Micorosoft needs to move the hardware platform over and the application platform over. 2013 OS sales are not the objective. Things were not "well enough" they had lost huge chunks of the consumer / small business market and are going to lose more over the next 4 years. Their goal is not to the lose the whole thing but rather to establish a good chunk that is stable and start recapturing share.
Yep. People often fail to realize how much Samsung and Apple changed the ecosystem and how quickly. I think a lot has to do with the complexity because of Android & iOS vs everyone else partially overlapping the Samsung & Apple vs everyone else story.
This is a terrific test case on secrecy laws. No one violated laws, no one is using secret information. All the proper people were notified and there was a clear cut request / order and a clear cut refusal to comply. At the same time this is military information. This is just about the perfect test case.
Maybe.... I'm not sure. Clearly in the USA for smartphones Apple's marketshare is moving towards establishing a monopoly. The carriers are aware of this, analysts are but the general public mostly isn't. I'm not sure if it is to Apple's advantage for the public to be aware. Similarly at the high end of the market, laptops over $1k. For years Apple's share in this segment has been in the 90% range. Most of the public doesn't know that and Apple doesn't push this fact.
The investment banks that sold off those bad loans have fantastic customer service. They would hate to have any wait on hold much less a long wait on hold, stop them from stealing tens of millions of dollars from their customers.
Except that alcohol consumption did go down in the United States and to boot their were (semi-)permanent cultural changes which still make the USA a light drinking country.
I think your scenario for cocaine replacing meth is possible even likely. If you are saying legalize coke and keep the ban on meth you are more or less advocating the staggered approach I was recommending. If you are saying legalize both, I'd be too worried about meth gaining. I'd like to see coke bring down meth numbers first.
. The reported numbers are as high as 10% for some drugs.
You mean 10% increase. No they are almost double on some drugs. Even at almost double it is promising at only 10% decriminalizing possession would be an absolute no brainer.
Your approach doesn't differ much from mine. Though understand you are going further than Portugal which just decriminalized possession they didn't legalize. The only real difference is I'd stagger the regulations more based on the risk. I'd also reserve the right to recrackdown if there was an explosion in use of one of the dangerous ones.
An interesting note on that point, there is evidence that opiate addiction does not in itself preclude productive membership in society. A great many involuntary heroine addicts from WWI managed to maintain their habits quietly and discreetly for the rest of their lives. The stereotypical dysfunctional junkie was dysfunctional first, then a junkie.
It depends. People started off quite functional and then became completely non functional overtime. It was a rapid progressive deterioration. Some managed to control it. But again we might be able to regulate opiates quite effectively. I'd tend to want to legalize those though track usage carefully. Funny enough the most dangerous thing people do with OTC opiates is use them for pain without seeing a doctor. People just taking lots of codeine and thus letting cancers get completely out of control for example were one of the reasons it got banned.
The wrong part is, that X11 doesn't do this.... Widget toolkits chosen to implement text rendering on the client
I was around when this switch happened. Documents weren't displaying correctly and systems like TeX wanted application specific fonts so did pdf... I like how the web solved this with a mixture of client and server side on an app by app based. Even better was the way printers did it with server side (X11 definition of server) by default with client overrides.
The point was the separation of client and server creating latency on desktops running local applications.
There is no demand for remote touch-controlled UI.
Microsoft disagrees with you on that. They believe there is tons of demand just no one knows how to do it yet. They are working on it.
Maybe new interfaces will utilize a mouse-like object sliding on the screen, so feedback is physical.
That doesn't solve the problem for touch. It is arguably the worst case. Any delay between the tip of the finger and the "mouse" is highly detectable by humans, for some a few milliseconds drastically reduces usability. Humans respond almost as badly to jitter under those circumstances as they do with jitter and voice. You've been moving your fingers and your eyes see them move since you were a month old. If that behavior changes you and everyone else do not respond well to it.
Your argument is that remote GUI is impossible because touch interfaces can not be implemented over any remote protocol, so stick with it and don't try to weasel out.
