Apple is still an opaque black box. Their essential motto could be termed as you don't need to know - which is very attractive to the layman user , but abhorrent to a true computer engineer.
I agree with the other poster. Given that the core of the operating system is open source and some UNIX conventionalities are followed (but hidden from users who don't know how to find them), such as/etc,/usr, etc, I'd say that Apple's motto could be stated as, "You don't have to know, and if you don't understand what you're doing and the possible ramifications therein, you're better off not knowing."
Am I wrong in assuming that the age of consent for a contract in the US is 18? Why should high school kids, of whom the majority are under this age, be held liable for a contract formed between the user agreement and themselves?
Certainly, I think it's within the rights of the school to enact discipline upon these kids by revoking privileges and sentencing suspensions, but I don't think there are any legal grounds that may be enforced in this case as the contract, in the eyes of the state or federal government, is in almost all cases, not valid.
I know that many people here are claiming that large sites offering free content will collapse and die if the trend to block advertising continues, but I'd like to point at LiveJournal as a site that has millions and millions of hits daily and is doing just fine in spite of the fact that they're completely free and have never had to stoop to depending on ad-based revenue. The feature set they offer to paying customers and their merchandise seem to entirely cover their operating expenses.
Personally, as an aside, I also don't think it's fair to compare web-based ads to newspaper ads. My city offers a free daily newspaper, supported by ads, which I'm happy to take. The ads may be bright and colourful, but I find it easy to psychologically blot most of them out, and I also find that given that the ads are concerning local businesses, occasionally one that is relevant to me will catch my eye. Ads on the web, because we've grown so accustomed to ignoring banner ads and what have you, have become so bloody intrusive that without my extensive use of AdBlock on a daily basis, I find the web virtually unusable. I have no opposition to static ad images that are tastefully placed on a page, but when you get into large animated gifs, Java applets, and Flash scripts incessantly trying to catch my attention and completely and constantly deterring my focus from the contents of the page, I refuse to waste my bandwidth and time on such irritating nonsense.
Blogs are just a way for someone to avoid the confrontation of dealing with it in real life.
That may be one very small aspect of blogs for some people, but I think that you've made an unnecessarily large blanket statement based on that fact.
My LiveJournal serves many purposes for me:
It keeps my friends and family informed on the going-ons of my life.
It exposes me to a wide variety of new people (I actually met my husband through LJ, who found my journal through a mutual friend).
It provides me a central, backed up place to store various pieces of information (recipes that I create, math problems I'm investigating, etc).
It provides me with a healthy emotional outlet.
I could continue, but I think I've made my point clear. I don't expect anyone to read my blog and it amazes me that I have the readership that I do (my LJ friends of list sports approximately 450 people); those who aren't interested simply don't have to investigate.
XP came out when... in 2001? With all these cuts to planned features Longhorn, apart from fighting lawsuits and finding new and innovative ways to spread evil, what has MS been doing for the last four years?
Oh yes... that's right. They gave us Windows XP Starter Edition. *slaps head* Taking out all that functionality must have taken a lot of effort, too.
As a Ph.D. student in combinatorics, if I even suggested writing the computationally intense programs that we require to generate, enumerate, or search for combinatorial objects in C# or Java, I'd be laughed out of the department. There's no way either C# or Java are up to the task when performance is that crucial.
Mac users are often the type that don't particularly want to build their computer themselves. They simply want something that works (and works well) out of the box. If that option doesn't appeal to you, then you're not part of the market that Apple is targeting.
I, personally, don't want to build my own computer any more than I want to assemble my own car. Computers are not my life; I use computers as a tool to accomplish what I need them to do (program intensive combinatorial algorithms and write up mathematical papers). My PowerBook provides me an excellent ground to do so by offering me a GNU programming environment, LaTeX, Microsoft Word, etc.
The study claims that the majority of mentally ill people smoke. You turn this around to imply that the majority of smokers are mentally ill. That just isn't very sound logic.
I have a friend who works as a social worker for people with mental illness and predominantly schizophrenics. She tells me that the smoking rate amongst these people is very nearly 100% and that they smoke very heavily compared to your normal smoker (which would explain why so many cigarettes are purchased by these people). Why? Because something about nicotine is very medicative to these people and helps them control the symptoms of their disease.
(Interestingly, according to her, most schizophrenics, despite their poor lifestyles, also live into a surprisingly ripe old age.)
