While I agree a lot of drugs should be legalized and taxed. It is mostly just because it is stupid to keep fighting a war that simply can not be won.
It's not just a war that can't be won, it's a war that shouldn't be won. The war on drugs is a war on personal freedom. It is nothing but institutionalized cruelty motivated by making the rich and powerful more rich and powerful. And it's not stupid to keep fighting a war that can't be won. The unwinnable war is entirely the point. It gives them an excuse to continually erode our civil liberties.
If we as a people were to legalize pot, the money saved, and the tax money brought in could seriously revitalize the economy.
Legalizing drugs is the right thing to do, no matter what the economic effect is. I want to live in a free country.
But the last thing the drug dealers want is their product legalized.
What they want isn't really relevant. As long as they exist, they make us all more free. They deliver a valuable product to people who want it, at significant personal risk. That's worth being grateful for.
Most of them, in my experience, are very nice people too.
As long as it is illegal, it is expensive.
Tobacco & alcohol are also very profitable industries, despite being legal.
I will say this again: Throw out that stupid outdated "United States Constitution" and write a new one.
The problem with that is that the original Constitution was written during the Age of Enlightenment. The philosophical underpinnings of our Constitution are nowhere to be found in modern society, and those in power are actively trying to sabotage institutions and movements that would lead to another Enlightenment. Any attempt to rewrite the Constitution would leave us worse off than we are now.
You said "rid the world" not prohibit. The steps they've taken to make smoking more inconvenient, costly, and stigmatizes have been far more effective than any prohibition regime. Prohibition actually does not work, if you actually want to rid the world of a drug, public policy works a lot better. If they actually tried to prohibit tobacco, it would be cheaper and more easily available to children than it is now.
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell which thing is not like the others, by the time I finish my song?
Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
The reason the violent drug cartels are violent and strong is because drugs are illegal. The real violent criminals here are the politicians who push drug prohibition, and the people who vote for those politicians.
They happily issue lots of traffic tickets, while drug dealers, rapists, murderers, burglars, muggers, etc. are not getting caught.
Why do you group drug dealers in with rapists and murderers? Drug dealers are the freedom fighters in the war on drugs. If you belive in individual freedom and personal choice, drug dealers are on your side.
CTRL+ALT++ or - were NOT to zoom in or out. Those keystrokes switched between desktop resolutions.
They switched between display resolutions, without affecting the desktop resolution. If you had a 1600x1200 desktop and hit CTRL-ALT-+ to get 1024x768, it would display a subset of your large desktop, just larger. You could pan around the large desktop as needed. It was, in effect, a zoom.
The selection buffer and the clipboard are two entirely different things. Selecting text does not screw up the clipboard accessed with ctrl-c/ctrl-v.
I too highlight words all the time. Constantly. Not only to keep track of where I am, but just to fidget. I've never encountered a problem with unwanted text in the clipboard.
Just another reason not to use GNOME. Hopefully the Xorg people don't start thinking this is a useless feature. I'm still finding myself trying to hit CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE to kill X, or CTRL-ALT-+ to zoom in. These were very useful features that were dropped for no good reason at all.
I really thought Obama would be different, yet he gets into power and it's clear he's just the smiley face on the military machine, same as the last guy.
Are there binary blobs? If not, I'll buy one. If so, are the hardware specifications detailed enough for people to replace the binary blobs with open source drivers? If so, I'll buy one when that happens.
No, those conversations could easily pass this test. e.g., have me talk to my mom, and then test me on things I could only have learned from my mom. e.g. her lasagna recipe. Or write a number on a card, show that card to my friend, have me converse with my friend, and then ask me what number was written on the card.
Americans love the military solider, sailor, airman, coastie, and marine.
But not the astronaut, because he doesn't get to kill shit.
They love the really bad-assed hardware (well, most guys do).
NASA hardware is even more bad assed, where's the love?
They love the sense of self-testing, charater-forging and adventure that often accompanies service
And exploration of another planet is not a self-testing, character-forging adventure?
Hell, nothing was more exciting to the 22-year-old kid I was than to tweak and tune a multi-million-dollar aircraft capable of doing heavy damage on anything that you care to point it at.
