If you want a faster OpenGL implementation, then you want to optimise Mesa and the individual video card drivers.
XGL is an X Server that runs on OpenGL. It won't make your OpenGL drivers faster - it's simply an OpenGL client... ie an application that runs on an OpenGL system.
I wonder if these babies will be stocked-up with napalm, white phospherous, agent orange, 'depleted' uranium and other WOMD.
Gotta love those peace-keeping missions. Keep up the good work, USA. At this rate, the world WILL be full of people wishing you blown to high heavens. Surely US taxpayers' money would be better spent making ammends with the victims of the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan, and other countries ravaged by US foreign policy... not to mention helping out the victims of Katrina, or even just boosting public spending. When was the last time spending increased on social services over there? Or do people get locked up for asking that question these days?
and how happy I am that most judges are appointed, not elected
This is the only point I take issue with. Do you really think it's wise to allow Bush and co to stack the judiciary with religious fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives? I'm not saying that voting judges in would produce a better result - it would produce a different result - perhaps better, perhaps worse. After all, the people voted the current government in - at least this time anyway. The way they got in the 1st time demonstrates the problems raised by having the judiciary appointed - they turn around and appoint their investors... er... supporters... into government:)
Agreed. I find it amusing and disturbing that long-time Linux users don't recognise socialism when they've been staring it in the face all this time - in their operating system.
Open-source IS IP socialism. What's wrong with that?
Socialism vs capitalism comes down to this:
Socialism: We all assert our collective control over resources. We all have equal rights to goods produced as a result of the use of our resources. No-one get's on the top; equality over greed.
Capitalism: Every man for them fucking selves, and if I've got more money than you, and you can't afford things that you desperately need, then that's your fucking problem, buddie! I will burn fossil fuels until the Earth's oceans boil and acid rain destorys the last of the great forests. USA! USA! USA!
For some reason ( extreme propoganda, bordering on fascism, I suppose ), people seem to like capitalism over socialism, even though they openly admit the above points are accurate.
Perhaps we didn't deserve to inherit the Earth after all?
Name-calling won't get you anywhere. Nor will smart-arse abbreviations, IMO.
I will, however, return the favour, and call you a fucking idiot for trying to bury any political dissent. I bet you're one of the first to claim that you live in a democracy, aren't you?
It's like Bill Gates presenting a medal of competition, or Mary Magdeline presenting a medal of promiscuity.
Why couldn't Dubya give a medal to some of the thousands of fallen US soldiers that died executing his illegal war of aggression? Of course I don't expect it to go to anyone who works at Guantanimo Bay or anything, but what exactly do you have to do to get one of these freedom chimes again?
I don't think so. I've read his book "The big bang never happened", and he didn't come across as a quack. He was a little bitter about the mainstream scientific community, but that's understandable - they have a lot to answer for.
His ideas about government conspiracy are also spot on. Look at the US government. One conspiracy after another - and the biggest one revolves around oil reserves, and was sold on the next biggest one - WOMD.
I have no doubt that Dubya's team of neo-conservative swindlers and murderers are responsible for this technology being sidelined.
Which 'expert' was this again? VB for Linux? I don't think so. Moving from VB to Perl was one of the best things I ever did. As a developer, I do *NOT* want to see VB on Linux. It might be handy in OpenOffice.org, but that's as far as I'd take it. Certainly users don't give a toss about VB, and I really fail to see the reasoning behind this. Perhaps there is no reasoning. Perhaps the expert is just a VB fanboy.
So users don't want to burn an ISO and boot from it? Um. Sure. Whatever. If they're not prepared to go this far, then they'd better give up now. Maybe their time would be better spent developing their VB skills?
The brand "Linux" should stand for an entire operating system not just a kernel.
WTF? This guy has never used Linux. Seriously. WTF?
He goes on to say that we should develop 'one' application for each purpose. Of course, he hasn't created any of these best-of-breed applications, nor has he caused other developers to cease development of their competing projects. Perhaps he's waiting for that VB port?
Where did we find this toss, exactly? I wouldn't trust him to install Windows XP. He's probably stack internet explorer with 5 different spyware bars because they're so fucking cool, give me his own VB calender with scrollable months (!), and then litter my desktop with folders upon folders of clip-art. Jesus Christ.
