While I agree that combining pot and alcohol is much more impairing than just using one or the other, when you combine almost any drug with alcohol the effect tends to be extreme impairment. A couple beers and a couple Vicoden is a lot worse than several beers, for example.
Regardless, this only highlights how BAC is a poor determinant for impairment. Like you mention, fatigue tends to be worse than drunkenness. I think if a person can't pass a field sobriety test because of fatigue they should be given the same punishment as someone who cannot pass it due to drunkenness. But to tell me that I'm too impaired to drive because I've consumed three beers is asinine, which is what our current laws do.
The problem is the current laws are written by MADD - it's a mad system, that's for sure.
The only time I felt too stoned to drive was when I ate a huge piece of cake made with weed butter. I still managed to get back home okay, but it wasn't cool. It was like that movie, Smiley Face, where Anna Faris accidentally eats a whole tray of weed cupcakes. The experience I had eating that cake made that whole movie seem plausible.
Anyway, my point is that from anecdotal experience I'd have to say you're right on this one. When I smoke weed I'll only smoke so much, it'll get to the point where I just don't want to smoke anymore. But if I eat weed I can get so ridiculously high that I'm hilariously impaired and paranoid. Also, Smiley Face is the best stoner movie ever.
I think the problem is that every time someone's been in a crash and pot was found on them or they tested positive for pot at the hospital, the authorities "associated" pot with the crash. This is a classic mix up of correlation and causation. They don't realize that pot is found on a lot of people who are involved in crashes because it's so ubiquitous, not because it actually causes people to wreck.
The main reason I usually use Mac OS X more than Linux is because of fonts. I don't really play computer games anymore. But no matter what type of antialiasing or whatever I install on Linux I can't get the fonts to look as crisp as they do in OS X, which makes a difference when I'm making presentations.
It's gotten to the point where I can get by without Word. The imagine manipulation I have to do is basic so Gimp works fine. But two things hold me back: I still need Excel (in Windows - only thing I use Windows for) and I need beautiful fonts. If someone could point me in the right direction to amend my font troubles on Linux then I'll love you forever.
The funny thing is when I do play games I do it in Linux. There are all sorts of awesome logic/math/puzzle games available on Linux and they're free. I don't play games for eye candy, I play them for mental stimulation. I disapprove of hobbies where the goal is to zombify the individual so they can 'pass the time.' If your time is so invaluable you feel like you need time wasters then just kill yourself already. Seriously. If you spend a large portion of your waking life playing WoW or Call of Duty or watching reality TV then please just die already. You are the living dead.
Re:The biggest walled garden is an Apple orchard.
on
The Empire In Decline?
·
· Score: 1
So you're saying that markets are like Highlander. . . there can be only one. Well, I guess Karl Marx would agree with that. Apple's doing just fine, I don't think they or anyone else expected them to dominate the market in terms of market share. You don't have to be #1 to be successful.
If you dominate market share by means of razor-thin margins then you're in a dangerous situation. A high revenue, low profit situation can easily be turned into a high revenue, negative profit situation. Look at the OEMs that license Windows. Every single one would trade places with Apple if they could.
Apple's on sound financial ground because they don't hire people like yourself who think in terms of market share and relevance. They think in terms of dollars and cents, and that's what they rake in.
Re:The biggest walled garden is an Apple orchard.
on
The Empire In Decline?
·
· Score: 1
You are dangerously naive if you actually believe that Apple would cripple one of their flagship products to the point that they would lose well over half their customer base just because they have some desire to be nefarious or controlling or something. ECONOMICS.
Basically, you're saying that someone is dangerously naive if they don't believe that Baskin Robbins may replace chocolate ice cream with shit flavored ice cream. Just because they could make shit flavored ice cream doesn't mean anyone at Baskin Robbins is stupid enough to try and push it on the market.
Basically, the issue is that two groups of morons are butting heads. Personally, I think it's more stupid to think that it's unethical to kill pigeons than to think it's fun to shoot pigeons. The only disappointing thing about this story is that the octocopter didn't land on one of those douchebags.