That isn't my argument. My argument is that remote GUI is impossible if the remote protocol doesn't know a lot about the client. That it is impossible under X11, does not make it impossible. It makes X11 bad at the job that is its supposed speciality. My argument is that naive network transparency is not the right way.
a) client / server b) sophisticated (i.e. GUI specific) remote execution c) web etc... fill all the gaps for network transparency.
Would a low latency remote execution system that works be good. Absolutely. Had X11 had a security module it could have offered an alternative in the day of active X, and by the mid 1990s we could have had real rich web apps. X11 doesn't offer that.
Unrelated to this, no one cares because things that X is used for on a desktop, remotely, do not need low-latency touch input, and likely never will.
Wait a minute. Your whole argument was that the remote support system needs to support all application not just some select group. If you agree that X11 will never support huge and growing classes then all it is just one possible remote execution system. And Wayland supports X11. So for those apps that want to use X11's remote system Wayland support it.
If Wayland developers announced that their system is intended only for tablets and phones (or "laptops" that are actually tablets with a keyboard taped to them), no one would care what they do... The whole problem is, they build it as a "replacement for X11"
I think you are missing something here. Wayland has always been primarily about Linux. Linux has always followed Microsoft's lead for a hardware strategy. Microsoft's hardware strategy is about ubiquitous computing. Supporting the computers of the future, including x86, and supporting touch / voice... interfaces is the same thing. Wayland is not even going to be finished for several more years. KDE or Gnome taking advantage of Wayland only features isn't going to be for several more years after that. We are talking roughly 2020 when the replacement is even meaningfully underway. And by then that replacement is running on something like android devices or something like mixed mode windows devices.
Either X11 or Wayland has to support 2010 style interfaces. 1990s interfaces, systems that can only support mice keyboards are going the way of systems that only support punchcards and reel-to-reel as an input method.
Both illustrate my point that Wayland design is inadequate for a desktop that can compete with X on technical merits
X is 30 years old. When we talk about technical merits in the other post you keep talking about what X could do. There has bee too much time spent on X lets talk about what X11 does do. And on its technical merits it is terrible. Apple introduced dual video cards on their laptops in 2008, that's a mainstream feature. X11 still doesn't support switching video cards for battery. It doesn't do video. It doesn't do sound. I have had drag and drop video and sound for a decade on my Mac, X11 doesn't even do cut and paste any better than it did in 1988. It doesn't have a built in high speed animations system. It doesn't do touch. When I go on Linux boxes I still often use WindowMaker for comfort, more or less the GUI I was using in 1991. It would never occur to me to use a 2001 much less 1991 GUI on Windows or Mac, the advances have been so tremendous.
So then you say it does remote. Even on remote it is terrible. In the 80s and 90s over a LAN remote was just pointing the X windows around. It was really quite good. Starting in the mid 1990s a security level was needed, and 15 years later it still isn't done! Why not? Either X11 is too terrible to support a security layer, or X11 is too hard to add one too, or the community is too conservative or whatever. But regardless when I need to go run X11 I'm doing SSH -X screwing around with Xhosts files like it was 1997 and still sometimes ending up with windows on some console because X11 got confused. And if I can get the windows I need remote displaying the entire process is breathtakingly miserable as I try and coordinate latencies that are not uncommonly measured in multiple tenths of a second or sometimes even multiple seconds. I remember when X worked with dumb X terms, but it just doesn't work anymore.
We talked about the solution for latency, why the hell isn't it standard in X11? What are they waiting for? Either it doesn't work and there isn't really a solution yet or the system is too screwed up. I don't install extensions to make things work in GDI or Aqua. Apple constantly thinks about latency nonstop all the time. They are relentless in going after latency years before I even notice its there. Microsoft similarly. A mature product is not technically superior if it doesn't do stuff but might be able to. A C compiler can support the code for the colonization of Jupiter. That's different then have the colonization of Jupiter code.
X11 gets graded on what comes out of the box on Ubuntu, on Fedora, on Suse on Apple's X11.app, on Cygwin X11.... That system is not technically superior. It simply does not do anything very well. I can't think of a single thing it does well anymore.