You wouldn't, for example, let the corporations that want to build the reactor offer their engineers for the task. Well, unless you're a damned fool, that is.
While I don't see this being used directly as a weapon, I can see the Pentagon plucking the National Guard from their shoot-to-kill mission in New Oraq, wiring them up with these headsets, and sending them off to Iraq Senior. With these devices, you can make damned sure your wet-behind-the-ears recruits will run full-speed into a hostile situtation without stopping to think about the possible danger to themselves.
And it won't be long before they can control more than just running in a particular direction. Next step: that pesky trigger finger.
You have no evidence whatsoever that that's the case. There has never been proof of any sort offered up by anyone, anywhere, that corporations sit on cures.
Idiot. Read the article again. It discusses the issues that you claim don't exist. It's not very convincing when you pretend these issues don't exist, and then chant the mantra of Free Market until the cows come home. Not very convincing at all.
The problem that you continue to gloss over is that corporations won't allow their research to be used by people who need it.
As you say, corporations are in the business of maximizing profit. Health care is certainly one area where this works in direct opposition with the basic needs of everyone.
If you are indeed anti-capitalist it really doesn't matter what corporations do. You won't be happy until the free market is dead and buried, replaced by god knows what. That's kinda what "anti-capitalist" means.
Yes I am indeed anti-capitalist. However your moronic statement about the free market being 'replaced by god knows what' oozes immaturity. We're not saying we should tear down the free market profit system and 'replace it with god knows what'. We're sayint we should tear it down and replace it with a new socialist order, based on the needs of society, as opposed to based on what will contribute most to the ruling class and the GDP. This isn't 'god knows what'. It's called socialism. If you truely don't understand what it entails, then I suggest you study it before engaging in any more criticism of it, or you will come off looking like a fool.
If you want your government to do something about it, demand that it fund its own research programs into cures for whatever diseases you think it should work on. And while I'd support that, I'll be damned if you think I'm going to let government use this as an excuse to raise taxes, so be prepared to cut something else out of the budget (say, most of the Dept. of the Interior?).
Now you're showing your true colours. I wouldn't be surprised if you where hired by the republicans to post this trash to public forums.
If you don't like raising taxes to pay for health care ( and I certainly support the case of the majority to be charged a fair amount of tax - proportional to what they can afford ), then how about cutting funding from the real fat of the budget - the Pentagon, Homeland Security, and CIA. Slash the Pentagon's budget by 95%, eradicate the dept of Homeland Security, and slash the CIA by 95% also, and you'll be able to lower taxes while still increasing spending on health care. From what I read about the pathetic state of health care in the US, you could certainly use it. I believe the most common reason for people to be locked up in the US is non-payment of medical bills. Surely this demonstrates the social crisis being caused by your ivory-tower free market system.
There's no Constitutional prohibition for granting government a patent (indeed, government will seize patents for itself in the case of national security).
Again you show your true colours. So it's OK for the government to seize patents to further their imperialist adventures, but it's not OK to seize a patent to protect life and prevent suffering? The mind boggles!
Of course I will never 'convince' people like you that there is a better model than the free market. But then again, I don't have to. We only need to convince a majority of people to overthrow the free market, and the rest of the population we can drag, kicking and screaming about their right to extract profit from everything, until the last 'Limited Liability' corporation is gone. And good riddance.
If corporations would take a principled approach and allow their research to be used by those who need it, then anti-capitalists such as myself wouldn't be forced to suggest that we legislate corporations out of the market. But they don't allow people in need to use their research. That's the problem.
This is a good reason why we need governments. High-tech medical research is not something that can be undertaken by average individual. However the average individual may very well need the benefits of medical research. The current model where corporations can protect 'their' investments via patents demonstrates that corporations have no business carrying out medical research.
Corporations answer to no-one but their shareholders. Saving people's lives or easing their suffering, or simply protecting them from the harmful effects of badly researched treatments is not their primary concern, and would not be their concern at all if it weren't for the economic repercussions - ie people claiming damages. Corporations simply are not the right entities to be involved in medical research.
