I know it's popular to suggest that marijuana isn't that bad, and perhaps it is. But that's really not a judgment to make until the facts are in. It's been less than 20 years since the more potent varieties have shown up, and it would be surprising if there were any reasonable conclusion for at least a decade or two.
oh really
*
King LA, Carpentier C, Griffiths P. âoeCannabis potency in Europe.â Addiction. 2005 Jul; 100(7):884-6
*
Henneberger, Melinda. "Pot Surges Back, But Itâ(TM)s, Like, a Whole New World." New York Times 6 February 1994: E18.
*
Brown, Lee. âoeInterview with Lee Brown,â Dallas Morning News 21 May 1995.
*
Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S. Drug Threat Assessment, 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1993.
*
Kleiman, Mark A.R. Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1989. 29.
*
Bennett, William. Director of National Drug Control Policy, remarks at Conference of Mayors. 23 April 1990.
Higher potency say nothing, absolutely nothing about safety. A larger amount of a safe chemical in a plant leaves less room for other shit.
http://www.uccs.edu/~rmelamed/Evolutionism/medical_uses_of_cannabinoid_2/aging_2/thc_toxicity.htmlhttp://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/toxicol/2003-February/003377.htmlhttp://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/417545
So one candidate sees the value of computers as a tool, and the other admits to being computer illiterate. i can understand not wishing to use computers due to physical limits, but that doesn't change the fact that he chooses not to know about them.
You see i tend to find that the people at the extremes politically tend to be pretty anti-censorship, if only to protect their own fringe views. The center on the other hand seems to fall prey to many of the worst vices of either end by trying to please everyone.
This is where I tend to disagree. I have found that most people at either end of the political spectrum. The people out at the far edges tend to agree that censorship is pretty much intolerable. It is usually in the cushy middle ground of compromise that I see a big push for such measures.
Some are, some aren't. Leiberman hardly qualifies as far left. My issue with this is not his personal objection to such videos, nor is it with youtube removing them. My objection comes from him using his position as a public servant to subvert a basic ideal of this country.
It really is a sound paranoia when you stop to think about it. No one really has a problem with the person they like having a power, but when you give power to a government it isn't only the nice dude that you are giving it to it is the one later who may not be so cool. Really, I would love to see my fellow Americans show more distrust when it comes to their government.
For your rights to profit off your work. The Open Source model reduces the number of profit services are available to you. You get a GNU product modify it or use pieces of it, it is stuck with GNU.
Yes, but at some point it tips over from fair use into a derivative work. Not having read the lexicon it is hard for me to say. Does this judge have any other rulings show a pattern either benefiting or harming fair use rights.
A friend of mine used to actually receive angry letters from a major soft drink company due to name similarities. After she calmly pointed out that, not only is it her name, she had registered her domain prior to them registering theirs. After that they backed off and she still has her site.
This of course, presumes the innocent anarchists are telling the truth. I believe the very term anarchist implies heavily they wouldn't be above lying.
Hardly, many anarchists are fond of the truth. The fact that they do not believe in the legitimacy of government does not make them any less honest than any other group.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's popular to suggest that marijuana isn't that bad, and perhaps it is. But that's really not a judgment to make until the facts are in. It's been less than 20 years since the more potent varieties have shown up, and it would be surprising if there were any reasonable conclusion for at least a decade or two.
oh really * King LA, Carpentier C, Griffiths P. âoeCannabis potency in Europe.â Addiction. 2005 Jul; 100(7):884-6 * Henneberger, Melinda. "Pot Surges Back, But Itâ(TM)s, Like, a Whole New World." New York Times 6 February 1994: E18. * Brown, Lee. âoeInterview with Lee Brown,â Dallas Morning News 21 May 1995. * Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S. Drug Threat Assessment, 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1993. * Kleiman, Mark A.R. Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1989. 29. * Bennett, William. Director of National Drug Control Policy, remarks at Conference of Mayors. 23 April 1990. Higher potency say nothing, absolutely nothing about safety. A larger amount of a safe chemical in a plant leaves less room for other shit. http://www.uccs.edu/~rmelamed/Evolutionism/medical_uses_of_cannabinoid_2/aging_2/thc_toxicity.html http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/toxicol/2003-February/003377.html http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/417545
demos is people kratis is rule rule by the people not the ten tribes res publica is the things of the public
So one candidate sees the value of computers as a tool, and the other admits to being computer illiterate. i can understand not wishing to use computers due to physical limits, but that doesn't change the fact that he chooses not to know about them.
Physical inability to type does not mean he should be ignorant of the issues that face a major part of our economy.
You see i tend to find that the people at the extremes politically tend to be pretty anti-censorship, if only to protect their own fringe views. The center on the other hand seems to fall prey to many of the worst vices of either end by trying to please everyone.
Lakewood was an amazing place to be during it. This city is really well set up for a lack of electricity.
This is where I tend to disagree. I have found that most people at either end of the political spectrum. The people out at the far edges tend to agree that censorship is pretty much intolerable. It is usually in the cushy middle ground of compromise that I see a big push for such measures.
Yes, and as you said it often mentions a court order. Many of these laws still have sanctions for giving police undue access.
There was somewhere around here with power during that?
I get asked all the time where to find pot. Really when I was in high school pot was much easier to get than alcohol.
No, but in theory they should keep the phone compsny from handing the info over without a warrant.
Some are, some aren't. Leiberman hardly qualifies as far left. My issue with this is not his personal objection to such videos, nor is it with youtube removing them. My objection comes from him using his position as a public servant to subvert a basic ideal of this country.
It really is a sound paranoia when you stop to think about it. No one really has a problem with the person they like having a power, but when you give power to a government it isn't only the nice dude that you are giving it to it is the one later who may not be so cool. Really, I would love to see my fellow Americans show more distrust when it comes to their government.
His stance on censorship issues tends to put off a large number of left wing people who would otherwise like him. it is a big issue to some of us.
For your rights to profit off your work. The Open Source model reduces the number of profit services are available to you. You get a GNU product modify it or use pieces of it, it is stuck with GNU.
and if you modify a microsoft product?
He did.
Yes, but at some point it tips over from fair use into a derivative work. Not having read the lexicon it is hard for me to say. Does this judge have any other rulings show a pattern either benefiting or harming fair use rights.
As is MediaSentry.
Yes, but you have the chance to react before your content is removed rather than after.
the second one
sherrod brown former governor george voinovich in the house kucinich
no it was a slightly newer company than coke i just don't feel that her site is really suited to handle a slashdotting
A friend of mine used to actually receive angry letters from a major soft drink company due to name similarities. After she calmly pointed out that, not only is it her name, she had registered her domain prior to them registering theirs. After that they backed off and she still has her site.
This of course, presumes the innocent anarchists are telling the truth. I believe the very term anarchist implies heavily they wouldn't be above lying.
Hardly, many anarchists are fond of the truth. The fact that they do not believe in the legitimacy of government does not make them any less honest than any other group.
Direct action does not have to include violence. It may, but it can also be sit ins and other distinctly non violent acts.