I've never seen any empirical evidence that there is any truth to the claim whatsoever. And in fact, I think it's false.
Never seen as distinct from not found? Think as the result of reductive reasoning or just as a poor synonym for imagine?
I imagine that a government that is radically smaller than the largest organization it is supposed to regulate is incapable of regulating that organization because it can't keep up.
FTFY
Unless... government "regulation" effectively licenses monopolies that stops the market from self-regulating business.
I'm not sure if you're just a amateur sophist or a moron - but arguing that government regulation of business requires it to duplicate every single aspect of the business, therefore requiring the regulation process to match the size of business being regulated, is just, um, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
For evidence, I point to the current state of affairs. I say, our bank regulators are understaffed. There should be more people with more government jobs specifically to regulate the banks, and because the part of the government that is supposed to do that job is so small, it's helpless to rein in behemoth multinational banks that can generate paper faster than a regulator can read it.
A selective interpretation that doesn't even allow for history is not evidence (it's just piss poor rationalisation). Government regulation of banks mostly amounts to stopping banks being competive. Historically government intervention was to remove the usury limitation that stopped banks charging more than 10% interest. Prior to that the loan sharks were the mob, now credit cards charge up to 30%. Those trillions "generated" are just transfers from Main St to Wall St, smoke and mirrors.
You want your small government? Forbid megacorporations. Forbid too-big-to-fail.
How do megacorporations exist without government - you know? Like American Fruit or West Indies Trading existing with the respective governments taking their money and supplying them with armies (probably some modern parallel but I can't any evidence with this box on my head). And excuse me for extrapolating but.. wouldn't the increased regulation to do that, um, increase government size. Not that I'm accusing you of sophism but... if it smells like a stawman sometimes you need to test if it's really straw (and my only tools are matches).
As for "forbid to fail/bail out my contributors" - just don't. It's that simple. If the government needs to intervene in business with funding it should own (nationalise) the business - not give/loan it money.
Got pasted by one the other day. I was leaning on the horn, but he didn't hear it, because his music was cranked. Backed right into me assuming I wasn't there, never even looked.
There's another thing I don't "get". Of course I fully understand dressing in the team products, painting my head, going to the game, and screaming abuse at the opposition supporters. 'Cause they are a bunch of superstitious losers, while we are winners, yeah! Go Aggies!
In terms of the actual mechanism: as far as I recall, immune cells develop with a random specificity: It's pure chance what they'll recognise.
If they're exposed to something that they will react to in their development time, they die: This is how we prevent them from reacting to ourselves.
So although it won't do anything to existing immune cells, the persistent presence of peanuts will at least prevent any new immune cells popping up that will react to them.
Thanks. So it's the same therapy that Freeman and Noon developed over a century ago, with no apparent change in the understanding of the mechanisms behind it? I was hoping it'd be some new understanding of how to control or suppress those white blood cell mediators that cause the problem.
Sad, because if that's the case the treatment, for peanut allergies, is not new or novel either (been in use in Australia for over a decade). Damn you Slashdot, fooled again. (With Lancet I should know better too).
Not why do it, but why does the treatment work? The cited Lancet article doesn't seem to offer any answers (or hint at any efforts to find them).... development of enzyme reserves??
And what of the annecdotal relationship between peanut allergies and *not* breast feeding?
Whatever they're passing around on blotter these days is no match for real LSD.
Grinding teeth, stomach gas, lack of open eye hallucinations? (hallucinogenic) Amphetamines. See your spice rack:) No matter what "Uncle Fester" might have you believe - LSD is not simple to make (though it is very cheap), and very hard to ticket (the damn stuff fumes like hell and just dissolving it into workable amounts from eye-dropping onto a blotter is tricky). Additionally it isn't a party drug.
I have it on good authority that MXE, discussed in the article, is more enjoyable than Ketamine.
Ketamine doesn't fit my definition of safe (too low a margin of safety). I don't know about MXE - nor am I ever likely to try it. Every native culture on the planet used a number of psychoative substances - world travel changed that, and while many of the indigenously used substances are still legal their use was generally discontinued because the currently illegal ones were safer to use, more predictable in effect, and have less undesirable side-effects.