Your PC couldn't run Legend of Zelda. It didn't hook up to a TV and provide four-player fun. Back then practically the only games that utilized video cards were first person shooters -- and regardless of complexity and the amount of numbers being crunched, Mario64 looked better than Unreal.
I would disagree with the "3D performance was better than most $2k computers at the time" because the N64 had better 3D performance than all computers at the time. Just because there were computers with more potential doesn't mean it was actually realized. Back then I thought the best computer game was Starcraft, which was 2D. 3D didn't make Unreal and Quake any less boring, repetitive, and mindless; by that time I had already played Wolfenstein, Doom, and Duke Nukem. To this day FPS games haven't done much more than those three games.
Most importantly, if you were using your computer to play games then you were also using it as a toy.
Re:Innovative companies fail a lot, MSFT included
on
The Empire In Decline?
·
· Score: 1
The problem is Windows RT. No one wants windows RT because theres no application support. However, I'll gladly take a Surface pro tablet with Windows 8 Pro that can run all of my regular desktop apps.
I seriously question what the battery life on that thing will be. Especially if you have something like Photoshop running and you're doing all sorts of effects. Or if you're playing a Windows-native computer game. Editing video? Forget it. Not to mention all the things the OS will have running in the background. You might as well use a laptop, especially considering the interface for Windows-native apps isn't well suited for touch.
I don't know what Slashdot you've been reading, but around here the general hope is that desktop Linux will replace Windows, not Apple. Personally, I just see it as inevitable. It's one thing to compete with free when free requires compromises. But every year desktop Linux gets better and there are less features for Microsoft to add to Windows.
I'd bet that in ten years Microsoft will, like IBM, remain in business but change their business model drastically. Apple will still be Apple - they sell expensive hardware. But most low end and business computers will run some variant of Linux or maybe some other FOSS alternative. When free matches the functionality of non-free, free always wins. I wouldn't be surprised to see future versions of Windows be Linux-based, like how OS X is a BSD variant.
Re:The biggest walled garden is an Apple orchard.
on
The Empire In Decline?
·
· Score: 2
It's all about how you phrase it -- Apple's market share dropped, but the market itself grew. Mostly, it grew by expanding low end products, products that Apple doesn't sell. This analogy is used way too much, but apparently you haven't heard it: Ferrari isn't concerned that Ford sells more cars than them. Ferrari isn't a failure because Ford makes and sells less cars.
Companies that cater to high-brow users don't worry about market share. There are some interesting statistics out there that show that iOS users spend more money on apps than Android users. It requires more low-end customers to make the same amount of money. Both Google and Apple are achieving their goals in the mobile space, I don't see how either could currently be classified as a failure. They're both in enviable positions.
The company that needs to find its niche is Microsoft -- oh yeah, that's what this article's about, I almost forgot after you wrote like a thousand posts in a futile attempt to prove that Apple is doing poorly -- Microsoft is facing a do or die situation in the mobile space right now and the future of the company depends on how they fare. The low-end market that MS has in PCs is Google's in the mobile market. Apple is just Apple. RIM is another company in a shaky position. There's no reason to predict doom and gloom for either Google or Apple as long as it appears that neither Microsoft nor RIM stand much of a chance of supplanting them.
Re:The biggest walled garden is an Apple orchard.
on
The Empire In Decline?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The link you provide doesn't back up the assertion that Apple will turn OS X into a walled garden. Demanding that apps provided on their app store meet rigid standards that increase security and stability is in no way evidence that OS X will one day have the restrictions that iOS has.
You're trolling, your claim is FUD, and you know it.
I can lay out a counter argument with one word: Economics.
I'm not going to apologize for thinking that it might be a bad thing to structure society is such a way that one can't function without being a part of 'the network.'
While your nifty video may look impressive, I fail to see how it's worth the cost: One has to sacrifice anonymity, privacy, and simplicity. As an introvert, that world is my nightmare. I don't even let people take my picture, you think I want to live in a world where my every move is catalogued? I already have to go to great pains to thwart Facebook and Google's efforts to do this (and I don't even have a FB account).
