It's important because this could have legal consequences. And that's the only reason.
If I call a mule's tail a leg, it remains a tail. Schedule I is only significant in the context of legal repercussions. It's not a valid logical category in any other context. It doesn't tell you, e.g., anything about possible medical uses, even though it explicitly purports to.
They are by no means the most harmful drugs. Belladona would be a good choice if that was what you were considering.
Tobacco and nicotine are two of the most attractive of the moderately harmful drugs. Most people aren't really attracted to strychnine.
What happened is there is a puritanical groups that seized control, and they decided that they had the right to tell everyone what they should be like, and that what they should be like is the way god made them. There are advantages to this as well as disadvantages, so they were able to suppress all except the very most popular drugs. Their success can be measured by the fact that the DEA will prosecute doctors who prescribe too much pain relieving medication. The underlying belief is that if god causes you to feel pain, you should be in pain.
In most cases I believe that drugs should be legal to purchase, and to sell, and to manufacture, and to transport, but not to advertise either directly or through sponsorship of media that use "placement ads" for them. And in this I include pharmaceuticals used to treat illnesses as well as other drugs, and I feel no distinction should be made. (I.e., I don't feel any of them except antibiotics and, perhaps, a very few others should have their sale regulated.)
That's not a good comparison. LSD is reportedly not addictive. Sugar is. (Mildly if taken in isolation.) Chocolate probably isn't, but it's usually packaged in a form that contains fats and sugar, which *is* an addictive combination.
P.S.: There are addictive personalities, and people who have them can easily become addicted to normally non-addictive substances. And there are also variations among people's chemistries, such that some of them readily become addicted to things that most people don't become addicted to. Reportedly there's a sizable fraction of the population that wouldn't become addicted to opiates. Supposedly when heroin was invented as a non-addictive cough syrup it was tested on 25 people who all happened to be of a groups that didn't become addicted to it easily.
It's a source that nobody knowledgeable appears to have contradicted. Challenging the source is reasonable if the information is untested. If it isn't challenged (and I notice you didn't challenge it) then it gains plausibility.
P.S.: Your attack is an actual ad hominem attack, admittedly against a dubious character. But just because the source is unreliable doesn't mean the information is wrong. And it was presented to a vocal audience with many knowledgeable individuals in it. So I tend to think that systemd does provide root services to users without rights to use those services. And this does sound like a dangerous weakness.
FWIW, I have not seen any advantages to systemd, and I have not heard of any advantages that I would personally find advantageous. And there do seem to be potential problems.
E,g, faster boot times don't impress me at all. I'd be more impressed by longer up times. I find binary logs dubious, and many people have reported problems with them. Etc.
I have not personally had any actual problems with systemd, but it's not clear how I'd resolve them were they to occur.
So I'm both dubious about the advantages and worried about possible disadvantages. Sufficiently so that if a BSD supported the ext4 file system I would have a test installation running. But not yet sufficiently to reformat my file systems.
It's a contract of adhesion, and those are limited in what they can require. As to what the limits are, I don't know, and it would probably depend on your jurisdiction anyway.
FWIW, even standard contracts are limited in what the state is allowed to enforce.... but as far as I know, each contract requires a separate lawsuit. And the first item of business would probably be as to whether they can force you to use arbitration with their selected arbitrator.
I'm not convinced that there's a reasonable chance that you would EVER get your stuff back, no matter how much time and effort you spent on it. And I've heard things that cause me to believe that it's not only tourists that suffer.
It's not so much power that corrupts, as lack of consequences. Admittedly, the two are often closely intertwined.
I think the IANAL disclaimers are because some places have laws against pretending to practice law when you aren't licensed. The IANAL is anti-lawsuit insurance.
That's just a guess, and that's why I use it when I use it. Also because some people are so Darwin award worthy that they *would* take legal advice from someone unknown over the Internet.
You misunderstand the problem. Being a vegetarian won't protect you against human-to-human transmission, and these aren't disease organisms that survive cooking anyway. The mentioned organisms are already infecting people. (Of course, there are probably others that haven't yet made the jump.)
IIUC the current disease is minor. The problem is that bacteria share genes beyond species boundaries, so it can easily spread to something serious.
It is ever difficult to impress people barely making a living in the present with tales of doomsday futures.
While true, it *is* understandable. The problem is it's equally difficult to impress those currently getting extremely wealthy. And they're the ones with the power to change things.