As a former smoker who is mentally sound and who knows many smokers, I've seen no evidence of mental illness in any of the tobacco consumers that I know. I think your post is just another derogatory attempt to demonize people who choose to use tobacco.
I don't know what the situation is like in the US, but where I grew up in Canada, many kids brought in lunches, and many bought lunches (or a component or two of their lunch - like a salad or a carton of french fries to go with their sandwich). There was no shame in having a homemade lunch.
While I don't mean to brag about my mother and she certainly made her share of mistakes in raising me, I also think that she did a lot of things right, and I particularly liked her system with regards to cafeteria food and think that I'd use it with my own children.
Essentially, for four days of the week, she'd make me a healthy, homemade lunch consisting of fresh fruit, a nutritious sandwich, and a small bottle of milk. On the fifth day (usually Fridays), she would give me money and encourage me to buy anything of my choosing, even if that was fish sticks and french fries or pizza, insisting that I deserved a treat once in awhile and that fast food was not particularly unhealthy when eaten in moderation.
I don't really see the point of this system, I guess. Even if children do choose to eat unhealthily for lunch, parents still have control over two meals of the day, and can control how often the children have access to cafeteria food. I don't see why they shouldn't use this as an advantage to feed their child good, nutritious food instead, which I'm sure that many of them don't.
Alcohol is a "substance", and it is physically addictive.
When has a person suffered from alcohol withdrawal other than in a psychological sense?
See above link. In heavy users, discontinuing alcohol suddenly can cause delerium tremens, hallucinations, and death. I'd say that's a little more than psychological withdrawal.
Perhaps you should refrain from using the LSD.
I've never used LSD in my life, as I've done my homework, read up on it extensively, and don't think that it would be a good idea for me to try it (I have an anxiety disorder). Had I known nothing about alcohol or LSD, I likely would have refrained from posting speculative and incorrect facts. Perhaps this is a philosophy which you might consider adopting as well, given the post you just made.
Cocaine and methamphetamine have very few physical withdrawl symptoms.
Perhaps. Even though I have a layman's fascination with drugs, neuropharmacology, and psychopharmacology, I'm not particularly that familiar with these two substances as stimulants don't particularly interest me (I'm a hyperactive bastard by nature and the thought of using any stimulants, caffeine included, is quite unappealing to me). However, despite the lack of withdrawal, I'm still fairly certain (I'd search, but don't think drug searches would be wise at work) that withdrawal from very heavy use of cocaine or methamphetamines can kill, just as withdrawal from very heavy use of alcohol can kill. Both may be unlikely (I've only met one person perhaps who I would think might be addicted enough to alcohol to die from cessation), but are possible.
As for the benzodiazepine part of your comment, I was quite amused with that fact when I looked it up myself as a curiosity. I have a prescription for alprazolam (Xanax) which I rarely use for a mostly recovered case of generalized anxiety disorder. After a quick calculation, I was able to determine that my LD-50 would be reached if I consumed around 55,000 of my pills, and even then, apparently, I could be resuscitated.
PCP is not particularly addictive... it's probably psychologically addictive, but I don't suspect that it's physically addictive. Wikipedia suggests that approximately 10% of drinkers are addicts, which while low compared to substances like nicotine, is probably much higher than levels seen in PCP users.
(Not that I'm defending PCP... I think it's a pretty shitty drug and there are plenty of safer alternatives. I'm just saying.)
I'd also like to point out that while pure, measured opiates / opioids might be very physically addictive, there is little risk of long term danger in their use, unlike alcohol, cocaine, and methamphetamines, and little risk of overdose.
I believe that cocaine, methamphetamine, and barbiturate withdrawal can also kill very heavy users. Opiate withdrawal cannot, however, except in the very elderly or unhealthy. I don't think that it's very typical of benzodiazepines, either, despite what the other poster mentioned.
I'm sad that you had problems controlling your opiate use, but I don't think that they should be made illegal in light of this. I use codeine, oxycodone, morphine, and meperidine on rare occasions, and love them. No addiction issues at all.
Alcohol, on the other hand, I have had a problem with at times, but I hardly think that it should be illegalized because people like me exist.
I'm for full legalization and availability of all drugs save antibiotics, though. In fact, I'd propose stringent rules on antibiotic prescriptions. Antibiotics are the only drug / medication I can think of where abuse harms society as a whole instead of just the individual.
LSD is, without a doubt, far, far safer than alcohol.