I'm a geek, I love technology, but I also hate unnecessary uses for technology. I don't drive unless I have to travel more than a half mile. I don't have a smart phone or tablet. I still write in notebooks. Technology is great but I'm not going to incorporate it into every aspect of my life just for the sake of doing it. I want no part of your Borg future.
He could have been planning this for several months but was loyal enough to stick around until Windows 8 was released.
I don't think we can glean too much information from this news as there are just too many possibilities. For all we know he could have health problems or he could have had some religious epiphany or he could have just been bored. Who knows?
Some people want to have universal healthcare, others don't. There's nothing particularly rational about either one, it's about what people want.
There is something particularly ethical about universal healthcare and something completely immoral about a first world nation treating healthcare as a commodity. A good moral code is rational. Hence, universal healthcare is rational and our current system is not.
If fat face is smart he sent a slightly different email to each department to narrow down his list of suspects.
The problem with that strategy is that it requires the threatening memo to be leaked and that does more harm to Quinn/Cisco than the leaker. I don't see how Cisco can hold onto that guy for much longer now that this has gone public.
I'm not entirely sure what type of legal protections whistleblowers have, but even if there aren't potential legal consequences for threatening the whistleblower it's an ethical quandary. Quinn's childish threats reflect poorly on Cisco in the eyes of both customers and potential employees. If the company doesn't sack the guy then it will look like they endorse his unethical conduct, which would suggest they also have no qualms about ripping off their customers, which was the issue that started this mess.
Making remakes and sequels is considered being creative in 2012?
These may make up many of the box office movies but they're a small minority of actual films produced. The theater's for teenagers and dates. If you're looking for great films there are plenty out there. Some of the great ones even make their way to theaters.
I'd love to know what golden age of cinema you think trumps today's current renaissance.
Let's see who's talking in Romney's camp: Evangelical Christians who believe the earth is a couple thousand years old. Then there's Mormons, who refer to their church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" so the evangelicals don't realize that they're Mormons. There's the KKK and other racists. The Koch brothers and Karl Rove. People who believe that spending money is an exercise of free speech. The Ayn Rand fans who believe that altruism is a sin. Need I go on? Not really the best can of worms for you to open up.
He was a Senator from Illinois. He knew exactly how Washington works. The fact he sold the US population on smoke and mirrors and they were dumb enough to believe it is what is laughable.
US voters get exactly the government they deserve.
His point was that he would fight for positive change and that it could be achieved if we worked for it. Well, half way through his term and all those people who showed up in droves to vote for Obama were noticeably absent in the congressional/gubernatorial election, leaving Obama with perhaps the most uncooperative congress since half the country walked out on Lincoln.
Obama appointed qualified people. That was a positive change. He reformed healthcare, albeit not to the extent he wanted, and that was a positive change. He increased regulation of the financial industries, which is a hugely positive change. But most importantly of all, he kept the office out of the hands of McCain, who would have fought to implement negative change.
You're right that the American people by and large are dumb and got exactly what they deserved, but you're a prime example of that, Mr. AC. Expecting the president to pull through with a bunch of sweeping reforms without a congress to back him up is asinine.
I think you're underestimating how much more XBox has the potential to lose. XBox is a long-term power play by Microsoft. Kind of like their billion dollar Windows 8/Surface advertising campaign, they seem to be more concerned with being relevant than raking in cash. They can rely on the PC OEMs and business customers to provide the cash to fight the relevancy battle with Google, Apple, Sony, etc. I think it's a despicable business strategy when a company is more concerned with destroying competition than succeeding on their own right, but that's the way MS has operated throughout my entire lifetime so I can't say I'm surprised.
Think about it this way: This is the company that is paying millions of dollars to advertise Internet Explorer on TV right now. Internet Explorer is a free web browser. Microsoft's priorities are to control technology first, monetize it later. If WordPerfect or some other alternative were still around then they wouldn't be able to charge the absurd rates they do for Office. Their goal is a monolithic culture of Microsoft. If they can spend their way into burying Nintendo and Sony's Playstation brand then they'll be free to exploit their monopoly position for profit. I don't think they'll be successful in doing this, but that appears to be the goal.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree that combining pot and alcohol is much more impairing than just using one or the other, when you combine almost any drug with alcohol the effect tends to be extreme impairment. A couple beers and a couple Vicoden is a lot worse than several beers, for example.