Perhaps, but while the "Affordable Care Act" is better than what we had previously, it's *NOT* a good act. It's lousy. It guarantees that the health insurance companies get to keep their profits, when they should be totally cut out of all basic health care as an unnecessary expense. Perhaps they are a reasonable approach for major medical, but when I checked into dental insurance I found that it was a total waste of money. They wouldn't cover unexpected or major dental problems, and they were much more expensive than just paying the dentist for routine care.
So my guess is that insurance companies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the health care system in any branch. Perhaps for cosmetic surgery, but even there I have my doubts.
The thing is, I *do* believe in gods, for a reasonable definition of god. I just don't believe they're infallible or all-knowing (or that they have even vaguely human perceptions or purposes). And I think that the thing I'm talking about is the same thing that those who claim direct contact with gods are talking about.
I classify these things as gods, but also as common underpinnings of thoughts on a species, and occasionally genera-wide commonality. They are the strata of thought that Jung glimpsed and called Archetypes, but to think of them as psychological is to misunderstand them. We do not see the world, we "see" the dreams of these gods, which can be mapped to the world only via a lossy transform. But because they are common to the species, others will see the same dream, from a different perspective, of course. And please understand that dream is a metaphor. The gods never exactly dream. But they *do* make mistakes. More mistakes as we move away from the environment within which they evolved.
IIUC, crop failures are more closely associated with rebellions against the local government than terrorism. I don't feel great certainty about this, though, and there is certainly some overlap.
Yes. And poverty (i.e., wealth inequality) is one part of this. Social inequality is perhaps even more important. I don't even have a clue as to how to address that, since the social inequality I'm talking about includes, e.g., high school kids excluded from all the social cliques.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes there's sufficient evidence that to deny a conspiracy is to be irrational.
It's important because this could have legal consequences. And that's the only reason.
If I call a mule's tail a leg, it remains a tail. Schedule I is only significant in the context of legal repercussions. It's not a valid logical category in any other context. It doesn't tell you, e.g., anything about possible medical uses, even though it explicitly purports to.
They are by no means the most harmful drugs. Belladona would be a good choice if that was what you were considering.
Tobacco and nicotine are two of the most attractive of the moderately harmful drugs. Most people aren't really attracted to strychnine.
What happened is there is a puritanical groups that seized control, and they decided that they had the right to tell everyone what they should be like, and that what they should be like is the way god made them. There are advantages to this as well as disadvantages, so they were able to suppress all except the very most popular drugs. Their success can be measured by the fact that the DEA will prosecute doctors who prescribe too much pain relieving medication. The underlying belief is that if god causes you to feel pain, you should be in pain.
In most cases I believe that drugs should be legal to purchase, and to sell, and to manufacture, and to transport, but not to advertise either directly or through sponsorship of media that use "placement ads" for them. And in this I include pharmaceuticals used to treat illnesses as well as other drugs, and I feel no distinction should be made. (I.e., I don't feel any of them except antibiotics and, perhaps, a very few others should have their sale regulated.)
I don't believe you, though I suspect *you* believe you. Perhaps you should wonder what you were actually taking.
That's not a good comparison. LSD is reportedly not addictive. Sugar is. (Mildly if taken in isolation.) Chocolate probably isn't, but it's usually packaged in a form that contains fats and sugar, which *is* an addictive combination.
P.S.: There are addictive personalities, and people who have them can easily become addicted to normally non-addictive substances. And there are also variations among people's chemistries, such that some of them readily become addicted to things that most people don't become addicted to. Reportedly there's a sizable fraction of the population that wouldn't become addicted to opiates. Supposedly when heroin was invented as a non-addictive cough syrup it was tested on 25 people who all happened to be of a groups that didn't become addicted to it easily.
Do you also campaign to reclaim the word "hacker'? Those battles are lost.
It's a source that nobody knowledgeable appears to have contradicted. Challenging the source is reasonable if the information is untested. If it isn't challenged (and I notice you didn't challenge it) then it gains plausibility.
P.S.: Your attack is an actual ad hominem attack, admittedly against a dubious character. But just because the source is unreliable doesn't mean the information is wrong. And it was presented to a vocal audience with many knowledgeable individuals in it. So I tend to think that systemd does provide root services to users without rights to use those services. And this does sound like a dangerous weakness.
My sudoers file is empty. (I suppose I *could* remove it, but it's already unusable.) su is necessary. This is an unnecessary hole.