There is NO clear definition of "substantial similarity" that all chemists will agree on.
Yes. But don't confuse that legal interpretation with "an inability of pharmacological chemists to agree upon what analog means". It's just an example of the inadequacies of the people who interpret legislation. "analog" != "substantial similarity". (simple is a synonym for ?) I stand by what I said
We know exactly what an analog is, and how to design them to give fairly predictable effects[*1]. Replace the benzene ring with Sulphur etc.
- we can predict the effects of an analog, but while the analog may have "substantial similarity" it's "specific similarities" that determine the "similarities of effect".
e.g. predicting the potency of methylthio-phenylethylamine using the principles of activity. [*2]
Perhaps you haven't actually read Sasha and Anne's work (PIHKAL, TIHKAL, etc), or simply lack a background in organic and pharmacological chemistry. Certainly you conflate legislative language with that of the science.
"substantial similarity" is an interpretation of
"A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for the purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I." ??
(emphasis mine). IANAL
And I certainly wouldn't want to have my freedom depend on a typical US jury being able to sort it out either (It must be an analog drug--it's made of the same types of atoms as heroin, cocaine, and meth!)
Agreed (absolutely), three-dimensional structure is unlikely to be properly considered by lay persons (let alone evaluate the coefficients of octanol-water partitions) - but then, the laws and not intended to protect citizens (votes and commerce). Particularly given my comments earlier in the main thread about non-amine precursors on your spice rack.
[*1] Much of that knowledge comes from the work of the Shulgins, Nichols, and Alles [*2]A. Leo, C. Hansch, and D. Elkins, Chem. Rev., 71, 525 (1971)
It's a variant of Linux but it's not for use with a general purpose computer.
Oh yeah? My kids aren't complaining, and neither are theirs. Likewise the many thousands of others who've already downloaded and installed Ye Olde Steam OS. and yes, those boxes are still desktop machines, they just hook up to the CatLeap in the lounge room when gaming (Steam is just an interface, nothing to stop you having the desktops of your choice installed on the same box - no need to dual boot.
A single gram of 25i-NBOME contains up to 10,000 doses; it is as potent as a chemical weapon in the wrong hands.
A typical line of a powdered drug might contain around one hundred milligrams—for Bjerk, that was enough for a thousand-fold overdose. He died quickly in the street.
I really don't get it: how people can trust anyone selling such drugs ?
Even when the dose is correct, pills can contain so many other unknown substances...
Ask yourself the same question when you pour yourself a bowl of CocoPops in the morning and add that permeated milk. 25i-NBOME, easier to dose by several factors than d-lysergic diethylamide tartrate. And, how much contaminants can there be in 100mg?
As are pubs. Oh wait.... maybe it's only a small minority that seek solace in continual inebriation. Like the lazy kid up the back of the class - he needs a little peer group pressure correctly applied and some coaching, don't hold the whole damn class back.
With designer drugs, scientists can't agree on what exactly a 'drug analogue' means,
Where do you get this shit? Or do you just make it up? We know exactly what an analog is, and how to design them to give fairly predictable effects. Replace the benzene ring with Sulphur etc.
The rest of your argument sucks balls too - the government has no problems legislating against nature. Existing laws already hamper "medicinal" drug research, even with the recently enlightened changes to cannabis legislation in some States of the US, it's still extremely difficult to get funding or approval for research into non-recreational use of the "traditionally" illegal drugs (i.e. morphine, cannabis, cocaine). You might want to look up "reversal of onus" too, being sent to jail while you endeavour to prove beyond reasonable doubt you are not guilty as charged is just as bad as actually being proven guilty.
Obviously enforcement of every bespoke chemical being synthesized to order is impractical even by the standards of the drug wars; but are substances such as the one described in the article actually 'legal'?
In Australia where the story is based, maybe (Designer Drugs Legislation), but would it be enforced? No. Sythetic Cannabis analogs are illegal here under the same legislation, but before seizing them they have to be run through Lidcombe labs where there is a long waiting list, in the meantime the distributors are making a lot of money - and have legal heavyweights that can and have stalled the process.
