Arguing that a substance can’t be a drug because it’s a plant is disingenuous.
Many of the more popular recreational drugs are plants.
Cannabis Coca Tobacco Peyote Opium
Some require a bit of cooking - tea, coffee. Others require a bit of solvent extraction from the plant – cocaine being a prime example.
An Opioid is just a substance that triggers the brain’s opioid receptors. So if this herb triggers the same receptors, yes, it’s every bit as much an opioid as the latex from the flower of an opium poppy.
Coca leaves are illegal in the US - and has been for generations. Banning plants isn’t a new idea at all; the ancient story of the Garden of Eden starts with the banning of a fruit.
I don’t see unregulated opium as giving the user life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. I see the opposite: unregulated opium leads to slavery, misery, and death.
The FDA has no damn clue if Kratom is medicinally useful.
That's exactly the problem. The FDA was given power to ban claims without proof of therapeutic effect.
, the next step would be to temporarily ban Kratom while THEY perform historic investigation
The FDA tried to enact a temporary ban. People complained, petitioned congress, etc.
The FDA is not authorized to spend a dime of taxpayer money to prove a drug is safe or effective; their duty is to prevent potentially dangerous or addictive substances from being sold until proven safe. The prospective seller is the one who has to foot the bill to prove it's safe and effective.
many naturally occurring plant components have medicinal properties.
The only safe assumption to make about an unknown plant is that it will do some seriously bad shit to you until proven otherwise -- which is exactly what the FDA is doing.
That's doubly true with any plant that binds to opioid receptors.
How can they at the same time claim it's an opioid and that it is not effective for any medical use
Let's think of "sweeteners" for a moment. A "sweetener" is anything that activates the "sweet" receptors on the tongue. Sugars are the sweeteners our bodies really care about. Some sugars are sweeter than others. There are also compounds which are thousands of times sweeter than sugar. Lead diacetate is a sweetener known in antiquity, and is kinda... bad.
Opioids are defined in the same way: They activate opioid receptors. The pituitary gland creates opioids (which we call "endorphins" -- a contraction of endogenous and morphine). Much like sweeteners, there are compounds from many other sources which are far more powerful than natural endorphins.
So that's how they can classify it as an opioid: it binds to or activates the opioid receptor.
Cannabinoids, and nicotinoids are classified similarly.
To sell a food or drug in the US, it has to meet standards of safety and purity. The onus falls on the seller to prove it's safe and/or effective. TFA states there have been no studies about the safety or effectiveness of Kratom.
Proving any opioid is safe without a prescription will no doubt be very difficult to do. Opioids in particular have a long, dark history in "patent medicines" - over the counter "medicine" which were neither effective or safe -- and one of the primary reasons the FDA was created by Congress.
Ultimately, the SCOTUS decides constitutionality, not random citizens with a vision of how things would be if they were made Emperor.
Questions about the constitutionality of regulating arms has been decided by the SCOTUS several times , in some cases over a century ago:
* Presser v. Illinois (1886): The SCOTUS determined that states are able to regulate gun ownership - which is why we see state-approved firearms (ie. California's Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale) * United States v. Miller (1939): The SCOTUS said "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument"; specific weapons can be regulated.
Social Security is similarly declared constitutional.
Helvering v. Davis (1937): The SCOTUS determined Social Security providing the welfare of the people, and would almost certainly be used as a reason to allow universal healthcare.
Standing armies and navies aren't banned - they merely require Congress to renew authorization every two years.
It’s the advertisers who pay the bills that ultimately decide. They are the ones who decide what the content is worth by sponsoring content they want their product to be associated with.
They don’t give a rat’s ass about “freedom,” they want to see a return on their advertising investment.
The vlogger rants I've seen about YouTube monitization all stem from a sense of entitlement -- that they are "owed" something, just because they are popular. Popularity is good; it means more eyeballs, and that's kind of the point of advertising, isn't it?
Well... the source of money is the people buying the advertisement, and they have the right to vote with their wallet and pull their sponsorship from any given content creator.
I know my knowledge is mostly from articles I’ve read. If there’s a documentary I’d like to be to see it.