FWIW, I have not seen any advantages to systemd, and I have not heard of any advantages that I would personally find advantageous. And there do seem to be potential problems.
E,g, faster boot times don't impress me at all. I'd be more impressed by longer up times. I find binary logs dubious, and many people have reported problems with them. Etc.
I have not personally had any actual problems with systemd, but it's not clear how I'd resolve them were they to occur.
So I'm both dubious about the advantages and worried about possible disadvantages. Sufficiently so that if a BSD supported the ext4 file system I would have a test installation running. But not yet sufficiently to reformat my file systems.
With documentation like that I tend to wonder whether idiot is the correct term, or whether malice should be assumed.
Yii! That sounds extremely dangerous, as in local malware == root control.
I had been apathetic (disliking, but apathetic) about systemd, but now I'm thinking I should switch to something that doesn't have it.
It's a contract of adhesion, and those are limited in what they can require. As to what the limits are, I don't know, and it would probably depend on your jurisdiction anyway.
FWIW, even standard contracts are limited in what the state is allowed to enforce.... but as far as I know, each contract requires a separate lawsuit. And the first item of business would probably be as to whether they can force you to use arbitration with their selected arbitrator.
I'm not convinced that there's a reasonable chance that you would EVER get your stuff back, no matter how much time and effort you spent on it. And I've heard things that cause me to believe that it's not only tourists that suffer.
It's not so much power that corrupts, as lack of consequences. Admittedly, the two are often closely intertwined.
Maybe. That's an official story, and it might be true.
It's not only US politicians that are liars.
I think the IANAL disclaimers are because some places have laws against pretending to practice law when you aren't licensed. The IANAL is anti-lawsuit insurance.
That's just a guess, and that's why I use it when I use it. Also because some people are so Darwin award worthy that they *would* take legal advice from someone unknown over the Internet.
You misunderstand the problem. Being a vegetarian won't protect you against human-to-human transmission, and these aren't disease organisms that survive cooking anyway. The mentioned organisms are already infecting people. (Of course, there are probably others that haven't yet made the jump.)
IIUC the current disease is minor. The problem is that bacteria share genes beyond species boundaries, so it can easily spread to something serious.
Wouldn't that be forbidden by the TPP?
It takes more than a lack of empathy to make a sociopath. And a surgeon who operates unnecessarily is not a benefit to society.
While true, it *is* understandable. The problem is it's equally difficult to impress those currently getting extremely wealthy. And they're the ones with the power to change things.
Perhaps, but while the "Affordable Care Act" is better than what we had previously, it's *NOT* a good act. It's lousy. It guarantees that the health insurance companies get to keep their profits, when they should be totally cut out of all basic health care as an unnecessary expense. Perhaps they are a reasonable approach for major medical, but when I checked into dental insurance I found that it was a total waste of money. They wouldn't cover unexpected or major dental problems, and they were much more expensive than just paying the dentist for routine care.
So my guess is that insurance companies shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the health care system in any branch. Perhaps for cosmetic surgery, but even there I have my doubts.
It may even make them move offshore.
The thing is, I *do* believe in gods, for a reasonable definition of god. I just don't believe they're infallible or all-knowing (or that they have even vaguely human perceptions or purposes). And I think that the thing I'm talking about is the same thing that those who claim direct contact with gods are talking about.
I classify these things as gods, but also as common underpinnings of thoughts on a species, and occasionally genera-wide commonality. They are the strata of thought that Jung glimpsed and called Archetypes, but to think of them as psychological is to misunderstand them. We do not see the world, we "see" the dreams of these gods, which can be mapped to the world only via a lossy transform. But because they are common to the species, others will see the same dream, from a different perspective, of course. And please understand that dream is a metaphor. The gods never exactly dream. But they *do* make mistakes. More mistakes as we move away from the environment within which they evolved.
IIUC, crop failures are more closely associated with rebellions against the local government than terrorism. I don't feel great certainty about this, though, and there is certainly some overlap.
When the government is as trustworthy as God, I'll be comfortable with them knowing as much about me as God does.
Flag as Inappropriate
The government is actually MORE trustworthy than God. Sorry about that.
P.S.: I don't mean to imply the government is trustworthy. Or, come to that, that God actually knows much about you.
Yes. And poverty (i.e., wealth inequality) is one part of this. Social inequality is perhaps even more important. I don't even have a clue as to how to address that, since the social inequality I'm talking about includes, e.g., high school kids excluded from all the social cliques.