One of the things the sensationalised story overlooked is that the same compound could be manufactured to order almost anywhere in the world - China just happens to give the story more zing.
It should also be noted that these and other "designer" drugs are not very enjoyable. The reality is that all the "good" drugs (relatively harmless, few unpleasant side effects) are either illegal or heavily taxed and subject to production and distribution monopolies.
In New South Wales they have laws in place that can make possession of a length of garden hose and a milk bottle illegal. The laws against drugs have a purpose and it's not to stop people taking them. Good luck banning them - I studied organic chemistry and pharmacology, everything on your spice rack, even your lawn itself has non-amine precursors. But that'd involve a bit of work and an outlay. Give me a truck, a woodchipper, a chainsaw, and malicicious intent and I can actually get paid big money to legally collect large amounts of (very) rich *amine* precursors for Alpha Methyl PhenEthyl Amines (MMDA and speed/Ice etc) - as could any number of people who likewise have no motivation to get rich from recreational drugs - or compete with very competitive existing marketers, and the host of "officials" who live off them. By rich I mean 5 - 8% and in semi trailer loads. Continuously.
The drug industry, the other industry that calls their clients "users".
Obviously we need more legislation, not just against these insidious drugs, but also against bad weather and sharp corners on furniture. Zeus forbid we stop for a moment and consider why people throughout history take drugs. Cue King Cnut. Personally I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on a more productive excercise than pissing up a rope.
[/sarcasm the lowest form of wit... except for the witling fools (f* wits) it's aimed at]
Oh, and kudos and more funds to Caldicot, the man in the middle of this stupidity.
All it takes is digesting all the data from Wikileaks and Snowden and applying it to the rest of the issues.
It's no psychic anything. Its called deduction.
You are right that my logic wouldn't stand in court... Obviously.
You probably believe the White House knew nothing about 9/11 before 9/11 happened,
I differentiate between "believe", "suspect", and "know".
I suspect a lot of things. I "know" their is no entity called the "White House" - it's a building occupied by a bunch of partially informed people with different agendas. So, no, I don't "believe" the "White House" "knew" about 9/11 in advance. I do "believe" that when people talk of "them" and "they" in the context you use them - that they subscribe to unified conspiracy theories, an over-simplification of reality. I don't believe in nationalist conspiracies that run countries or wars - company interests do, and they don't believe in nationalism except as a tools to manipulate people's opinions. As for conspiracies - I side with Adam Smith on their origins and frequency.
I suspect Bush and Co. "should" have seen something like it coming. I suspect some FBI personnel had evidence it was going to happen, whether they "knew" is a different matter. E.g. I "suspect" you have "the large corporations that are in bed with govt" backwards, and that you don't comprehend the Snowden and Wikileaks releases - all that data is gathered by devices made by private companies and processed by private companies, after being pitched to those agencies by those same companies (there's gold in that thar data). The order in which the data access occurs is critical to the understanding. i.e if you "think" that the problem is that the government leaks data to companies you've got it arse-backwards.
And I definitely don't believe in psychics. Though I do believe many people "saw a lot of things coming", just like they "often know who it is calling there phone before they see Caller ID". The problem is despite "knowing" they never test their "knowledge i.e. they only recall the times they were right, not the majority of times they were wrong. Because they only ever look for "evidence" to support their "gut instincts". Who were Snowden's employers again?
Slashdot Mirror
can it go to 11?
(sigh) bloody Slashdot posters.... If you bothered to read the referenced article you'd see it starts at 11. [mutter, mutter].
Birth control and education are some of the major problems he's addressing, and that doesn't lead to more starving, suffering kids.
But that'd be less souls for Jesus. What will all those fat white missionaries do?
I've never seen any empirical evidence that there is any truth to the claim whatsoever. And in fact, I think it's false.
Never seen as distinct from not found? Think as the result of reductive reasoning or just as a poor synonym for imagine?
I imagine that a government that is radically smaller than the largest organization it is supposed to regulate is incapable of regulating that organization because it can't keep up.
FTFY
Unless... government "regulation" effectively licenses monopolies that stops the market from self-regulating business.