Marijuana was at the time of its ban associated heavily with opium and the opium trade. Obviously today it is lower down on the harm meter and legalization makes sense.
In terms of your stuff. I'd like to de-criminalize possession on the weaker stuff and use it against the stronger stuff. With pot I'd go whole hog to full legalization i.e. the right to distribute, sell... I might do that for some of the other weaker stuff, like ecstasy like low volume opiates (codeine should go back to being fully legal).
In terms of drunk / high driving. I think just about every law in America is too strict. But... more or less I agree with criminal penalties. Driving is simply too dangerous. I've seen people drive on LSD and yeah I think that should be felony endangerment.
I'd like medical intervention for addicts but we can't do that under the current system until universality kicks in. It is one of the advantages of Obamacare that we could create it as part of medicaid / insurance. For the same reason, I love the idea of job programs... but we need to extend that to all the poor not just addicts.
As for fix improve things and go by empirical data I agree 100%. I think a complex mixture of regulation is likely to be the best policy. Things are only simple in theory.
No, when looking at countries like Portugal, we've seen that usage quickly drops, not rises.
That's not what any agency says. They report many classes of drugs increased usage portugal. Google for yourself.
There were tons of movies and books in the 80s about casual cocaine usage, and it was depicted as mostly harmless
I was a teen during the 1980s. Cocaine was not harmless. Besides the enormous financial costs. People had strokes. People had multi day coke binges followed by having to drink for long periods of times to smooth it out which often caused heart attacks. People destroyed their noses. The overconfidence caused by cocaine led to deaths. The addictive properties of cocaine caused people, especially women, to be exploited.
There were plenty of problems before crack. Crack took things to a much higher level.
As for meth I agree with that's likely. It is more likely if weaker options are legal and meth remains highly taxed or illegal.
Maybe. And that's the sort of thing that would be best handled through dropping the price of the less toxic drugs below the price of meth through a regulatory regime.
Yep, thats why marijuana is still illegal.. because of all the severely disturbed individuals suffering incurable mental health problems because of their marijuana use...
The reason marijuana was made illegal primarily, was because it was used in the form of hashish. Hashish was used in connection with opium and the USA along with most other countries was trying to get rid of their serious opium problems.
How about this. My liberty is infinitely more precious than the good intentions that you wish to force upon me through the violence of law....
OK. Then go live on a colony in Jupiter. On earth the species that you belong to exists and has thrived primarily because of their ability to form large hives of cooperation. We are the only species to do this beyond familial bounds. Law is how it is done.
There are heavy restrictions and quite a bit of harassment. When I started High School there was still a smoking area for students. Today teachers can't smoke on school grounds. People can't smoke in theaters in airplanes in restaurants in hospitals in government buildings. Most importantly they can't smoke at their desk at work. Taxes have been sharply raised to discourage usage. There has been a massive educational campaign and most forms of advertising are illegal. And the prohibition on smoking is very much in effect for the age group when people start smoking mostly: 12-19.
No, you don't do 3 years for possession os cigarettes but this is absolutely an example of regulation and harassment discouraging usage.
Note that reports of use in Portugal are higher, but part of that is that you no longer have to confess to a crime to answer yes on a survey.
I get that. But without countervailing information that's good reason to suspect usage did increase and did increase quite a bit. The claim was that it had no impact.
At the same time, related morbidity is lower and mortality is reported about the same as before de-criminalization of possession.
Agreed.
In any event, it does suggest that it is indeed possible to back away from the war on drugs without creating a zombie apocalypse.
Absolutely. That's what I was advocating when this thread started. Regulation. Portugal (what they are actually doing not the libertarian fantasy of what they are doing) might very well be a reasonable model for regulation What I've been arguing against is full on blanket unlimited legalization with no restrictions.
Nobody would use that crap if less destructive drugs enjoyed at least a similar quasi-legal status.