Regardless, this only highlights how BAC is a poor determinant for impairment. Like you mention, fatigue tends to be worse than drunkenness. I think if a person can't pass a field sobriety test because of fatigue they should be given the same punishment as someone who cannot pass it due to drunkenness. But to tell me that I'm too impaired to drive because I've consumed three beers is asinine, which is what our current laws do.
The problem is the current laws are written by MADD - it's a mad system, that's for sure.
(eating is another thing entirely!)
The only time I felt too stoned to drive was when I ate a huge piece of cake made with weed butter. I still managed to get back home okay, but it wasn't cool. It was like that movie, Smiley Face, where Anna Faris accidentally eats a whole tray of weed cupcakes. The experience I had eating that cake made that whole movie seem plausible.
Anyway, my point is that from anecdotal experience I'd have to say you're right on this one. When I smoke weed I'll only smoke so much, it'll get to the point where I just don't want to smoke anymore. But if I eat weed I can get so ridiculously high that I'm hilariously impaired and paranoid. Also, Smiley Face is the best stoner movie ever.
I think the problem is that every time someone's been in a crash and pot was found on them or they tested positive for pot at the hospital, the authorities "associated" pot with the crash. This is a classic mix up of correlation and causation. They don't realize that pot is found on a lot of people who are involved in crashes because it's so ubiquitous, not because it actually causes people to wreck.
We don't know what level of marijuana impairs a driver.
That's because it doesn't.
The main reason I usually use Mac OS X more than Linux is because of fonts. I don't really play computer games anymore. But no matter what type of antialiasing or whatever I install on Linux I can't get the fonts to look as crisp as they do in OS X, which makes a difference when I'm making presentations.
It's gotten to the point where I can get by without Word. The imagine manipulation I have to do is basic so Gimp works fine. But two things hold me back: I still need Excel (in Windows - only thing I use Windows for) and I need beautiful fonts. If someone could point me in the right direction to amend my font troubles on Linux then I'll love you forever.
The funny thing is when I do play games I do it in Linux. There are all sorts of awesome logic/math/puzzle games available on Linux and they're free. I don't play games for eye candy, I play them for mental stimulation. I disapprove of hobbies where the goal is to zombify the individual so they can 'pass the time.' If your time is so invaluable you feel like you need time wasters then just kill yourself already. Seriously. If you spend a large portion of your waking life playing WoW or Call of Duty or watching reality TV then please just die already. You are the living dead.
So you're saying that markets are like Highlander. . . there can be only one. Well, I guess Karl Marx would agree with that. Apple's doing just fine, I don't think they or anyone else expected them to dominate the market in terms of market share. You don't have to be #1 to be successful.
If you dominate market share by means of razor-thin margins then you're in a dangerous situation. A high revenue, low profit situation can easily be turned into a high revenue, negative profit situation. Look at the OEMs that license Windows. Every single one would trade places with Apple if they could.
Apple's on sound financial ground because they don't hire people like yourself who think in terms of market share and relevance. They think in terms of dollars and cents, and that's what they rake in.
You are dangerously naive if you actually believe that Apple would cripple one of their flagship products to the point that they would lose well over half their customer base just because they have some desire to be nefarious or controlling or something. ECONOMICS.
Basically, you're saying that someone is dangerously naive if they don't believe that Baskin Robbins may replace chocolate ice cream with shit flavored ice cream. Just because they could make shit flavored ice cream doesn't mean anyone at Baskin Robbins is stupid enough to try and push it on the market.
Who cares? They're pigeons.
Basically, the issue is that two groups of morons are butting heads. Personally, I think it's more stupid to think that it's unethical to kill pigeons than to think it's fun to shoot pigeons. The only disappointing thing about this story is that the octocopter didn't land on one of those douchebags.