I'm not sure if you're just a amateur sophist or a moron - but arguing that government regulation of business requires it to duplicate every single aspect of the business, therefore requiring the regulation process to match the size of business being regulated, is just, um, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
For evidence, I point to the current state of affairs. I say, our bank regulators are understaffed. There should be more people with more government jobs specifically to regulate the banks, and because the part of the government that is supposed to do that job is so small, it's helpless to rein in behemoth multinational banks that can generate paper faster than a regulator can read it.
A selective interpretation that doesn't even allow for history is not evidence (it's just piss poor rationalisation). Government regulation of banks mostly amounts to stopping banks being competive. Historically government intervention was to remove the usury limitation that stopped banks charging more than 10% interest. Prior to that the loan sharks were the mob, now credit cards charge up to 30%. Those trillions "generated" are just transfers from Main St to Wall St, smoke and mirrors.
You want your small government? Forbid megacorporations. Forbid too-big-to-fail.
How do megacorporations exist without government - you know? Like American Fruit or West Indies Trading existing with the respective governments taking their money and supplying them with armies (probably some modern parallel but I can't any evidence with this box on my head). And excuse me for extrapolating but.. wouldn't the increased regulation to do that, um, increase government size. Not that I'm accusing you of sophism but... if it smells like a stawman sometimes you need to test if it's really straw (and my only tools are matches).
As for "forbid to fail/bail out my contributors" - just don't. It's that simple. If the government needs to intervene in business with funding it should own (nationalise) the business - not give/loan it money.
the total take from bank robbery in the US is around $30 million a year.
You mean when banks are robbed right? With a gun? Interesting.
I feel like they should pay me, or at least subsidise the price of the item, for it having their advertising on it.
You're showing your age. Time was they did.
Because young people are still only top volume.
Got pasted by one the other day. I was leaning on the horn, but he didn't hear it, because his music was cranked. Backed right into me assuming I wasn't there, never even looked.
Next time try while you're in a car.
For every driverless car honk a tree falls silently in a forest...
TV.
There's another thing I don't "get". Of course I fully understand dressing in the team products, painting my head, going to the game, and screaming abuse at the opposition supporters. 'Cause they are a bunch of superstitious losers, while we are winners, yeah!
Go Aggies!
In terms of the actual mechanism: as far as I recall, immune cells develop with a random specificity: It's pure chance what they'll recognise.
If they're exposed to something that they will react to in their development time, they die: This is how we prevent them from reacting to ourselves.
So although it won't do anything to existing immune cells, the persistent presence of peanuts will at least prevent any new immune cells popping up that will react to them.
Thanks. So it's the same therapy that Freeman and Noon developed over a century ago, with no apparent change in the understanding of the mechanisms behind it?
I was hoping it'd be some new understanding of how to control or suppress those white blood cell mediators that cause the problem.
Sad, because if that's the case the treatment, for peanut allergies, is not new or novel either (been in use in Australia for over a decade). Damn you Slashdot, fooled again. (With Lancet I should know better too).
Are you wanting to compare voluntary spending or involuntary spending?
Government spending.
Go Aggies?
Not why do it, but why does the treatment work? The cited Lancet article doesn't seem to offer any answers (or hint at any efforts to find them).... development of enzyme reserves??
And what of the annecdotal relationship between peanut allergies and *not* breast feeding?
Why people will pay for stuff like this is completely beyond me
Ask a Texan politician, either party, given the ratio of spending on football compared to say - health or education, the answer should be interesting.
Which country are the non-conterfeit items made in?
Whatever they're passing around on blotter these days is no match for real LSD.
Grinding teeth, stomach gas, lack of open eye hallucinations? (hallucinogenic) Amphetamines. See your spice rack :)
No matter what "Uncle Fester" might have you believe - LSD is not simple to make (though it is very cheap), and very hard to ticket (the damn stuff fumes like hell and just dissolving it into workable amounts from eye-dropping onto a blotter is tricky). Additionally it isn't a party drug.
I have it on good authority that MXE, discussed in the article, is more enjoyable than Ketamine.