We don't know but I'd love to find out. There have been more than 0 but very few deaths due to poisonous whisky since the end of prohibition. Some people still drink moonshine outside or prisons, but not many.
And the number who have done so ever is above 50%. Your initial numbers did not give any "in the past month" qualifiers.
So what? The question is whether the homeless use drugs more than the general population, "associating homelessness with drug abuse is a lie propagated by the prohibitionists." One time use is not abuse. I have no idea if the rate of one time use is higher in the homeless population than the population as a whole but that wasn't the question.
Seems like you are fishing for favorable statistics, rather than trying to find the truth.
Really? I just grabbed the very first statistic I hit. You are the one claiming that it all is caused by mental illness not drugs.
Sadly, the health system will not support mentally ill, but will support drug abusers,
I'm sorry for your family member. The health system in the USA sucks. The mental health system sucks. But that doesn't change what's happening to other groups of homelessness.
You've said nothing about *cause* other than asserting it without proof, or even a hint of evidence. Why?
Cause of what? Cause of homelessness? Cause of drug abuse? Cause of mental illness?
Considering the reputation meth and meth users have, I'm going to need to see something other than a random guess extrapolated from another guess based on a non-existent world to believe it would be even 1%.
OK that's fine. I don't. But the original claim was that prohibition didn't influence use and the smoking changes are a good example where we have seen a sustained drop in use through pressure.
Now obviously meth and cigarettes are different. I'm not saying 80% was possible for meth. I'm not saying workplaces wouldn't be very hostile to meth. I am saying that we have no idea how high the meth number can go. I don't see any reason to go after low hanging fruit like pot, LSD or even opiates before we try and experiment to find out how high the meth number would go.
Portugal de-criminalized all drugs and since then has had the lowest rate of use in Europe.
No they didn't. The de-criminalized personal possession: sales, distribution, advertising, warehousing... are all still quite illegal. And their rates of usage doubled on many drugs.
This is irrelevant, and Wayland does not add anything for improvement of those things what X doesn't already do.
It allow the application buffer to be shared with the video buffer.
This is completely wrong. [description of OSX]
Sorry I'm not taking this is wrong for an answer. I own a retina, I use a retina, I can see what it does. And yes what Apple claims is exactly what it is doing.
X11 is intended to be used on desktops and workstations
Fine Wayland is intended to be used primarily on tablets, phones and laptops. So there isn't a problem then.
but this is not what remote functionality in X is for. [[touch support]]
But it is what Wayland is for. To support the hardware of the 2010 not the hardware of the 1990s. If your argument is that X11 should exist to support the 1990s hardware, well it did. That happened. It is like arguing that Carter should be elected in 1976 instead of Ford.
Touch interface is irrelevant because it's not used remotely.
The primary touch interfaces are phone interfaces which are almost all client server. Yes it used remotely.
Slashdot Mirror
Micorosoft needs to move the hardware platform over and the application platform over. 2013 OS sales are not the objective. Things were not "well enough" they had lost huge chunks of the consumer / small business market and are going to lose more over the next 4 years. Their goal is not to the lose the whole thing but rather to establish a good chunk that is stable and start recapturing share.
Yep. People often fail to realize how much Samsung and Apple changed the ecosystem and how quickly. I think a lot has to do with the complexity because of Android & iOS vs everyone else partially overlapping the Samsung & Apple vs everyone else story.
This is a terrific test case on secrecy laws. No one violated laws, no one is using secret information. All the proper people were notified and there was a clear cut request / order and a clear cut refusal to comply. At the same time this is military information. This is just about the perfect test case.
Maybe.... I'm not sure. Clearly in the USA for smartphones Apple's marketshare is moving towards establishing a monopoly. The carriers are aware of this, analysts are but the general public mostly isn't. I'm not sure if it is to Apple's advantage for the public to be aware. Similarly at the high end of the market, laptops over $1k. For years Apple's share in this segment has been in the 90% range. Most of the public doesn't know that and Apple doesn't push this fact.
Apple's share ain't bad even if you do take Android into account. For smartphones you get something like
13% of units of by volume
40% of units by revenue
85% of the profits.