LSD is completely nonaddictive. Alcohol withdrawal can kill an individual.
It is possible (and not difficult) to consume a lethal dose of alcohol. Even people who have consumed hundreds or thousands of times the standard dose of LSD have survived and demonstrated no noticeable impairment as a result.
Alcohol is directly toxic to the body. LSD is nontoxic.
Alcohol is a CNS depressant and mixes quite poorly with other drugs. LSD mixed with other drugs, while perhaps not recommended, is unlikely to demonstrate problems.
If that isn't reason to view LSD as preferable to alcohol, I don't know what is.
Now, admittedly, LSD is more psychologically challenging than alcohol and can result in episodes of anxiety, triggerring of underlying psychiatric disorders, or intensification of existing ones, but given that the majority of the population is sane, this isn't particularly problematic - and note that even completely sane people aren't entirely unlikely to do stupid things like drink and drive when inebriated enough.
As for your friend, I largely suspect that he was either quite mentally ill to start with, or that he was given dissociatives instead of LSD.
Here... I'll fill in the rest of the obligatory unfunny stupid jokes so that we can get on with our lives and have an intelligent discussion on the subject of the ISS:
Obligatory old Korean joke: Only old Koreans get stuck with no oxygen on ISS.
Obligatory underpants gnome joke: 1. Run out of oxygen. 2. ??? 3. Profit!
Obligatory beowulf cluster joke: The oxygen generators: If only they'd had a beowulf cluster of these.
Obligatory MS joke: The oxygen generator must have been powered by Microsoft.
Obligatory Apple joke: The oxygen generator was useless because it only had one button.
Obligatory all-your-base joke: All your oxygen are belong to us! Someone sent us up the parts!
Obligatory Strong Bad joke: SUFFOCAT'D!!!
Obligatory everything else joke: The thought of Natalie Portman, petrified and naked, while they eat hot grits poured down each others' pants should help them to stave off suffocation, or at least be happy about it.
Unfortunately, doctors look at people who know what they need or want as drug abusers.
That's a *very* good point. I still have a prescription for Xanax to take as needed (which is rare), and when I go to fill it and hand them my old prescription bottle (with my name, the drug name, and the dose on it), if I mention "alprazolam", I'm typically turned down, but if I look confused and say, "My old doctor gave me this," I'm pretty much instantly written off a refill.
Drug law and the pharmaceutical industry both baffle me completely, in a theoretical sense and from personal experience.
There seems to be a whole branch of the pharmaceutical industry that is interested in deriving new medications to substitute for older tried-and-true medications, because the older meds often demonstrate "positive side effects" that we somehow view as undesirable.
What we're ignoring is that while the newer medications may eliminate the positive side effects (which may be addictive, or encourage abuse of medications, etc), these are not just vanishing; they're often being replaced by negative and potentially dangerous side effects.
From my own dealings with the medical industry, I present several examples:
In 1996, still a teenager, I was cursed with some terrible, painful, and scarring cystic acne. I went to my doctor at the time and requested tetracycline. He instead gave me Accutane as he was hesitant to prescribe antibiotics for this condition. Several months later, for no situational reason, I became suicidal and tried to kill myself. Suicidal tendencies are now a well-known side effect of Accutane.
In 1999, I developed a debilitating case of Generalized Anxiety Disorder. My doctor did not want to prescribe me benzodiazepines (very effective anxiolytics), instead preferring to give me paroxetine (Paxil). Result? It induced, within hours, panic attacks in me. Prior to that point, I had never had a panic attack before. It was determined that I was one of approximately 7% of caucasians deficient in the CYP450 family of liver enzymes, explaining why the medication demonstrated effects within hours instead of within days. This resulted in me also developing Panic Anxiety Disorder. My doctor then wanted to give me imipramine, which had a whole host of negative side effects, including instant death in a small percentage of users. I finally went to see another doctor, who was happy to prescribe me the benzodiazepine alprazolam (Xanax), which worked brilliantly and allowed me to live my life and engage in a cognitive behavioural therapy treatment program to learn long-term anxiety management skills. Note that in dealing with long term users of Paxil, I've noticed that many report that Paxil withdrawal is far worse than benzodiazepine withdrawal despite the fact that Paxil is supposed to be "non-addictive".