Governments, however, are. Governments are ( supposedly ) answerable to the people. They are also in a position to be spreading the cost of medical research across the population in a fair way. A vast majority of people agree that there should be universal access to medical care - regardless of an individual's economic position. Governments can deliver. Need more money? Increase taxes. And I'm not talking about the neo-con tax increase... slugging the poor while giving massive tax breaks to the rich. I'm talking about taxing the people who can afford it, for the benefit of all. This is what governments are for - to provide everything that the 'free market' can't provide... and the longer I live, the more I think that the free market is a complete failure. Of course it doesn't fail the rich. But the other 99%, it fails miserably.
So. Businesses paid for the current research? Fine. Pay them a fair amount. They certainly shouldn't go broke - they have provided a valuable service. But we're not talking about paying them a fair amount here - we're talking about them insisting on extracting whatever they demand from the market, or they take their bat and ball and fuck off to someone who can afford their extortion.
As for the future - get corporations out of medical research. There are too many conflicts of interest. Governments should use taxpayer's money for medical research, and the benefits of that research should go to all - ie the research should be open-sourced. We here know about open source. Corporations can't be held accountable... ie you can't ask a corporation "why didn't you research X or Y when we needed it?". They'll simply say "because it wasn't profitable", or "because we didn't fucking want to". Governments can't say that. Well... neo-conservative governments will, but at least, in theory, we can vote them out and get some responsible people in charge of something so important.
Secondly, (at least in the US forces) you are not supposed to follow orders that contradict certain rules of engagement such as shooting POWs and civilians with no just cause or following orders that overly endanger fellow soldiers.
What a load of crap! What's going on in all the CIA & military torture camps around the world then? And why won't the US sign up to the international criminal court? US soliders are encouraged to torture their prisoners and kill the rest.
The US has even been caught out killing journalists. How about that tank that opened fire on the Palenstine Hotel and killed a number of journalists? The official excuse was that they were fired on first, but all the journalists who survived beg to differ. I know which story I believe.
I read a story just 2 days ago about a guy in Guantanimo who had US prison guards claw his eyes open with their fingers while others sprayed mace in them. He's now blind. Surely this 'contravenes' a couple of US and international laws re: POWs. Oh... sorry... they're not POWs. They're fucking 'illegal enemy combatants', so the US can do what they please with them.
How should people feel? They should on the one hand feel disgusted that parties such as the Nazi party or the Republican party exist, but they should feel a hell of a lot of comfort that the Nazi, Republican parties, and friends are now to open their campaign funding books to the public, so we can all see what's going on. It's either that, or let them do deals behind closed doors.
As I replied to another poster in this thread, you mightn't like the Nazi party, but achieving a democracy is more important than preventing the Nazi party from getting some funding. Look at it this way - if there was some real political choice and not just a 2-party system, people wouldn't be drawn to wackos like the Nazi party - they'd be far more politically aware and would see through their bullshit. Don't go chasing small fries like the Nazi party. Take on the 2-party system.
I won't addres each of your points, as my response to all is basically the same:
Democracy requires freedom of information. You can't put a limit on which information is available and which information is inaccessible. Even if you think that one particular point of view is invalid, a waste of time / money, or positively evil, it is our responsibility to each other to make sure that that point of view is accessible as any other. Otherwise what you get is a leading ideology hogging all the media, conversation and mindshare, and everything else either seems irrelevant, or worse yet, it invisible.
Put it like this: what are people willing to pay for democracy? Are we so cheap that we can only afford 1 point of view?
Another point is that there is no need to have an extravaganza such as a US political campaign to get your point of view out there. In fact, this extravaganza is an incredible barrier to entry to competing ideas. We should drastically lower the campaign budgets of the 2 main political parties, while at the same time drastically increasing the budgets of all others. I would say that in the end, this would actually turn out cheaper than the current setup. Of course, the people would pay for it instead of big business. I don't consider this a problem. It's a small price to pay to remove the incredible corruption that we currently call a democracy.
The only way to address this is to stip all parties of all funding, and then allocate money for campaigning from tax revenue. Then you make the accounts books of all parties open to public inspection, as well as bank account and tax details of all politicians AND their families. If people want to 'serve' the public, then they can start out by being honest. And you know what the politicians always say about such invasions of our privacy...
Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about
Time they applied this to themselves.
Equal funding of ALL political parties. Equal media access to ALL political parties. People implicated in bribery get charged with treason.
You are starting to fascinate me. It's somewhat poetic, the way you accuse me of doing in my posts what you are doing in yours. I've not once said you couldn't be right - all I ever asked was your basis.