And that's the problem. You really couldn't think of anything more exciting than being near weaponry? Why is killing things more exciting than discovery?
Where is the justice in some people being born into wealthy societies while others are born into grinding poverty?
There is none whatsoever, and anyone who claims there is is a liar at best. At worst they are actively trying to dissuade you from pursuing justice in this life, on the promise that there is justice in the next life.
I'm willing to drop my religious views if you have a better idea.
If you believe in God you must hold him responsible for the injustice that fills the universe. If you actually look at the world around you, you have two options: 1) a cold uncaring universe 2) a universe ruled by a cruel omnipotence who allows suffering because, fuck you, that's why.
Even if you believe there is paradise after death, that doesn't excuse God from being responsible for the hell on Earth that so many suffer through.
Any measurable phenomenon that is inconsistent with dreams being mere noise. e.g. randomly assign people to record their dreams, or play a crossword puzzle immediately after waking. Then measure performance on some test. If there are differences in performance that are statistically significant, it's likely that dreams have meaningful content.
You're like a blind man asking "What's so important about sight?"
Do you really think any blind person doesn't realize how important sight is? It's pretty easy to explain, and trivial to demonstrate abilities that sight provides that the sightless do not have. Any blind person can be easily convinced that sight exists by performing experiments. Can you do the same with dream analysis?
> What reason is there to believe that "higher realities" exist? They do whether _you_ believe them or not.
Sure, just like the Earth is round, whether someone believes or not. The difference is that if I doubt that the Earth is round, you can provide evidence for that assertion. Where is the evidence for your assertion?
Lucid Dreaming and the Out-of-Body experiences provide an option to face your fears, to learn about yourself, to understand your Higher Self.
Or they provide an opportunity to indulge in confirmation bias, wishful thinking, and numerous other self-delusional fallacies, which humans are extremely prone to.
Who knows, maybe tea leaves will work better for you. How do you know unless you TRY it?
Even if you try it, you don't really know. You have to perform properly designed experiments, or you're just fooling yourself.
The more important question for you is: Why do dreams use symbols to communicate?
How do you know dreams use anything at all? How do you know dreams communicate anything at all? We know that symbols are a part of dreams, but your language suggests an intentionality for which there is no evidence.
To answer your question in the way it should have been asked without presupposing intentionality: Symbols are a part of dreams because the brain is a symbol manipulating computer, and dreaming is an activity of the brain.
The presence of symbols doesn't necessarily mean anything. For example, open up any random binary with a hex editor. There will be ASCII characters in there. Does it follow that the binary has some deeper meaning? Not at all.
Or you can remain arrogant and dismiss what the universe is trying to tell you.
If I wanted to dismiss the idea out of hand, I never would have asked for evidence. The one being arrogant here is the one claiming something about reality without providing any evidence.
It is difficult to demonstrate empirically because there are many uncontrolled variables.
Which is one of the reasons it stinks of woo.
Much of what a person can experience while lucid dreaming is difficult to interpret and understand, and people tend to describe things to themselves in a way that may not be very accurate or objective.
And that's another reason.
But I think you're a bit out of your element here, like someone who has merely used a computer forming strong opinions about kernel development.
I think even a novice would be able to accurately form a strong opinion that kernel development is a worthwhile endeavor. Certainly an expert in the field would be able to convey why it is a worthwhile endeavor. Can anyone offer me a shred of evidence that there is signal in the noise of dreams?
Because dreams provide an insight into your superconsciousness
How has this assertion been demonstrated empirically?
Because you can Lucid Dream.
And what's the benefit of that?
Because you explore higher realities and learn about yourself.
What reason is there to believe that "higher realities" exist? What reason is there to believe that dreams help you "learn about yourself" any more than reading tea leaves?
Slashdot Mirror
What evidence is there that GTAV poses any threat to children?
Drug dealers are business people.
That doesn't mean they can't be useful.
While I agree a lot of drugs should be legalized and taxed. It is mostly just because it is stupid to keep fighting a war that simply can not be won.