Ketamine doesn't fit my definition of safe (too low a margin of safety). I don't know about MXE - nor am I ever likely to try it. Every native culture on the planet used a number of psychoative substances - world travel changed that, and while many of the indigenously used substances are still legal their use was generally discontinued because the currently illegal ones were safer to use, more predictable in effect, and have less undesirable side-effects.
There is NO clear definition of "substantial similarity" that all chemists will agree on.
Yes. But don't confuse that legal interpretation with "an inability of pharmacological chemists to agree upon what analog means". It's just an example of the inadequacies of the people who interpret legislation. "analog" != "substantial similarity". (simple is a synonym for ?) I stand by what I said
- we can predict the effects of an analog, but while the analog may have "substantial similarity" it's "specific similarities" that determine the "similarities of effect".
e.g. predicting the potency of methylthio-phenylethylamine using the principles of activity. [*2]
Perhaps you haven't actually read Sasha and Anne's work (PIHKAL, TIHKAL, etc), or simply lack a background in organic and pharmacological chemistry. Certainly you conflate legislative language with that of the science.
"substantial similarity" is an interpretation of
(emphasis mine). IANAL
And I certainly wouldn't want to have my freedom depend on a typical US jury being able to sort it out either (It must be an analog drug--it's made of the same types of atoms as heroin, cocaine, and meth!)
Agreed (absolutely), three-dimensional structure is unlikely to be properly considered by lay persons (let alone evaluate the coefficients of octanol-water partitions) - but then, the laws and not intended to protect citizens (votes and commerce). Particularly given my comments earlier in the main thread about non-amine precursors on your spice rack.
[*1] Much of that knowledge comes from the work of the Shulgins, Nichols, and Alles
[*2]A. Leo, C. Hansch, and D. Elkins, Chem. Rev., 71, 525 (1971)
And Bochs is not a emulator but a reimplementation of the x86 ISA.
Bochs is and emulator (first sentence, hope your lips don't get sore). Wine Is Not an Emulator is not.
There's a reason why you post as Anonymous Coward, because there's no option for Anonymous Dickhead.
It's a variant of Linux but it's not for use with a general purpose computer.
Oh yeah? My kids aren't complaining, and neither are theirs. Likewise the many thousands of others who've already downloaded and installed Ye Olde Steam OS. and yes, those boxes are still desktop machines, they just hook up to the CatLeap in the lounge room when gaming (Steam is just an interface, nothing to stop you having the desktops of your choice installed on the same box - no need to dual boot.
A single gram of 25i-NBOME contains up to 10,000 doses; it is as potent as a chemical weapon in the wrong hands. A typical line of a powdered drug might contain around one hundred milligrams—for Bjerk, that was enough for a thousand-fold overdose. He died quickly in the street.
I really don't get it: how people can trust anyone selling such drugs ? Even when the dose is correct, pills can contain so many other unknown substances...
Ask yourself the same question when you pour yourself a bowl of CocoPops in the morning and add that permeated milk. 25i-NBOME, easier to dose by several factors than d-lysergic diethylamide tartrate. And, how much contaminants can there be in 100mg?
So please, 3D printing fans, show me where we can 3D print molecules.
In a lab.
Pretty sure glue-sniffing
The result of drug laws.
opium dens were places for broken souls
As are pubs. Oh wait.... maybe it's only a small minority that seek solace in continual inebriation. Like the lazy kid up the back of the class - he needs a little peer group pressure correctly applied and some coaching, don't hold the whole damn class back.
And your history "knowledge" sucks.
With designer drugs, scientists can't agree on what exactly a 'drug analogue' means,
Where do you get this shit? Or do you just make it up? We know exactly what an analog is, and how to design them to give fairly predictable effects. Replace the benzene ring with Sulphur etc.
PiHKAL
The rest of your argument sucks balls too - the government has no problems legislating against nature. Existing laws already hamper "medicinal" drug research, even with the recently enlightened changes to cannabis legislation in some States of the US, it's still extremely difficult to get funding or approval for research into non-recreational use of the "traditionally" illegal drugs (i.e. morphine, cannabis, cocaine). You might want to look up "reversal of onus" too, being sent to jail while you endeavour to prove beyond reasonable doubt you are not guilty as charged is just as bad as actually being proven guilty.