I'm not rejecting what you say about your experience... I'm rejecting what you said about things that were outside of your experience.
I don't necessarily disbelieve you, but my experience tells me you're deluding yourself.
Oh really? YOUR experience? I think we've ascertained by now that you don't have any experience with psychadelics. My experience tells me that you're deluding yourself. Now which one is right... the person who is talking about his own experience, or the wiser-than-thou who passes judgement on other people's experience?
Your position is quite precarious.
Of course, you're becoming immediately defensive even though I presented no attack doesn't help your cause.
Defensive or assertive? You see, being sure of my position, I choose not to throw in the towel and let others who I know are wrong 'win' the arguement. If I were unsure of my position, I wouldn't be so assertive, or 'defensive' as you like to call it.
Particularly since everyone I've known that claimed such a thing (and there have been many in my life) was so far off the mark as to be laughable.
As 'off the mark' as me? Maybe they were all right and you were wrong?
Once, I 'reported' that the lucky charms leprechaun was preventing me from accelerating my car past 10 miles per hour on the highway. That doesn't necessarily make it so, but it sure seemed real at the time.
Here's the problem:
One incident reported by an idiot doesn't make that idiot's report a correct representation of what's happening. But when many people report the same thing, it gains some credibility. Your leprechaun story indicates to me that at the time you were taking acid, you had very little idea of the workings of your own mind, and the effect was pure hallucination. Hallucination, however, is not the only response to acid - it is at the bottom of the barrel. I haven't hallucinated for 8 years, and the reason is that I'm accustomed to the effects of acid, and my mind is able to correctly interpret the information I'm being fed, rather than having to make up some grand hallucination to try to account for the seemingly unfathomable information coming in. First-time trippers will therefore often hallucinate. That doesn't invalidate other people's experience who are adept at consciousness exploration - it just points to the first-time user's lack of understanding.
My worldview hasn't even come into play here. I know you think it has, but really, I've pretty much kept my opinions out of this.
Sure. So you're not talking about your experience, and you're not talking about my experience, and you're not talking about your world views. So what exactly is influencing what you say? It's coming directly from your arse, right?
I thought maybe you had some insight, but all you have is the same feelings millions of drug users have had before you.
Yes. Sorry to disappoint. I of course do have insight, but to learn from it, you'd really have to come tripping with us. Insights gained from psychedelics rarely transfer to non-trippers, especially those with such solid pre-conceived notions of how we're "all alike". You insinuate that you're 'looking for some insight', but reject my suggested reading and trash everything I say, while talking in a very condescending fashion. You need a good dose of acid. The question is: will you be able to integrate the experience this time, or will it bounce off your closely-guarded beliefs, creating more leprechauns?
What I like about this is you went right off the deep end.
Sure. Which deep end would that be?
By the by, lots of people make the same mistake you make about drug use amplifying creativity. It really doesn't, even though it's hard to believe that while you're still leaning on the crutch.
You really are a knob, aren't you? I don't lean on any crutch. I use psychedelics for enjoyment and for mental exploration. I also note that they amplify creativity. What's more, I acknowledge that there are fundamentalists such as yourself - Christian or otherwise - who seek to discredit recreational drug users and everything they report about their experience. You need to grow up. Get some real life experience. Open you mind slightly and listen to people. Don't just go around parroting what your local preacher told you. Think for yourself. Stop leaning on the crutch of your outdated worldview.
In truth, I really don't care how you live your life.
Exactly. You're a self-centred knob who has no interest in other people or their experiences.
I was wondering if you could explain your position better, but I guess you can't.
I have no interest in sitting at my computer typing for half an hour about my personal experiences when I know that the person I'm typing for will reject outright everything that I say. I gave you some authors to look up on. If you want to research in your own time, then do it.
Not really a problem, because in the end I've heard your story a thousand times before. It's not any more impressive coming from you.
So you openly admit that this is commonly reported by recreational drug users, of which you are not one, but you still reject it because it doesn't suit your worldview?
You must be a pretty pathetic individual. You're always right, aren't you? I'm glad I don't know too many people like you. No wonder you post anonymously.
What exactly is your basis for comparison? Do you have anything other than your opinion?
Not opinion. Experience. For someone who hasn't experiences what I've experienced, you're incredibly opinionated. I will not go into the details of my experience, because frankly, you would not accept it. If you are interested, I suggest finding yourself some acid and trying it yourself.