The investment banks that sold off those bad loans have fantastic customer service. They would hate to have any wait on hold much less a long wait on hold, stop them from stealing tens of millions of dollars from their customers.
Yep Microsoft astroturfer who uses a Mac, that's me. BTW Microsoft owns one of the commercial X11s.
As for the problems, those aren't imaginary problems they are real problems.
Except that alcohol consumption did go down in the United States and to boot their were (semi-)permanent cultural changes which still make the USA a light drinking country.
I think your scenario for cocaine replacing meth is possible even likely. If you are saying legalize coke and keep the ban on meth you are more or less advocating the staggered approach I was recommending. If you are saying legalize both, I'd be too worried about meth gaining. I'd like to see coke bring down meth numbers first.
. The reported numbers are as high as 10% for some drugs.
You mean 10% increase. No they are almost double on some drugs. Even at almost double it is promising at only 10% decriminalizing possession would be an absolute no brainer.
Your approach doesn't differ much from mine. Though understand you are going further than Portugal which just decriminalized possession they didn't legalize. The only real difference is I'd stagger the regulations more based on the risk. I'd also reserve the right to recrackdown if there was an explosion in use of one of the dangerous ones.
An interesting note on that point, there is evidence that opiate addiction does not in itself preclude productive membership in society. A great many involuntary heroine addicts from WWI managed to maintain their habits quietly and discreetly for the rest of their lives. The stereotypical dysfunctional junkie was dysfunctional first, then a junkie.
It depends. People started off quite functional and then became completely non functional overtime. It was a rapid progressive deterioration. Some managed to control it. But again we might be able to regulate opiates quite effectively. I'd tend to want to legalize those though track usage carefully. Funny enough the most dangerous thing people do with OTC opiates is use them for pain without seeing a doctor. People just taking lots of codeine and thus letting cancers get completely out of control for example were one of the reasons it got banned.
The wrong part is, that X11 doesn't do this. ... Widget toolkits chosen to implement text rendering on the client
I was around when this switch happened. Documents weren't displaying correctly and systems like TeX wanted application specific fonts so did pdf... I like how the web solved this with a mixture of client and server side on an app by app based. Even better was the way printers did it with server side (X11 definition of server) by default with client overrides.
The point was the separation of client and server creating latency on desktops running local applications.
There is no demand for remote touch-controlled UI.
Microsoft disagrees with you on that. They believe there is tons of demand just no one knows how to do it yet. They are working on it.
Maybe new interfaces will utilize a mouse-like object sliding on the screen, so feedback is physical.
That doesn't solve the problem for touch. It is arguably the worst case. Any delay between the tip of the finger and the "mouse" is highly detectable by humans, for some a few milliseconds drastically reduces usability. Humans respond almost as badly to jitter under those circumstances as they do with jitter and voice. You've been moving your fingers and your eyes see them move since you were a month old. If that behavior changes you and everyone else do not respond well to it.
Your argument is that remote GUI is impossible because touch interfaces can not be implemented over any remote protocol, so stick with it and don't try to weasel out.
That isn't my argument. My argument is that remote GUI is impossible if the remote protocol doesn't know a lot about the client. That it is impossible under X11, does not make it impossible. It makes X11 bad at the job that is its supposed speciality. My argument is that naive network transparency is not the right way.
a) client / server
b) sophisticated (i.e. GUI specific) remote execution
c) web
etc... fill all the gaps for network transparency.
Would a low latency remote execution system that works be good. Absolutely. Had X11 had a security module it could have offered an alternative in the day of active X, and by the mid 1990s we could have had real rich web apps. X11 doesn't offer that.
Unrelated to this, no one cares because things that X is used for on a desktop, remotely, do not need low-latency touch input, and likely never will.
Wait a minute. Your whole argument was that the remote support system needs to support all application not just some select group. If you agree that X11 will never support huge and growing classes then all it is just one possible remote execution system. And Wayland supports X11. So for those apps that want to use X11's remote system Wayland support it.