I pulled a muscle in my lower back in late 2000. The doctor I went to see did not want to give me muscle relaxants for it as he thought they were too addictive, so instead, he provided me with celecoxib (Celebrex). I was in so much pain and so unable to do anything from the stiffness that I was unable to protest, and while it worked, during the treatment I discovered that Celebrex was so new a medication that it had only undergone a couple of clinical trials and had rushed to be released. I felt thoroughly like a guinea pig, particularly in light of the fact that several years later, Celebrex has largely been yanked from the market as it can cause possible heart problems.
The list can go on: Ultram invented for pain in lieu of the opioids (despite the fact that it's still very addictive), Ambien invented for inducing sleep instead of barbiturates and benzodiazepines (because it was, and still is assumed to be safer - ignoring the fact that it can and often does cause dramatic hallucinations at standard prescribed doses).
Personally, when I have severe pain, I want codeine or morphine. When I need to be sedated, give me some Valium. Don't try to haul this new, safer, poorly researched crap on me. Opiates, for example, have been in use for hundreds or thousands of years, and are well understood. I'd be much more likely to put my faith and comfort in them than some experimental drug that's but a couple years old.
The reason people's freedoms in this regard are limited, is because their actions, over time, inflict a financial burden upon society that the individual does not pay for.
I disagree with your claim for a number of reasons.
First off, if you look around at a historical account of the formation on the war on drugs, you'll see that it stems largely from the general racism towards the Chinese, the African Americans, and the Mexicans during the early to mid 20th century.
Secondly, many activities that we partake in daily, over time, inflict a far, far more disastrous financial burden upon society that the individual does not pay for. Examples? Alcohol, tobacco, excessive unhealthy / fast food consumption, lack of exercise, etc.
Am I free to refuse to contribute my tax / insurance dollars towards your health care because I disapprove of your lifestyle? If I don't think your exercise regime is sufficient, or I feel that your diet doesn't meet my standards of healthiness, am I free to request that you pay your own hospital bills?
I daily engage in a good 40 minutes of cardiovascular exercise. I eat naturally - opting to completely avoid unhealthy fats and artificial ingredients - and organically, when feasible. I also choose to use certain drugs, usually illegally, because I've spent man-months researching psychopharmacology, neuropharmacology, ethnobotany, etc. and feel that the substances that I do use offer far more benefits than risks. My doctor is well aware of my drug consumption and condones it, feeling that it is probably far more beneficial in terms of relaxation, spiritual growth, etc. than it is detrimental.
Snake attacks on humans are unheard of by the smaller species of snake, and even amongst the larger, extremely rare. Once a snake is used to your smell, it will no longer view you as a threat or as a possible source of food, despite popular belief.
I freely allow my 6.5' coastal carpet python to crawl behind and around my neck, and she's never made any move to hurt me.
Cheers! I've seen quite a bit of snake fear here in this post, which always dismays me as the owner of a ball python, a coastal carpet python, and a Colombian red tail boa constrictor. Not only are many of the commonly sold non-venomous snakes beautiful and fun to look at, but they make easy-to-care-for and amusing pets (says the guy who is currently sporting a young boa for a hat and has a tail in his eyes). After having had snakes, I can safely say that they've far surpassed cats as my pet of choice: I only need to feed my snakes one a week, if that, and watching them eat is HELLA cooler than watching a cat eat. My snakes are also happy to take attention when they get it without trying to demand it, like a cat.
The flying snake apparently is very hostile, and hence would not make a good pet, but they're damn cool to watch in the videos.
I aspire to one day own, when I have room, a nice 30' long reticulated python (the world's longest snake - the anaconda is the world's heaviest snake). Beautiful, lovely, intelligent species.
Besides, a cellphone is cheaper than your home phone. Do you still have home phone service? Why? Cancel your home phone and get a cellphone.
I've heard this attitude commonly from Americans. Please keep in mind that from my understanding from friends and family, Canadian cell phone service is much more expensive and less flexible than American service. For example, my partner lives in Washington, DC. I can get unlimited 24/7 calling to the US and Canada with my home phone plan. Such plans don't even exist with cell phone companies up here, from my understanding, or if they did, they'd probably be offered only after 8:00 PM or what have you.
Additionally, I just don't like talking on a cell phone. I find that the earpiece and mouthpiece are a little small for my tastes and never got used to 'em on friends' phones. I move my head slightly, and I can't hear anymore. When I call someone on their cell phone, the sound quality of their voice transmission, I find, is often much poorer than a home phone.