I've noticed this trend in heavy drug users - seems like hubris of the worst kind to me.
I've noticed this attitude in the Christian fundamentalists and neo-cons. I am certainly no heavy drug user. I'm a recreational drug user, with a steady ( 8-year ) job, my own startup software company, and 3 open-source projects. I'm not preaching from my deep-seated believe that I know about things I've never experienced. I'm talking from real-world experience. Get over yourself and accept it.
Then again, people also think creativity comes from substance abuse, so I'm not surprised.
I'm not talking about sustance abuse. I'm talking about substance b>use , but nice try. And yes, recreational drugs amplify creativity. I suppose you'll object to that too.
ell, I'm not even judging you, just wondering what basis you have for your claims, other than "I said so."
No, no. Of course you're not judging. As for what 'other' basis I have for my claims, no, I haven't initiated a research project that you would be satisfied with. There are many studies that you can look into yourself though. I believe Timothy Leary and Terrance McKenna have written a great deal on the topic.
A single point of data (you) is not sufficient to disentangle your use of pharmaceuticals for the expected effects of time/aging/learning.
What bull! You're completely invalidating my personal experience simply because it suits your worldview ( Christian right... am I correct? ).
I assert that what I say is correct. Who are you to say "Sorry Buddy. It's impossible for you to say that, because all experience is too 'entangled' for you to say what the fuck is going on, so therefore you must be mistaken, and I am right?"
Thanks for your expert opinion. I respectfully reject it.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
... ie an application that runs on an OpenGL system.
If you want a faster OpenGL implementation, then you want to optimise Mesa and the individual video card drivers.
XGL is an X Server that runs on OpenGL. It won't make your OpenGL drivers faster - it's simply an OpenGL client
I wonder if these babies will be stocked-up with napalm, white phospherous, agent orange, 'depleted' uranium and other WOMD.
... not to mention helping out the victims of Katrina, or even just boosting public spending. When was the last time spending increased on social services over there? Or do people get locked up for asking that question these days?
Gotta love those peace-keeping missions. Keep up the good work, USA. At this rate, the world WILL be full of people wishing you blown to high heavens. Surely US taxpayers' money would be better spent making ammends with the victims of the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan, and other countries ravaged by US foreign policy
No ... I like it too. I wish they'd bring out a PPC Linux version, but I suppose that's not really going to happen.
:)
On a completely unrelated topic, does anyone want a 1Ghz Powerbook with 1GB RAM?
This is the only point I take issue with. Do you really think it's wise to allow Bush and co to stack the judiciary with religious fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives? I'm not saying that voting judges in would produce a better result - it would produce a different result - perhaps better, perhaps worse. After all, the people voted the current government in - at least this time anyway. The way they got in the 1st time demonstrates the problems raised by having the judiciary appointed - they turn around and appoint their investors
Agreed. I find it amusing and disturbing that long-time Linux users don't recognise socialism when they've been staring it in the face all this time - in their operating system.
Open-source IS IP socialism. What's wrong with that?
Socialism vs capitalism comes down to this:
Socialism:
We all assert our collective control over resources.
We all have equal rights to goods produced as a result of the use of our resources.
No-one get's on the top; equality over greed.
Capitalism:
Every man for them fucking selves, and if I've got more money than you, and you can't afford things that you desperately need, then that's your fucking problem, buddie! I will burn fossil fuels until the Earth's oceans boil and acid rain destorys the last of the great forests. USA! USA! USA!
For some reason ( extreme propoganda, bordering on fascism, I suppose ), people seem to like capitalism over socialism, even though they openly admit the above points are accurate.
Perhaps we didn't deserve to inherit the Earth after all?
I will now respond to all your valid points:
Name-calling won't get you anywhere. Nor will smart-arse abbreviations, IMO.
I will, however, return the favour, and call you a fucking idiot for trying to bury any political dissent. I bet you're one of the first to claim that you live in a democracy, aren't you?
Idiot.
Dubya presenting a medal of freedom.
It's like Bill Gates presenting a medal of competition, or Mary Magdeline presenting a medal of promiscuity.
Why couldn't Dubya give a medal to some of the thousands of fallen US soldiers that died executing his illegal war of aggression? Of course I don't expect it to go to anyone who works at Guantanimo Bay or anything, but what exactly do you have to do to get one of these freedom chimes again?