It's not just a war that can't be won, it's a war that shouldn't be won. The war on drugs is a war on personal freedom. It is nothing but institutionalized cruelty motivated by making the rich and powerful more rich and powerful. And it's not stupid to keep fighting a war that can't be won. The unwinnable war is entirely the point. It gives them an excuse to continually erode our civil liberties.
If we as a people were to legalize pot, the money saved, and the tax money brought in could seriously revitalize the economy.
Legalizing drugs is the right thing to do, no matter what the economic effect is. I want to live in a free country.
But the last thing the drug dealers want is their product legalized.
What they want isn't really relevant. As long as they exist, they make us all more free. They deliver a valuable product to people who want it, at significant personal risk. That's worth being grateful for.
Most of them, in my experience, are very nice people too.
As long as it is illegal, it is expensive.
Tobacco & alcohol are also very profitable industries, despite being legal.
I will say this again: Throw out that stupid outdated "United States Constitution" and write a new one.
The problem with that is that the original Constitution was written during the Age of Enlightenment. The philosophical underpinnings of our Constitution are nowhere to be found in modern society, and those in power are actively trying to sabotage institutions and movements that would lead to another Enlightenment. Any attempt to rewrite the Constitution would leave us worse off than we are now.
You said "rid the world" not prohibit. The steps they've taken to make smoking more inconvenient, costly, and stigmatizes have been far more effective than any prohibition regime. Prohibition actually does not work, if you actually want to rid the world of a drug, public policy works a lot better. If they actually tried to prohibit tobacco, it would be cheaper and more easily available to children than it is now.
drug dealers, rapists, murders, burglars, muggers
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell which thing is not like the others, by the time I finish my song?
Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Smoking kills far more people than car accidents, but I don't see much of a public push to rid the world of that habit
You don't? Where have you been?
The reason the violent drug cartels are violent and strong is because drugs are illegal. The real violent criminals here are the politicians who push drug prohibition, and the people who vote for those politicians.
They happily issue lots of traffic tickets, while drug dealers, rapists, murderers, burglars, muggers, etc. are not getting caught.
Why do you group drug dealers in with rapists and murderers? Drug dealers are the freedom fighters in the war on drugs. If you belive in individual freedom and personal choice, drug dealers are on your side.
Somebody really needs to go all Heisenberg on their asses....
I'm uncertain what you mean by that.
CTRL+ALT++ or - were NOT to zoom in or out. Those keystrokes switched between desktop resolutions.
They switched between display resolutions, without affecting the desktop resolution. If you had a 1600x1200 desktop and hit CTRL-ALT-+ to get 1024x768, it would display a subset of your large desktop, just larger. You could pan around the large desktop as needed. It was, in effect, a zoom.
The selection buffer and the clipboard are two entirely different things. Selecting text does not screw up the clipboard accessed with ctrl-c/ctrl-v.
I too highlight words all the time. Constantly. Not only to keep track of where I am, but just to fidget. I've never encountered a problem with unwanted text in the clipboard.
Most mice these days have at least 5 buttons. Left click, right click, scroll wheel up, scroll wheel down, and scroll wheel depress.
Just another reason not to use GNOME. Hopefully the Xorg people don't start thinking this is a useless feature. I'm still finding myself trying to hit CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE to kill X, or CTRL-ALT-+ to zoom in. These were very useful features that were dropped for no good reason at all.
Please, Linux has better driver support out of the box than any closed source OS.
I really thought Obama would be different, yet he gets into power and it's clear he's just the smiley face on the military machine, same as the last guy.
Told you so. Vote third party or stay home.
Yes, the Pi is not open hardware either. As it stands, there is no actual open hardware.
Are there binary blobs? If not, I'll buy one. If so, are the hardware specifications detailed enough for people to replace the binary blobs with open source drivers? If so, I'll buy one when that happens.
No, those conversations could easily pass this test. e.g., have me talk to my mom, and then test me on things I could only have learned from my mom. e.g. her lasagna recipe. Or write a number on a card, show that card to my friend, have me converse with my friend, and then ask me what number was written on the card.
Americans love the military solider, sailor, airman, coastie, and marine.
But not the astronaut, because he doesn't get to kill shit.
They love the really bad-assed hardware (well, most guys do).