I understand the cell phone mentality, but I'm just not really interested. The cons (having to charge it, my difficulties in having conversations on it, etc.) outweigh the pros for me, but of course that's a matter of personal taste.
I also have a personal point of contention with cell phone manufacturers. There's a good number of people who completely lack cell phone etiquette, and it seems by producing phones with irritating, loud, and customizable ring tones, and even worse (I saw this the other day), designing phones that light up and flash obnoxiously like a UFO when they ring, making money with cool factor takes a huge priority over encouraging appropriate and polite cell phone use. I like integrity and good values (as much as can be expected) from the businesses I support, and those manufacturers aren't the type of people I want to give my bucks to.
I agree that everyone assumes you have a cell phone. People always seem quite surprised when I tell them that I don't, especially since I'm a software developer and as such, there's an assumption that I'm up on all the latest technological fads (hey, I run Linux, Mac OS X, and I have an iPod... that's all I can handle for now:D).
Just FYI, driving up here is like the states and decided provincially instead of federally, but typically the age is 16. Regardless, as I have been riding in cars my whole life and have never had one break down in the middle of nowhere before, I think it's safe to conclude that (now, five years after this conversation) 27 years of my life have elapsed without this being a significant event.
And while I recognize that cell phones *can* save lives, I think that the probability that they will save me during my lifetime is low enough that it doesn't offset the cost of the phone and service plan, and the irritation of carrying the thing around and charging the batteries.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is still an opaque black box. Their essential motto could be termed as you don't need to know - which is very attractive to the layman user , but abhorrent to a true computer engineer.
/etc, /usr, etc, I'd say that Apple's motto could be stated as, "You don't have to know, and if you don't understand what you're doing and the possible ramifications therein, you're better off not knowing."
I agree with the other poster. Given that the core of the operating system is open source and some UNIX conventionalities are followed (but hidden from users who don't know how to find them), such as
Am I wrong in assuming that the age of consent for a contract in the US is 18? Why should high school kids, of whom the majority are under this age, be held liable for a contract formed between the user agreement and themselves?
Certainly, I think it's within the rights of the school to enact discipline upon these kids by revoking privileges and sentencing suspensions, but I don't think there are any legal grounds that may be enforced in this case as the contract, in the eyes of the state or federal government, is in almost all cases, not valid.
I know that many people here are claiming that large sites offering free content will collapse and die if the trend to block advertising continues, but I'd like to point at LiveJournal as a site that has millions and millions of hits daily and is doing just fine in spite of the fact that they're completely free and have never had to stoop to depending on ad-based revenue. The feature set they offer to paying customers and their merchandise seem to entirely cover their operating expenses.
Personally, as an aside, I also don't think it's fair to compare web-based ads to newspaper ads. My city offers a free daily newspaper, supported by ads, which I'm happy to take. The ads may be bright and colourful, but I find it easy to psychologically blot most of them out, and I also find that given that the ads are concerning local businesses, occasionally one that is relevant to me will catch my eye. Ads on the web, because we've grown so accustomed to ignoring banner ads and what have you, have become so bloody intrusive that without my extensive use of AdBlock on a daily basis, I find the web virtually unusable. I have no opposition to static ad images that are tastefully placed on a page, but when you get into large animated gifs, Java applets, and Flash scripts incessantly trying to catch my attention and completely and constantly deterring my focus from the contents of the page, I refuse to waste my bandwidth and time on such irritating nonsense.
That may be one very small aspect of blogs for some people, but I think that you've made an unnecessarily large blanket statement based on that fact.
My LiveJournal serves many purposes for me:
I could continue, but I think I've made my point clear. I don't expect anyone to read my blog and it amazes me that I have the readership that I do (my LJ friends of list sports approximately 450 people); those who aren't interested simply don't have to investigate.
XP came out when... in 2001? With all these cuts to planned features Longhorn, apart from fighting lawsuits and finding new and innovative ways to spread evil, what has MS been doing for the last four years?
Oh yes... that's right. They gave us Windows XP Starter Edition. *slaps head* Taking out all that functionality must have taken a lot of effort, too.
As a Ph.D. student in combinatorics, if I even suggested writing the computationally intense programs that we require to generate, enumerate, or search for combinatorial objects in C# or Java, I'd be laughed out of the department. There's no way either C# or Java are up to the task when performance is that crucial.
Because you put it together.
Mac users are often the type that don't particularly want to build their computer themselves. They simply want something that works (and works well) out of the box. If that option doesn't appeal to you, then you're not part of the market that Apple is targeting.