I don't think so. I've read his book "The big bang never happened", and he didn't come across as a quack. He was a little bitter about the mainstream scientific community, but that's understandable - they have a lot to answer for.
His ideas about government conspiracy are also spot on. Look at the US government. One conspiracy after another - and the biggest one revolves around oil reserves, and was sold on the next biggest one - WOMD.
I have no doubt that Dubya's team of neo-conservative swindlers and murderers are responsible for this technology being sidelined.
Well said, comrade :)
Thank Christ there are some people who have some idea about what the topic they're engaged in.
So users don't want to burn an ISO and boot from it? Um. Sure. Whatever. If they're not prepared to go this far, then they'd better give up now. Maybe their time would be better spent developing their VB skills?
WTF? This guy has never used Linux. Seriously. WTF?
He goes on to say that we should develop 'one' application for each purpose. Of course, he hasn't created any of these best-of-breed applications, nor has he caused other developers to cease development of their competing projects. Perhaps he's waiting for that VB port?
Where did we find this toss, exactly? I wouldn't trust him to install Windows XP. He's probably stack internet explorer with 5 different spyware bars because they're so fucking cool, give me his own VB calender with scrollable months (!), and then litter my desktop with folders upon folders of clip-art. Jesus Christ.
Yes, but it depends which engineers.
You wouldn't, for example, let the corporations that want to build the reactor offer their engineers for the task. Well, unless you're a damned fool, that is.
While I don't see this being used directly as a weapon, I can see the Pentagon plucking the National Guard from their shoot-to-kill mission in New Oraq, wiring them up with these headsets, and sending them off to Iraq Senior. With these devices, you can make damned sure your wet-behind-the-ears recruits will run full-speed into a hostile situtation without stopping to think about the possible danger to themselves.
And it won't be long before they can control more than just running in a particular direction. Next step: that pesky trigger finger.
Idiot. Read the article again. It discusses the issues that you claim don't exist. It's not very convincing when you pretend these issues don't exist, and then chant the mantra of Free Market until the cows come home. Not very convincing at all.
The problem that you continue to gloss over is that corporations won't allow their research to be used by people who need it.
As you say, corporations are in the business of maximizing profit. Health care is certainly one area where this works in direct opposition with the basic needs of everyone.
Yes I am indeed anti-capitalist. However your moronic statement about the free market being 'replaced by god knows what' oozes immaturity. We're not saying we should tear down the free market profit system and 'replace it with god knows what'. We're sayint we should tear it down and replace it with a new socialist order, based on the needs of society, as opposed to based on what will contribute most to the ruling class and the GDP. This isn't 'god knows what'. It's called socialism. If you truely don't understand what it entails, then I suggest you study it before engaging in any more criticism of it, or you will come off looking like a fool.
Now you're showing your true colours. I wouldn't be surprised if you where hired by the republicans to post this trash to public forums.
If you don't like raising taxes to pay for health care ( and I certainly support the case of the majority to be charged a fair amount of tax - proportional to what they can afford ), then how about cutting funding from the real fat of the budget - the Pentagon, Homeland Security, and CIA. Slash the Pentagon's budget by 95%, eradicate the dept of Homeland Security, and slash the CIA by 95% also, and you'll be able to lower taxes while still increasing spending on health care. From what I read about the pathetic state of health care in the US, you could certainly use it. I believe the most common reason for people to be locked up in the US is non-payment of medical bills. Surely this demonstrates the social crisis being caused by your ivory-tower free market system.
Again you show your true colours. So it's OK for the government to seize patents to further their imperialist adventures, but it's not OK to seize a patent to protect life and prevent suffering? The mind boggles!
Of course I will never 'convince' people like you that there is a better model than the free market. But then again, I don't have to. We only need to convince a majority of people to overthrow the free market, and the rest of the population we can drag, kicking and screaming about their right to extract profit from everything, until the last 'Limited Liability' corporation is gone. And good riddance.
You're ignoring corporate use of patents.
If corporations would take a principled approach and allow their research to be used by those who need it, then anti-capitalists such as myself wouldn't be forced to suggest that we legislate corporations out of the market. But they don't allow people in need to use their research. That's the problem.
Human need before corporate greed.