The biggest impression that stuck out to me was that the original F1 had several sections where it had the parts that *could* be manufactured by machine. And then they were welded together, and the “weld” was probably as big as the part. I think the best word to describe the engineers reaction when they examined one of the welds on an unfired F1’s was “awe”. Though he quote was along the lines of “...the welds. Oh God the welds!”
There were âoelots and lotsâ of bacteria on the Viking missions, Mars Pathfinder, Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity, the Mars Polar lander, Phoenix lander, Beagle, and Curiosity.
They used a âoeclean roomâ to keep dust out of instrumentation, but they were never sterile.
The fact is we donâ(TM)t know how to sterilize a spacecraft without destroying itâ" a major factor in why we havenâ(TM)t seriously considered sending a probe to Europa.
I agree completely. They should have launched a full size yellow school bus.
On a more serious note, there's no insurance company that's going to underwrite a satellite payload, including one from SpaceX.
The alternatives are the traditional block of concrete which has little publicity value...or a space vehicle (say a Dragon 2 prototype) which costs many, many times what a Tesla does, and has a significant risk SpaceX won't get the data they need when the Dragon 2 is blown to hell.
So, yeah... less cost effective than concrete, but much, much better PR.
A standard payload for a first launch is a block of concrete. The (cancelled) Ares-1's only launch had a concrete payload.
There is no communication or science satellite that's so "off the shelf" that it's reasonable to launch it & shrug when it is blown to hell. We don't have them just laying around waiting to be launched.
For some perspective: - GPS satellites cost more than double what the Falcon Heavy does - Weather satellites are about triple the cost of a Falcon Heavy
No insurance company is going to underwrite the payload for the first Falcon Heavy, and they'd be insane if they did.
Between launching a concrete block and a publicity stunt, it's probably a better idea to use it for publicity. In Musk's case, it's a 3-for one sale: Falcon 9, Tesla Roadster, SpaceX Space Suit.
I personally think they should have launched a retired school bus.
Infrequently, when someone loses some data somehere, they read a small portion of them
Checksumming filesystems (WAFL, ZFS, etc.) are the standard for large arrays, and it's pretty foolish to not run a scrub operation regularly -- at least weekly, possibly more often than that.
If they're doing their job, reads will outnumber writes by several orders of magnitude.
In order to upgrade Xcode, you may need to purchase an entirely new dev machine because they won't let you install it on your current OS and they won't let you upgrade the current OS any further.
This only happened to me after my MacBook reached ten years old. It's inconvenient, but I have to admit the machine is a little long in the tooth.
And how much sooner would you have bought those new phones if your old ones randomly turned themselves off.
A lot of folks seem to miss that point.
Lithium Polymer batteries have a lifespan between 300-500 cycles. A consumer who bought an iPhone 7 in Sept 2016 can easily be reach the end of his battery's life when the iPhone 8 comes out in Sept 2017. It's coincidence, but the peanut gallery screams "planned obsolescence!" Why does my phone suddenly crash all the time now that the iPhone 8 is out?!?
The same problem rears its head were Apple to tell you to replace the battery when it starts to go -- it just happens to be around the time the new phone comes out.
Downclocking and other forms of power conservation are one way to mitigate the issue, though it shouldn't have been done without presenting the user an option to disable it, and definitely shouldn't have been done without notifying the user.
Slashdot Mirror
AC can't even get their complaint right...
Unity's original platform was MacOS, and was designed to be cross-platform, and succeeds quite well at it.
Linux & SteamOS are explicitly supported, and have been for a while...
I've been playing the 64-bit version of Kerbal Space Program (which uses Unity3D) on Linux for probably four years at this point.
Didn't Andy Rubin's Essential phone have the notch first?
Or are they just throwing "Apple" into the story for clicks?
The money is still coming from the same place; I'm not sure quibbling over the payment scheme changes much.
Arguing that a substance can’t be a drug because it’s a plant is disingenuous.
Many of the more popular recreational drugs are plants.
Cannabis
Coca
Tobacco
Peyote
Opium
Some require a bit of cooking - tea, coffee.
Others require a bit of solvent extraction from the plant – cocaine being a prime example.
An Opioid is just a substance that triggers the brain’s opioid receptors. So if this herb triggers the same receptors, yes, it’s every bit as much an opioid as the latex from the flower of an opium poppy.
