punishment for people who could hurt someone.
What you are saying here is that people who possess pot should be punished for a crime that hasn't been committed, and probably never will be committed.
I would like you to please show where I said that. I never said anything to support your conclusion of that. I said enforcement should be the same as for alcohol, which is applied to people that are intoxicated. Please read what I say rather than what you want to see me saying.
Except that proceeding out into public with a little herb poses negligible danger to anyone. Again, I commented on the use, not the possession.
When did I say arrest and imprison? How many people do you know who have been arrested just for using marijuana in a responsible manner?
There are plenty of people who claim that cops go around kicking in doors and beating the hell out of people just for smoking pot in their homes. But yet there is almost no evidence of that happening to recreational users.
The way that the laws are enforced for drugs are essentially the same as the way they are enforced for alcohol. Whether you chose to get drunk, stoned, or otherwise influenced by a substance, if you do it at home, your realistic chance of being arrested is zero. On the other hand, if you chose to do it at home, and then proceed out in public where your choices pose a potential danger to society, then your chances of being arrested climb dramatically.
Which is why I support leaving the laws alone.
I have taken vicodin. I woke up in a cold sweat trying to find my bed.
I've taken codeine as well. Have you never had a migraine?
If you consider the drugs that spammers have been trying to sell me recently, I don't think many people would agree with your idea.
I know I, for one, would rather not have people in public that are doped up on morphine/vicodin/valium. And of course when you consider these same offers are also scalping at least 8 different varieties of erectile dysfunction drugs
Granted, certain people swear consistently that I must be a Nazi because I support leaving the marijuana laws alone. So of course you are entitled to your own opinion in the matter.
Of course when the botnet spammers are profiting off the spamvertised sales of drugs, the botnet will grow. The money from said sales likely goes back into storm botnet development.
If the same study had been done several years ago (before broadband at home became so common) the results would have been the same, with pirated software substituted where drugs are now. We can also thank the idiotic health care system in the US for this - some people are willing to try almost anything to save money on office visits and prescription costs.
And based on the spam I've seen lately, we may soon see replica watches, knock-off purses, and wannabe designer shoes rising through the ranks of profitability for spammers.
It seems that they managed to take a completely toothless act, and make it even less helpful.
I guess it is no wonder that congress has managed to somehow attain an even lower approval rating than our current commander-in-chief, seeing as they managed to squirt out something like this instead of dealing with important national issues.
Yes, my current coupe does have the limited slip diff. However, I previously drove through several winters in Minnesota with a coupe with an open diff. I can tell you from that experience that while the limited slip does help, a little common sense (and some experience) helps even more.
As you pointed out, your drive system can help you to get out of a bad driving situation. But of course its even better to know how to not get into that bad situation in the beginning.