This is a good reason why we need governments. High-tech medical research is not something that can be undertaken by average individual. However the average individual may very well need the benefits of medical research. The current model where corporations can protect 'their' investments via patents demonstrates that corporations have no business carrying out medical research .
... slugging the poor while giving massive tax breaks to the rich. I'm talking about taxing the people who can afford it, for the benefit of all. This is what governments are for - to provide everything that the 'free market' can't provide ... and the longer I live, the more I think that the free market is a complete failure. Of course it doesn't fail the rich. But the other 99%, it fails miserably.
... ie you can't ask a corporation "why didn't you research X or Y when we needed it?". They'll simply say "because it wasn't profitable", or "because we didn't fucking want to". Governments can't say that. Well ... neo-conservative governments will, but at least, in theory, we can vote them out and get some responsible people in charge of something so important.
Corporations answer to no-one but their shareholders. Saving people's lives or easing their suffering, or simply protecting them from the harmful effects of badly researched treatments is not their primary concern, and would not be their concern at all if it weren't for the economic repercussions - ie people claiming damages. Corporations simply are not the right entities to be involved in medical research.
Governments, however, are. Governments are ( supposedly ) answerable to the people. They are also in a position to be spreading the cost of medical research across the population in a fair way. A vast majority of people agree that there should be universal access to medical care - regardless of an individual's economic position. Governments can deliver. Need more money? Increase taxes. And I'm not talking about the neo-con tax increase
So. Businesses paid for the current research? Fine. Pay them a fair amount. They certainly shouldn't go broke - they have provided a valuable service. But we're not talking about paying them a fair amount here - we're talking about them insisting on extracting whatever they demand from the market, or they take their bat and ball and fuck off to someone who can afford their extortion.
As for the future - get corporations out of medical research. There are too many conflicts of interest. Governments should use taxpayer's money for medical research, and the benefits of that research should go to all - ie the research should be open-sourced. We here know about open source. Corporations can't be held accountable
What a load of crap!
What's going on in all the CIA & military torture camps around the world then?
And why won't the US sign up to the international criminal court?
US soliders are encouraged to torture their prisoners and kill the rest.
The US has even been caught out killing journalists. How about that tank that opened fire on the Palenstine Hotel and killed a number of journalists? The official excuse was that they were fired on first, but all the journalists who survived beg to differ. I know which story I believe.
I read a story just 2 days ago about a guy in Guantanimo who had US prison guards claw his eyes open with their fingers while others sprayed mace in them. He's now blind. Surely this 'contravenes' a couple of US and international laws re: POWs. Oh
How would people feel?
Who knows?
How should people feel?
They should on the one hand feel disgusted that parties such as the Nazi party or the Republican party exist, but they should feel a hell of a lot of comfort that the Nazi, Republican parties, and friends are now to open their campaign funding books to the public, so we can all see what's going on. It's either that, or let them do deals behind closed doors.
As I replied to another poster in this thread, you mightn't like the Nazi party, but achieving a democracy is more important than preventing the Nazi party from getting some funding. Look at it this way - if there was some real political choice and not just a 2-party system, people wouldn't be drawn to wackos like the Nazi party - they'd be far more politically aware and would see through their bullshit. Don't go chasing small fries like the Nazi party. Take on the 2-party system.
I won't addres each of your points, as my response to all is basically the same:
Democracy requires freedom of information. You can't put a limit on which information is available and which information is inaccessible. Even if you think that one particular point of view is invalid, a waste of time / money, or positively evil, it is our responsibility to each other to make sure that that point of view is accessible as any other. Otherwise what you get is a leading ideology hogging all the media, conversation and mindshare, and everything else either seems irrelevant, or worse yet, it invisible.
Put it like this: what are people willing to pay for democracy? Are we so cheap that we can only afford 1 point of view?
Another point is that there is no need to have an extravaganza such as a US political campaign to get your point of view out there. In fact, this extravaganza is an incredible barrier to entry to competing ideas. We should drastically lower the campaign budgets of the 2 main political parties, while at the same time drastically increasing the budgets of all others. I would say that in the end, this would actually turn out cheaper than the current setup. Of course, the people would pay for it instead of big business. I don't consider this a problem. It's a small price to pay to remove the incredible corruption that we currently call a democracy.
Time they applied this to themselves.