I, personally, don't want to build my own computer any more than I want to assemble my own car. Computers are not my life; I use computers as a tool to accomplish what I need them to do (program intensive combinatorial algorithms and write up mathematical papers). My PowerBook provides me an excellent ground to do so by offering me a GNU programming environment, LaTeX, Microsoft Word, etc.
The study claims that the majority of mentally ill people smoke. You turn this around to imply that the majority of smokers are mentally ill. That just isn't very sound logic.
I have a friend who works as a social worker for people with mental illness and predominantly schizophrenics. She tells me that the smoking rate amongst these people is very nearly 100% and that they smoke very heavily compared to your normal smoker (which would explain why so many cigarettes are purchased by these people). Why? Because something about nicotine is very medicative to these people and helps them control the symptoms of their disease.
(Interestingly, according to her, most schizophrenics, despite their poor lifestyles, also live into a surprisingly ripe old age.)
As a former smoker who is mentally sound and who knows many smokers, I've seen no evidence of mental illness in any of the tobacco consumers that I know. I think your post is just another derogatory attempt to demonize people who choose to use tobacco.
I don't know what the situation is like in the US, but where I grew up in Canada, many kids brought in lunches, and many bought lunches (or a component or two of their lunch - like a salad or a carton of french fries to go with their sandwich). There was no shame in having a homemade lunch.
While I don't mean to brag about my mother and she certainly made her share of mistakes in raising me, I also think that she did a lot of things right, and I particularly liked her system with regards to cafeteria food and think that I'd use it with my own children.
Essentially, for four days of the week, she'd make me a healthy, homemade lunch consisting of fresh fruit, a nutritious sandwich, and a small bottle of milk. On the fifth day (usually Fridays), she would give me money and encourage me to buy anything of my choosing, even if that was fish sticks and french fries or pizza, insisting that I deserved a treat once in awhile and that fast food was not particularly unhealthy when eaten in moderation.
I don't really see the point of this system, I guess. Even if children do choose to eat unhealthily for lunch, parents still have control over two meals of the day, and can control how often the children have access to cafeteria food. I don't see why they shouldn't use this as an advantage to feed their child good, nutritious food instead, which I'm sure that many of them don't.
What the heck is alcohol withdrawal?
Wikipedia says it better than I can: Alcohol withdrawal
Alcohol has no addictive substances.
Alcohol is a "substance", and it is physically addictive.
When has a person suffered from alcohol withdrawal other than in a psychological sense?
See above link. In heavy users, discontinuing alcohol suddenly can cause delerium tremens, hallucinations, and death. I'd say that's a little more than psychological withdrawal.
Perhaps you should refrain from using the LSD.
I've never used LSD in my life, as I've done my homework, read up on it extensively, and don't think that it would be a good idea for me to try it (I have an anxiety disorder). Had I known nothing about alcohol or LSD, I likely would have refrained from posting speculative and incorrect facts. Perhaps this is a philosophy which you might consider adopting as well, given the post you just made.
Cocaine and methamphetamine have very few physical withdrawl symptoms.
Perhaps. Even though I have a layman's fascination with drugs, neuropharmacology, and psychopharmacology, I'm not particularly that familiar with these two substances as stimulants don't particularly interest me (I'm a hyperactive bastard by nature and the thought of using any stimulants, caffeine included, is quite unappealing to me). However, despite the lack of withdrawal, I'm still fairly certain (I'd search, but don't think drug searches would be wise at work) that withdrawal from very heavy use of cocaine or methamphetamines can kill, just as withdrawal from very heavy use of alcohol can kill. Both may be unlikely (I've only met one person perhaps who I would think might be addicted enough to alcohol to die from cessation), but are possible.
As for the benzodiazepine part of your comment, I was quite amused with that fact when I looked it up myself as a curiosity. I have a prescription for alprazolam (Xanax) which I rarely use for a mostly recovered case of generalized anxiety disorder. After a quick calculation, I was able to determine that my LD-50 would be reached if I consumed around 55,000 of my pills, and even then, apparently, I could be resuscitated.
Just as an aside...
PCP is not particularly addictive... it's probably psychologically addictive, but I don't suspect that it's physically addictive. Wikipedia suggests that approximately 10% of drinkers are addicts, which while low compared to substances like nicotine, is probably much higher than levels seen in PCP users.