Your PC couldn't run Legend of Zelda. It didn't hook up to a TV and provide four-player fun. Back then practically the only games that utilized video cards were first person shooters -- and regardless of complexity and the amount of numbers being crunched, Mario64 looked better than Unreal.
I would disagree with the "3D performance was better than most $2k computers at the time" because the N64 had better 3D performance than all computers at the time. Just because there were computers with more potential doesn't mean it was actually realized. Back then I thought the best computer game was Starcraft, which was 2D. 3D didn't make Unreal and Quake any less boring, repetitive, and mindless; by that time I had already played Wolfenstein, Doom, and Duke Nukem. To this day FPS games haven't done much more than those three games.
Most importantly, if you were using your computer to play games then you were also using it as a toy.
The problem is Windows RT. No one wants windows RT because theres no application support. However, I'll gladly take a Surface pro tablet with Windows 8 Pro that can run all of my regular desktop apps.
I seriously question what the battery life on that thing will be. Especially if you have something like Photoshop running and you're doing all sorts of effects. Or if you're playing a Windows-native computer game. Editing video? Forget it. Not to mention all the things the OS will have running in the background. You might as well use a laptop, especially considering the interface for Windows-native apps isn't well suited for touch.
I don't know what Slashdot you've been reading, but around here the general hope is that desktop Linux will replace Windows, not Apple. Personally, I just see it as inevitable. It's one thing to compete with free when free requires compromises. But every year desktop Linux gets better and there are less features for Microsoft to add to Windows.
I'd bet that in ten years Microsoft will, like IBM, remain in business but change their business model drastically. Apple will still be Apple - they sell expensive hardware. But most low end and business computers will run some variant of Linux or maybe some other FOSS alternative. When free matches the functionality of non-free, free always wins. I wouldn't be surprised to see future versions of Windows be Linux-based, like how OS X is a BSD variant.
It's all about how you phrase it -- Apple's market share dropped, but the market itself grew. Mostly, it grew by expanding low end products, products that Apple doesn't sell. This analogy is used way too much, but apparently you haven't heard it: Ferrari isn't concerned that Ford sells more cars than them. Ferrari isn't a failure because Ford makes and sells less cars.
Companies that cater to high-brow users don't worry about market share. There are some interesting statistics out there that show that iOS users spend more money on apps than Android users. It requires more low-end customers to make the same amount of money. Both Google and Apple are achieving their goals in the mobile space, I don't see how either could currently be classified as a failure. They're both in enviable positions.
The company that needs to find its niche is Microsoft -- oh yeah, that's what this article's about, I almost forgot after you wrote like a thousand posts in a futile attempt to prove that Apple is doing poorly -- Microsoft is facing a do or die situation in the mobile space right now and the future of the company depends on how they fare. The low-end market that MS has in PCs is Google's in the mobile market. Apple is just Apple. RIM is another company in a shaky position. There's no reason to predict doom and gloom for either Google or Apple as long as it appears that neither Microsoft nor RIM stand much of a chance of supplanting them.
The link you provide doesn't back up the assertion that Apple will turn OS X into a walled garden. Demanding that apps provided on their app store meet rigid standards that increase security and stability is in no way evidence that OS X will one day have the restrictions that iOS has.
You're trolling, your claim is FUD, and you know it.
I can lay out a counter argument with one word: Economics.
Good points. I retract my statement.
I'm not going to apologize for thinking that it might be a bad thing to structure society is such a way that one can't function without being a part of 'the network.'
While your nifty video may look impressive, I fail to see how it's worth the cost: One has to sacrifice anonymity, privacy, and simplicity. As an introvert, that world is my nightmare. I don't even let people take my picture, you think I want to live in a world where my every move is catalogued? I already have to go to great pains to thwart Facebook and Google's efforts to do this (and I don't even have a FB account).
I'm a geek, I love technology, but I also hate unnecessary uses for technology. I don't drive unless I have to travel more than a half mile. I don't have a smart phone or tablet. I still write in notebooks. Technology is great but I'm not going to incorporate it into every aspect of my life just for the sake of doing it. I want no part of your Borg future.