Equal funding of ALL political parties. Equal media access to ALL political parties. People implicated in bribery get charged with treason.
I'm not rejecting what you say about your experience
Oh really? YOUR experience? I think we've ascertained by now that you don't have any experience with psychadelics. My experience tells me that you're deluding yourself. Now which one is right
Your position is quite precarious.
Defensive or assertive? You see, being sure of my position, I choose not to throw in the towel and let others who I know are wrong 'win' the arguement. If I were unsure of my position, I wouldn't be so assertive, or 'defensive' as you like to call it.
As 'off the mark' as me? Maybe they were all right and you were wrong?
Here's the problem:
One incident reported by an idiot doesn't make that idiot's report a correct representation of what's happening. But when many people report the same thing, it gains some credibility. Your leprechaun story indicates to me that at the time you were taking acid, you had very little idea of the workings of your own mind, and the effect was pure hallucination. Hallucination, however, is not the only response to acid - it is at the bottom of the barrel. I haven't hallucinated for 8 years, and the reason is that I'm accustomed to the effects of acid, and my mind is able to correctly interpret the information I'm being fed, rather than having to make up some grand hallucination to try to account for the seemingly unfathomable information coming in. First-time trippers will therefore often hallucinate. That doesn't invalidate other people's experience who are adept at consciousness exploration - it just points to the first-time user's lack of understanding.
Sure. So you're not talking about your experience, and you're not talking about my experience, and you're not talking about your world views. So what exactly is influencing what you say? It's coming directly from your arse, right?
Yes. Sorry to disappoint. I of course do have insight, but to learn from it, you'd really have to come tripping with us. Insights gained from psychedelics rarely transfer to non-trippers, especially those with such solid pre-conceived notions of how we're "all alike". You insinuate that you're 'looking for some insight', but reject my suggested reading and trash everything I say, while talking in a very condescending fashion. You need a good dose of acid. The question is: will you be able to integrate the experience this time, or will it bounce off your closely-guarded beliefs, creating more leprechauns?
Sure. Which deep end would that be?
You really are a knob, aren't you? I don't lean on any crutch. I use psychedelics for enjoyment and for mental exploration. I also note that they amplify creativity. What's more, I acknowledge that there are fundamentalists such as yourself - Christian or otherwise - who seek to discredit recreational drug users and everything they report about their experience. You need to grow up. Get some real life experience. Open you mind slightly and listen to people. Don't just go around parroting what your local preacher told you. Think for yourself. Stop leaning on the crutch of your outdated worldview.
Exactly. You're a self-centred knob who has no interest in other people or their experiences.
I have no interest in sitting at my computer typing for half an hour about my personal experiences when I know that the person I'm typing for will reject outright everything that I say. I gave you some authors to look up on. If you want to research in your own time, then do it.
So you openly admit that this is commonly reported by recreational drug users, of which you are not one, but you still reject it because it doesn't suit your worldview?
You must be a pretty pathetic individual. You're always right, aren't you? I'm glad I don't know too many people like you. No wonder you post anonymously.
Not opinion. Experience. For someone who hasn't experiences what I've experienced, you're incredibly opinionated. I will not go into the details of my experience, because frankly, you would not accept it. If you are interested, I suggest finding yourself some acid and trying it yourself.
I've noticed this attitude in the Christian fundamentalists and neo-cons. I am certainly no heavy drug user. I'm a recreational drug user, with a steady ( 8-year ) job, my own startup software company, and 3 open-source projects. I'm not preaching from my deep-seated believe that I know about things I've never experienced. I'm talking from real-world experience. Get over yourself and accept it.
I'm not talking about sustance abuse. I'm talking about substance b>use , but nice try. And yes, recreational drugs amplify creativity. I suppose you'll object to that too.
No, no. Of course you're not judging. As for what 'other' basis I have for my claims, no, I haven't initiated a research project that you would be satisfied with. There are many studies that you can look into yourself though. I believe Timothy Leary and Terrance McKenna have written a great deal on the topic.
Nope.
What bull! You're completely invalidating my personal experience simply because it suits your worldview ( Christian right
I assert that what I say is correct. Who are you to say "Sorry Buddy. It's impossible for you to say that, because all experience is too 'entangled' for you to say what the fuck is going on, so therefore you must be mistaken, and I am right?"
Thanks for your expert opinion. I respectfully reject it.