(Not that I'm defending PCP... I think it's a pretty shitty drug and there are plenty of safer alternatives. I'm just saying.)
I'd also like to point out that while pure, measured opiates / opioids might be very physically addictive, there is little risk of long term danger in their use, unlike alcohol, cocaine, and methamphetamines, and little risk of overdose.
I believe that cocaine, methamphetamine, and barbiturate withdrawal can also kill very heavy users. Opiate withdrawal cannot, however, except in the very elderly or unhealthy. I don't think that it's very typical of benzodiazepines, either, despite what the other poster mentioned.
See my response here.
I'm sad that you had problems controlling your opiate use, but I don't think that they should be made illegal in light of this. I use codeine, oxycodone, morphine, and meperidine on rare occasions, and love them. No addiction issues at all.
Alcohol, on the other hand, I have had a problem with at times, but I hardly think that it should be illegalized because people like me exist.
I'm for full legalization and availability of all drugs save antibiotics, though. In fact, I'd propose stringent rules on antibiotic prescriptions. Antibiotics are the only drug / medication I can think of where abuse harms society as a whole instead of just the individual.
If that isn't reason to view LSD as preferable to alcohol, I don't know what is.
Now, admittedly, LSD is more psychologically challenging than alcohol and can result in episodes of anxiety, triggerring of underlying psychiatric disorders, or intensification of existing ones, but given that the majority of the population is sane, this isn't particularly problematic - and note that even completely sane people aren't entirely unlikely to do stupid things like drink and drive when inebriated enough.
As for your friend, I largely suspect that he was either quite mentally ill to start with, or that he was given dissociatives instead of LSD.
Here... I'll fill in the rest of the obligatory unfunny stupid jokes so that we can get on with our lives and have an intelligent discussion on the subject of the ISS:
Obligatory old Korean joke: Only old Koreans get stuck with no oxygen on ISS.
Obligatory underpants gnome joke:
1. Run out of oxygen.
2. ???
3. Profit!
Obligatory beowulf cluster joke: The oxygen generators: If only they'd had a beowulf cluster of these.
Obligatory MS joke: The oxygen generator must have been powered by Microsoft.
Obligatory Apple joke: The oxygen generator was useless because it only had one button.
Obligatory all-your-base joke: All your oxygen are belong to us! Someone sent us up the parts!
Obligatory Strong Bad joke: SUFFOCAT'D!!!
Obligatory everything else joke: The thought of Natalie Portman, petrified and naked, while they eat hot grits poured down each others' pants should help them to stave off suffocation, or at least be happy about it.
Unfortunately, doctors look at people who know what they need or want as drug abusers.
That's a *very* good point. I still have a prescription for Xanax to take as needed (which is rare), and when I go to fill it and hand them my old prescription bottle (with my name, the drug name, and the dose on it), if I mention "alprazolam", I'm typically turned down, but if I look confused and say, "My old doctor gave me this," I'm pretty much instantly written off a refill.
There seems to be a whole branch of the pharmaceutical industry that is interested in deriving new medications to substitute for older tried-and-true medications, because the older meds often demonstrate "positive side effects" that we somehow view as undesirable.
What we're ignoring is that while the newer medications may eliminate the positive side effects (which may be addictive, or encourage abuse of medications, etc), these are not just vanishing; they're often being replaced by negative and potentially dangerous side effects.
From my own dealings with the medical industry, I present several examples:
The list can go on: Ultram invented for pain in lieu of the opioids (despite the fact that it's still very addictive), Ambien invented for inducing sleep instead of barbiturates and benzodiazepines (because it was, and still is assumed to be safer - ignoring the fact that it can and often does cause dramatic hallucinations at standard prescribed doses).
Personally, when I have severe pain, I want codeine or morphine. When I need to be sedated, give me some Valium. Don't try to haul this new, safer, poorly researched crap on me. Opiates, for example, have been in use for hundreds or thousands of years, and are well understood. I'd be much more likely to put my faith and comfort in them than some experimental drug that's but a couple years old.
The reason people's freedoms in this regard are limited, is because their actions, over time, inflict a financial burden upon society that the individual does not pay for.
I disagree with your claim for a number of reasons.
First off, if you look around at a historical account of the formation on the war on drugs, you'll see that it stems largely from the general racism towards the Chinese, the African Americans, and the Mexicans during the early to mid 20th century.