If Wayland developers announced that their system is intended only for tablets and phones (or "laptops" that are actually tablets with a keyboard taped to them), no one would care what they do... The whole problem is, they build it as a "replacement for X11"
I think you are missing something here. Wayland has always been primarily about Linux. Linux has always followed Microsoft's lead for a hardware strategy. Microsoft's hardware strategy is about ubiquitous computing. Supporting the computers of the future, including x86, and supporting touch / voice ... interfaces is the same thing. Wayland is not even going to be finished for several more years. KDE or Gnome taking advantage of Wayland only features isn't going to be for several more years after that. We are talking roughly 2020 when the replacement is even meaningfully underway. And by then that replacement is running on something like android devices or something like mixed mode windows devices.
Either X11 or Wayland has to support 2010 style interfaces. 1990s interfaces, systems that can only support mice keyboards are going the way of systems that only support punchcards and reel-to-reel as an input method.
Both illustrate my point that Wayland design is inadequate for a desktop that can compete with X on technical merits
X is 30 years old. When we talk about technical merits in the other post you keep talking about what X could do. There has bee too much time spent on X lets talk about what X11 does do. And on its technical merits it is terrible. Apple introduced dual video cards on their laptops in 2008, that's a mainstream feature. X11 still doesn't support switching video cards for battery. It doesn't do video. It doesn't do sound. I have had drag and drop video and sound for a decade on my Mac, X11 doesn't even do cut and paste any better than it did in 1988. It doesn't have a built in high speed animations system. It doesn't do touch. When I go on Linux boxes I still often use WindowMaker for comfort, more or less the GUI I was using in 1991. It would never occur to me to use a 2001 much less 1991 GUI on Windows or Mac, the advances have been so tremendous.
So then you say it does remote. Even on remote it is terrible. In the 80s and 90s over a LAN remote was just pointing the X windows around. It was really quite good. Starting in the mid 1990s a security level was needed, and 15 years later it still isn't done! Why not? Either X11 is too terrible to support a security layer, or X11 is too hard to add one too, or the community is too conservative or whatever. But regardless when I need to go run X11 I'm doing SSH -X screwing around with Xhosts files like it was 1997 and still sometimes ending up with windows on some console because X11 got confused. And if I can get the windows I need remote displaying the entire process is breathtakingly miserable as I try and coordinate latencies that are not uncommonly measured in multiple tenths of a second or sometimes even multiple seconds. I remember when X worked with dumb X terms, but it just doesn't work anymore.
We talked about the solution for latency, why the hell isn't it standard in X11? What are they waiting for? Either it doesn't work and there isn't really a solution yet or the system is too screwed up. I don't install extensions to make things work in GDI or Aqua. Apple constantly thinks about latency nonstop all the time. They are relentless in going after latency years before I even notice its there. Microsoft similarly. A mature product is not technically superior if it doesn't do stuff but might be able to. A C compiler can support the code for the colonization of Jupiter. That's different then have the colonization of Jupiter code.
X11 gets graded on what comes out of the box on Ubuntu, on Fedora, on Suse on Apple's X11.app, on Cygwin X11.... That system is not technically superior. It simply does not do anything very well. I can't think of a single thing it does well anymore.
Marijuana was at the time of its ban associated heavily with opium and the opium trade. Obviously today it is lower down on the harm meter and legalization makes sense.
The proof is in those statistics you are ignoring.
That was the rand co. argument regarding smoking, that it was a huge net benefit to society because of where the deaths tended to fall.
The government however has quite aggressively attacked smoking since the 1960s and particularly since the 1980s lower the rate in society.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/images/trends_2011b.jpg
In terms of your stuff. I'd like to de-criminalize possession on the weaker stuff and use it against the stronger stuff. With pot I'd go whole hog to full legalization i.e. the right to distribute, sell... I might do that for some of the other weaker stuff, like ecstasy like low volume opiates (codeine should go back to being fully legal).
In terms of drunk / high driving. I think just about every law in America is too strict. But... more or less I agree with criminal penalties. Driving is simply too dangerous. I've seen people drive on LSD and yeah I think that should be felony endangerment.