Obviously enforcement of every bespoke chemical being synthesized to order is impractical even by the standards of the drug wars; but are substances such as the one described in the article actually 'legal'?
In Australia where the story is based, maybe (Designer Drugs Legislation), but would it be enforced? No. Sythetic Cannabis analogs are illegal here under the same legislation, but before seizing them they have to be run through Lidcombe labs where there is a long waiting list, in the meantime the distributors are making a lot of money - and have legal heavyweights that can and have stalled the process.
One of the things the sensationalised story overlooked is that the same compound could be manufactured to order almost anywhere in the world - China just happens to give the story more zing.
It should also be noted that these and other "designer" drugs are not very enjoyable. The reality is that all the "good" drugs (relatively harmless, few unpleasant side effects) are either illegal or heavily taxed and subject to production and distribution monopolies.
In New South Wales they have laws in place that can make possession of a length of garden hose and a milk bottle illegal. The laws against drugs have a purpose and it's not to stop people taking them. Good luck banning them - I studied organic chemistry and pharmacology, everything on your spice rack, even your lawn itself has non-amine precursors. But that'd involve a bit of work and an outlay. Give me a truck, a woodchipper, a chainsaw, and malicicious intent and I can actually get paid big money to legally collect large amounts of (very) rich *amine* precursors for Alpha Methyl PhenEthyl Amines (MMDA and speed/Ice etc) - as could any number of people who likewise have no motivation to get rich from recreational drugs - or compete with very competitive existing marketers, and the host of "officials" who live off them. By rich I mean 5 - 8% and in semi trailer loads. Continuously.
The drug industry, the other industry that calls their clients "users".
[sarcasm]
Obviously we need more legislation, not just against these insidious drugs, but also against bad weather and sharp corners on furniture. Zeus forbid we stop for a moment and consider why people throughout history take drugs. Cue King Cnut. Personally I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on a more productive excercise than pissing up a rope.
[/sarcasm the lowest form of wit... except for the witling fools (f* wits) it's aimed at]
Oh, and kudos and more funds to Caldicot, the man in the middle of this stupidity.
Install only from the source. If you install from a third-party source or don't check the md5sum what did you expect?
Tag story as stupid
Hey, I just found a bottle of whisky by the side of the road.... Party! (what could go wrong?)
All it takes is digesting all the data from Wikileaks and Snowden and applying it to the rest of the issues. It's no psychic anything. Its called deduction. You are right that my logic wouldn't stand in court... Obviously. You probably believe the White House knew nothing about 9/11 before 9/11 happened,
I differentiate between "believe", "suspect", and "know".
I suspect a lot of things. I "know" their is no entity called the "White House" - it's a building occupied by a bunch of partially informed people with different agendas. So, no, I don't "believe" the "White House" "knew" about 9/11 in advance. I do "believe" that when people talk of "them" and "they" in the context you use them - that they subscribe to unified conspiracy theories, an over-simplification of reality. I don't believe in nationalist conspiracies that run countries or wars - company interests do, and they don't believe in nationalism except as a tools to manipulate people's opinions. As for conspiracies - I side with Adam Smith on their origins and frequency.
I suspect Bush and Co. "should" have seen something like it coming. I suspect some FBI personnel had evidence it was going to happen, whether they "knew" is a different matter. E.g. I "suspect" you have "the large corporations that are in bed with govt" backwards, and that you don't comprehend the Snowden and Wikileaks releases - all that data is gathered by devices made by private companies and processed by private companies, after being pitched to those agencies by those same companies (there's gold in that thar data). The order in which the data access occurs is critical to the understanding. i.e if you "think" that the problem is that the government leaks data to companies you've got it arse-backwards.
And I definitely don't believe in psychics. Though I do believe many people "saw a lot of things coming", just like they "often know who it is calling there phone before they see Caller ID". The problem is despite "knowing" they never test their "knowledge i.e. they only recall the times they were right, not the majority of times they were wrong. Because they only ever look for "evidence" to support their "gut instincts". Who were Snowden's employers again?