Secondly, many activities that we partake in daily, over time, inflict a far, far more disastrous financial burden upon society that the individual does not pay for. Examples? Alcohol, tobacco, excessive unhealthy / fast food consumption, lack of exercise, etc.
Am I free to refuse to contribute my tax / insurance dollars towards your health care because I disapprove of your lifestyle? If I don't think your exercise regime is sufficient, or I feel that your diet doesn't meet my standards of healthiness, am I free to request that you pay your own hospital bills?
I daily engage in a good 40 minutes of cardiovascular exercise. I eat naturally - opting to completely avoid unhealthy fats and artificial ingredients - and organically, when feasible. I also choose to use certain drugs, usually illegally, because I've spent man-months researching psychopharmacology, neuropharmacology, ethnobotany, etc. and feel that the substances that I do use offer far more benefits than risks. My doctor is well aware of my drug consumption and condones it, feeling that it is probably far more beneficial in terms of relaxation, spiritual growth, etc. than it is detrimental.
Snake attacks on humans are unheard of by the smaller species of snake, and even amongst the larger, extremely rare. Once a snake is used to your smell, it will no longer view you as a threat or as a possible source of food, despite popular belief.
I freely allow my 6.5' coastal carpet python to crawl behind and around my neck, and she's never made any move to hurt me.
Cheers! I've seen quite a bit of snake fear here in this post, which always dismays me as the owner of a ball python, a coastal carpet python, and a Colombian red tail boa constrictor. Not only are many of the commonly sold non-venomous snakes beautiful and fun to look at, but they make easy-to-care-for and amusing pets (says the guy who is currently sporting a young boa for a hat and has a tail in his eyes). After having had snakes, I can safely say that they've far surpassed cats as my pet of choice: I only need to feed my snakes one a week, if that, and watching them eat is HELLA cooler than watching a cat eat. My snakes are also happy to take attention when they get it without trying to demand it, like a cat.
The flying snake apparently is very hostile, and hence would not make a good pet, but they're damn cool to watch in the videos.
I aspire to one day own, when I have room, a nice 30' long reticulated python (the world's longest snake - the anaconda is the world's heaviest snake). Beautiful, lovely, intelligent species.
And if it's always off, there's not much point in owning one, is there?
Besides, a cellphone is cheaper than your home phone. Do you still have home phone service? Why? Cancel your home phone and get a cellphone.
I've heard this attitude commonly from Americans. Please keep in mind that from my understanding from friends and family, Canadian cell phone service is much more expensive and less flexible than American service. For example, my partner lives in Washington, DC. I can get unlimited 24/7 calling to the US and Canada with my home phone plan. Such plans don't even exist with cell phone companies up here, from my understanding, or if they did, they'd probably be offered only after 8:00 PM or what have you.
Additionally, I just don't like talking on a cell phone. I find that the earpiece and mouthpiece are a little small for my tastes and never got used to 'em on friends' phones. I move my head slightly, and I can't hear anymore. When I call someone on their cell phone, the sound quality of their voice transmission, I find, is often much poorer than a home phone.
I understand the cell phone mentality, but I'm just not really interested. The cons (having to charge it, my difficulties in having conversations on it, etc.) outweigh the pros for me, but of course that's a matter of personal taste.
I also have a personal point of contention with cell phone manufacturers. There's a good number of people who completely lack cell phone etiquette, and it seems by producing phones with irritating, loud, and customizable ring tones, and even worse (I saw this the other day), designing phones that light up and flash obnoxiously like a UFO when they ring, making money with cool factor takes a huge priority over encouraging appropriate and polite cell phone use. I like integrity and good values (as much as can be expected) from the businesses I support, and those manufacturers aren't the type of people I want to give my bucks to.
I agree that everyone assumes you have a cell phone. People always seem quite surprised when I tell them that I don't, especially since I'm a software developer and as such, there's an assumption that I'm up on all the latest technological fads (hey, I run Linux, Mac OS X, and I have an iPod... that's all I can handle for now :D).
Just FYI, driving up here is like the states and decided provincially instead of federally, but typically the age is 16. Regardless, as I have been riding in cars my whole life and have never had one break down in the middle of nowhere before, I think it's safe to conclude that (now, five years after this conversation) 27 years of my life have elapsed without this being a significant event.
And while I recognize that cell phones *can* save lives, I think that the probability that they will save me during my lifetime is low enough that it doesn't offset the cost of the phone and service plan, and the irritation of carrying the thing around and charging the batteries.