He could have been planning this for several months but was loyal enough to stick around until Windows 8 was released.
I don't think we can glean too much information from this news as there are just too many possibilities. For all we know he could have health problems or he could have had some religious epiphany or he could have just been bored. Who knows?
Some people want to have universal healthcare, others don't. There's nothing particularly rational about either one, it's about what people want.
There is something particularly ethical about universal healthcare and something completely immoral about a first world nation treating healthcare as a commodity. A good moral code is rational. Hence, universal healthcare is rational and our current system is not.
If fat face is smart he sent a slightly different email to each department to narrow down his list of suspects.
The problem with that strategy is that it requires the threatening memo to be leaked and that does more harm to Quinn/Cisco than the leaker. I don't see how Cisco can hold onto that guy for much longer now that this has gone public.
I'm not entirely sure what type of legal protections whistleblowers have, but even if there aren't potential legal consequences for threatening the whistleblower it's an ethical quandary. Quinn's childish threats reflect poorly on Cisco in the eyes of both customers and potential employees. If the company doesn't sack the guy then it will look like they endorse his unethical conduct, which would suggest they also have no qualms about ripping off their customers, which was the issue that started this mess.
That's a terrible idea. Withdraw from caffeine causes headaches.
Making remakes and sequels is considered being creative in 2012?
These may make up many of the box office movies but they're a small minority of actual films produced. The theater's for teenagers and dates. If you're looking for great films there are plenty out there. Some of the great ones even make their way to theaters.
I'd love to know what golden age of cinema you think trumps today's current renaissance.
Let's see who's talking in Romney's camp: Evangelical Christians who believe the earth is a couple thousand years old. Then there's Mormons, who refer to their church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" so the evangelicals don't realize that they're Mormons. There's the KKK and other racists. The Koch brothers and Karl Rove. People who believe that spending money is an exercise of free speech. The Ayn Rand fans who believe that altruism is a sin. Need I go on? Not really the best can of worms for you to open up.
What a factual, rational, and totally non-hyperbolic-FUD comment.
Oh wait.
It does not help that the US has a long (though obviously not unique) history of going back on deals made by previous presidents
Here's an example.
He was a Senator from Illinois. He knew exactly how Washington works. The fact he sold the US population on smoke and mirrors and they were dumb enough to believe it is what is laughable.
US voters get exactly the government they deserve.
His point was that he would fight for positive change and that it could be achieved if we worked for it. Well, half way through his term and all those people who showed up in droves to vote for Obama were noticeably absent in the congressional/gubernatorial election, leaving Obama with perhaps the most uncooperative congress since half the country walked out on Lincoln.
Obama appointed qualified people. That was a positive change. He reformed healthcare, albeit not to the extent he wanted, and that was a positive change. He increased regulation of the financial industries, which is a hugely positive change. But most importantly of all, he kept the office out of the hands of McCain, who would have fought to implement negative change.
You're right that the American people by and large are dumb and got exactly what they deserved, but you're a prime example of that, Mr. AC. Expecting the president to pull through with a bunch of sweeping reforms without a congress to back him up is asinine.
I think you're underestimating how much more XBox has the potential to lose. XBox is a long-term power play by Microsoft. Kind of like their billion dollar Windows 8/Surface advertising campaign, they seem to be more concerned with being relevant than raking in cash. They can rely on the PC OEMs and business customers to provide the cash to fight the relevancy battle with Google, Apple, Sony, etc. I think it's a despicable business strategy when a company is more concerned with destroying competition than succeeding on their own right, but that's the way MS has operated throughout my entire lifetime so I can't say I'm surprised.
Think about it this way: This is the company that is paying millions of dollars to advertise Internet Explorer on TV right now. Internet Explorer is a free web browser. Microsoft's priorities are to control technology first, monetize it later. If WordPerfect or some other alternative were still around then they wouldn't be able to charge the absurd rates they do for Office. Their goal is a monolithic culture of Microsoft. If they can spend their way into burying Nintendo and Sony's Playstation brand then they'll be free to exploit their monopoly position for profit. I don't think they'll be successful in doing this, but that appears to be the goal.