Coca leaves are illegal in the US - and has been for generations. Banning plants isn’t a new idea at all; the ancient story of the Garden of Eden starts with the banning of a fruit.
I don’t see unregulated opium as giving the user life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. I see the opposite: unregulated opium leads to slavery, misery, and death.
Twenty years ago, I heard a guy say something that stuck with me.
Courts are about law. Justice has nothing to do with it.
The FDA has no damn clue if Kratom is medicinally useful.
That's exactly the problem. The FDA was given power to ban claims without proof of therapeutic effect.
, the next step would be to temporarily ban Kratom while THEY perform historic investigation
The FDA tried to enact a temporary ban. People complained, petitioned congress, etc.
The FDA is not authorized to spend a dime of taxpayer money to prove a drug is safe or effective; their duty is to prevent potentially dangerous or addictive substances from being sold until proven safe. The prospective seller is the one who has to foot the bill to prove it's safe and effective.
many naturally occurring plant components have medicinal properties.
You're not wrong. The problem is focus blindness, like this picture from Finding Nemo.
The only safe assumption to make about an unknown plant is that it will do some seriously bad shit to you until proven otherwise -- which is exactly what the FDA is doing.
That's doubly true with any plant that binds to opioid receptors.
How can they at the same time claim it's an opioid and that it is not effective for any medical use
Let's think of "sweeteners" for a moment. A "sweetener" is anything that activates the "sweet" receptors on the tongue. Sugars are the sweeteners our bodies really care about. Some sugars are sweeter than others. There are also compounds which are thousands of times sweeter than sugar. Lead diacetate is a sweetener known in antiquity, and is kinda... bad.
Opioids are defined in the same way: They activate opioid receptors. The pituitary gland creates opioids (which we call "endorphins" -- a contraction of endogenous and morphine). Much like sweeteners, there are compounds from many other sources which are far more powerful than natural endorphins.
So that's how they can classify it as an opioid: it binds to or activates the opioid receptor.
Cannabinoids, and nicotinoids are classified similarly.
To sell a food or drug in the US, it has to meet standards of safety and purity. The onus falls on the seller to prove it's safe and/or effective. TFA states there have been no studies about the safety or effectiveness of Kratom.
Proving any opioid is safe without a prescription will no doubt be very difficult to do. Opioids in particular have a long, dark history in "patent medicines" - over the counter "medicine" which were neither effective or safe -- and one of the primary reasons the FDA was created by Congress.
Ultimately, the SCOTUS decides constitutionality, not random citizens with a vision of how things would be if they were made Emperor.
Questions about the constitutionality of regulating arms has been decided by the SCOTUS several times , in some cases over a century ago:
* Presser v. Illinois (1886): The SCOTUS determined that states are able to regulate gun ownership - which is why we see state-approved firearms (ie. California's Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale )
* United States v. Miller (1939): The SCOTUS said "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument"; specific weapons can be regulated.
Social Security is similarly declared constitutional.
Helvering v. Davis (1937): The SCOTUS determined Social Security providing the welfare of the people, and would almost certainly be used as a reason to allow universal healthcare.
Standing armies and navies aren't banned - they merely require Congress to renew authorization every two years.
The service is not that relevant.
It’s the advertisers who pay the bills that ultimately decide. They are the ones who decide what the content is worth by sponsoring content they want their product to be associated with.
They don’t give a rat’s ass about “freedom,” they want to see a return on their advertising investment.
The vlogger rants I've seen about YouTube monitization all stem from a sense of entitlement -- that they are "owed" something, just because they are popular. Popularity is good; it means more eyeballs, and that's kind of the point of advertising, isn't it?
Well... the source of money is the people buying the advertisement, and they have the right to vote with their wallet and pull their sponsorship from any given content creator.
Google is just the cashier.
Still... taking no chances with the contamination present.
Curiosity is in range of some of the discovered liquid water.
It’s allowed nowhere near it.
I know my knowledge is mostly from articles I’ve read. If there’s a documentary I’d like to be to see it.
The biggest impression that stuck out to me was that the original F1 had several sections where it had the parts that *could* be manufactured by machine. And then they were welded together, and the “weld” was probably as big as the part. I think the best word to describe the engineers reaction when they examined one of the welds on an unfired F1’s was “awe”. Though he quote was along the lines of “...the welds. Oh God the welds!”