NASA hardware is even more bad assed, where's the love?
They love the sense of self-testing, charater-forging and adventure that often accompanies service
And exploration of another planet is not a self-testing, character-forging adventure?
Hell, nothing was more exciting to the 22-year-old kid I was than to tweak and tune a multi-million-dollar aircraft capable of doing heavy damage on anything that you care to point it at.
And that's the problem. You really couldn't think of anything more exciting than being near weaponry? Why is killing things more exciting than discovery?
Military fetishism is a disease.
Where is the justice in some people being born into wealthy societies while others are born into grinding poverty?
There is none whatsoever, and anyone who claims there is is a liar at best. At worst they are actively trying to dissuade you from pursuing justice in this life, on the promise that there is justice in the next life.
I'm willing to drop my religious views if you have a better idea.
If you believe in God you must hold him responsible for the injustice that fills the universe. If you actually look at the world around you, you have two options: 1) a cold uncaring universe 2) a universe ruled by a cruel omnipotence who allows suffering because, fuck you, that's why.
Even if you believe there is paradise after death, that doesn't excuse God from being responsible for the hell on Earth that so many suffer through.
Any measurable phenomenon that is inconsistent with dreams being mere noise. e.g. randomly assign people to record their dreams, or play a crossword puzzle immediately after waking. Then measure performance on some test. If there are differences in performance that are statistically significant, it's likely that dreams have meaningful content.
You're like a blind man asking "What's so important about sight?"
Do you really think any blind person doesn't realize how important sight is? It's pretty easy to explain, and trivial to demonstrate abilities that sight provides that the sightless do not have. Any blind person can be easily convinced that sight exists by performing experiments. Can you do the same with dream analysis?
> What reason is there to believe that "higher realities" exist?
They do whether _you_ believe them or not.
Sure, just like the Earth is round, whether someone believes or not. The difference is that if I doubt that the Earth is round, you can provide evidence for that assertion. Where is the evidence for your assertion?
Lucid Dreaming and the Out-of-Body experiences provide an option to face your fears, to learn about yourself, to understand your Higher Self.
Or they provide an opportunity to indulge in confirmation bias, wishful thinking, and numerous other self-delusional fallacies, which humans are extremely prone to.
Who knows, maybe tea leaves will work better for you. How do you know unless you TRY it?
Even if you try it, you don't really know. You have to perform properly designed experiments, or you're just fooling yourself.
The more important question for you is: Why do dreams use symbols to communicate?
How do you know dreams use anything at all? How do you know dreams communicate anything at all? We know that symbols are a part of dreams, but your language suggests an intentionality for which there is no evidence.
To answer your question in the way it should have been asked without presupposing intentionality: Symbols are a part of dreams because the brain is a symbol manipulating computer, and dreaming is an activity of the brain.
The presence of symbols doesn't necessarily mean anything. For example, open up any random binary with a hex editor. There will be ASCII characters in there. Does it follow that the binary has some deeper meaning? Not at all.
Or you can remain arrogant and dismiss what the universe is trying to tell you.
If I wanted to dismiss the idea out of hand, I never would have asked for evidence. The one being arrogant here is the one claiming something about reality without providing any evidence.
It is difficult to demonstrate empirically because there are many uncontrolled variables.
Which is one of the reasons it stinks of woo.
Much of what a person can experience while lucid dreaming is difficult to interpret and understand, and people tend to describe things to themselves in a way that may not be very accurate or objective.
And that's another reason.
But I think you're a bit out of your element here, like someone who has merely used a computer forming strong opinions about kernel development.
I think even a novice would be able to accurately form a strong opinion that kernel development is a worthwhile endeavor. Certainly an expert in the field would be able to convey why it is a worthwhile endeavor. Can anyone offer me a shred of evidence that there is signal in the noise of dreams?
Because dreams provide an insight into your superconsciousness
How has this assertion been demonstrated empirically?
Because you can Lucid Dream.
And what's the benefit of that?
Because you explore higher realities and learn about yourself.
What reason is there to believe that "higher realities" exist? What reason is there to believe that dreams help you "learn about yourself" any more than reading tea leaves?
Of what use is recording your dreams?