I hear high end welding is good work, these days.
There are lots and lots of bacteria in that car.
That plague ship sailed decades ago.
There were âoelots and lotsâ of bacteria on the Viking missions, Mars Pathfinder, Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity, the Mars Polar lander, Phoenix lander, Beagle, and Curiosity.
They used a âoeclean roomâ to keep dust out of instrumentation, but they were never sterile.
The fact is we donâ(TM)t know how to sterilize a spacecraft without destroying itâ" a major factor in why we havenâ(TM)t seriously considered sending a probe to Europa.
Are you aware that the mighty F-1 engine is being revised, with the F-1B being developed as a possible booster engine for the SLS, right?
Don't confuse a ton and a tonne.
2600 kg is:
* 2.87 short/US tons.
* 2.56 long/imperial tons
* 2.6 tonnes
If I had one wish...
A heliocentric Earth-Mars transfer orbit, which happens to cross Mars's path... a couple months before Mars gets there.
Were they to launch in early May, the story would be quite different.
Yeah. The single payload is ~1/2 that of a Saturn V, but we can launch 11-12 of 'em for the same cost.
I agree completely. They should have launched a full size yellow school bus.
On a more serious note, there's no insurance company that's going to underwrite a satellite payload, including one from SpaceX.
The alternatives are the traditional block of concrete which has little publicity value ...or a space vehicle (say a Dragon 2 prototype) which costs many, many times what a Tesla does, and has a significant risk SpaceX won't get the data they need when the Dragon 2 is blown to hell.
So, yeah... less cost effective than concrete, but much, much better PR.
A standard payload for a first launch is a block of concrete. The (cancelled) Ares-1's only launch had a concrete payload.
There is no communication or science satellite that's so "off the shelf" that it's reasonable to launch it & shrug when it is blown to hell. We don't have them just laying around waiting to be launched.
For some perspective:
- GPS satellites cost more than double what the Falcon Heavy does
- Weather satellites are about triple the cost of a Falcon Heavy
No insurance company is going to underwrite the payload for the first Falcon Heavy, and they'd be insane if they did.
Between launching a concrete block and a publicity stunt, it's probably a better idea to use it for publicity. In Musk's case, it's a 3-for one sale: Falcon 9, Tesla Roadster, SpaceX Space Suit.
I personally think they should have launched a retired school bus.
Infrequently, when someone loses some data somehere, they read a small portion of them
Checksumming filesystems (WAFL, ZFS, etc.) are the standard for large arrays, and it's pretty foolish to not run a scrub operation regularly -- at least weekly, possibly more often than that.
If they're doing their job, reads will outnumber writes by several orders of magnitude.
I seem to recall other, similar extradition requests - Gary McKinnon for one, but several others.
What makes this one special?
I seem to recall that Gary also had Asperger's and Depression... which doesn't seem to make this one a precedent at all.
seal: verb: Conclude, establish, or secure definitively, excluding the possibility of reversal or loss.
Sealed in would be covered in epoxy resin that cannot be removed at all.
Your definition would mean that batteries are “sealed” under the hood of the car, because tools are required to remove it. It ain’t so.
In order to upgrade Xcode, you may need to purchase an entirely new dev machine because they won't let you install it on your current OS and they won't let you upgrade the current OS any further.
This only happened to me after my MacBook reached ten years old. It's inconvenient, but I have to admit the machine is a little long in the tooth.
And how much sooner would you have bought those new phones if your old ones randomly turned themselves off.
A lot of folks seem to miss that point.
Lithium Polymer batteries have a lifespan between 300-500 cycles. A consumer who bought an iPhone 7 in Sept 2016 can easily be reach the end of his battery's life when the iPhone 8 comes out in Sept 2017. It's coincidence, but the peanut gallery screams "planned obsolescence!" Why does my phone suddenly crash all the time now that the iPhone 8 is out?!?
The same problem rears its head were Apple to tell you to replace the battery when it starts to go -- it just happens to be around the time the new phone comes out.
Downclocking and other forms of power conservation are one way to mitigate the issue, though it shouldn't have been done without presenting the user an option to disable it, and definitely shouldn't have been done without notifying the user.