I'd like medical intervention for addicts but we can't do that under the current system until universality kicks in. It is one of the advantages of Obamacare that we could create it as part of medicaid / insurance. For the same reason, I love the idea of job programs ... but we need to extend that to all the poor not just addicts.
As for fix improve things and go by empirical data I agree 100%. I think a complex mixture of regulation is likely to be the best policy. Things are only simple in theory.
Probably not. On the other hand if refined sugars were illegal and you were to ask me that question about them I'd get the answer wrong.
No, when looking at countries like Portugal, we've seen that usage quickly drops, not rises.
That's not what any agency says. They report many classes of drugs increased usage portugal. Google for yourself.
There were tons of movies and books in the 80s about casual cocaine usage, and it was depicted as mostly harmless
I was a teen during the 1980s. Cocaine was not harmless. Besides the enormous financial costs. People had strokes. People had multi day coke binges followed by having to drink for long periods of times to smooth it out which often caused heart attacks. People destroyed their noses. The overconfidence caused by cocaine led to deaths. The addictive properties of cocaine caused people, especially women, to be exploited.
There were plenty of problems before crack. Crack took things to a much higher level.
As for meth I agree with that's likely. It is more likely if weaker options are legal and meth remains highly taxed or illegal.
JB: But that doesn't change what's happening to other groups of homelessness.
What is happening to them?
Drug abuse leading to loss of job, sharp loss of income and destruction of all household wealth.
Maybe. And that's the sort of thing that would be best handled through dropping the price of the less toxic drugs below the price of meth through a regulatory regime.
Yep, thats why marijuana is still illegal.. because of all the severely disturbed individuals suffering incurable mental health problems because of their marijuana use...
The reason marijuana was made illegal primarily, was because it was used in the form of hashish. Hashish was used in connection with opium and the USA along with most other countries was trying to get rid of their serious opium problems.
How about this. My liberty is infinitely more precious than the good intentions that you wish to force upon me through the violence of law....
OK. Then go live on a colony in Jupiter. On earth the species that you belong to exists and has thrived primarily because of their ability to form large hives of cooperation. We are the only species to do this beyond familial bounds. Law is how it is done.
Urm, there is no prohibition on smoking!
There are heavy restrictions and quite a bit of harassment. When I started High School there was still a smoking area for students. Today teachers can't smoke on school grounds. People can't smoke in theaters in airplanes in restaurants in hospitals in government buildings. Most importantly they can't smoke at their desk at work. Taxes have been sharply raised to discourage usage. There has been a massive educational campaign and most forms of advertising are illegal. And the prohibition on smoking is very much in effect for the age group when people start smoking mostly: 12-19.
No, you don't do 3 years for possession os cigarettes but this is absolutely an example of regulation and harassment discouraging usage.
Note that reports of use in Portugal are higher, but part of that is that you no longer have to confess to a crime to answer yes on a survey.
I get that. But without countervailing information that's good reason to suspect usage did increase and did increase quite a bit. The claim was that it had no impact.
At the same time, related morbidity is lower and mortality is reported about the same as before de-criminalization of possession.
Agreed.
In any event, it does suggest that it is indeed possible to back away from the war on drugs without creating a zombie apocalypse.
Absolutely. That's what I was advocating when this thread started. Regulation. Portugal (what they are actually doing not the libertarian fantasy of what they are doing) might very well be a reasonable model for regulation What I've been arguing against is full on blanket unlimited legalization with no restrictions.
Nobody would use that crap if less destructive drugs enjoyed at least a similar quasi-legal status.
We don't know but I'd love to find out. There have been more than 0 but very few deaths due to poisonous whisky since the end of prohibition. Some people still drink moonshine outside or prisons, but not many.
And the number who have done so ever is above 50%. Your initial numbers did not give any "in the past month" qualifiers.
So what? The question is whether the homeless use drugs more than the general population, "associating homelessness with drug abuse is a lie propagated by the prohibitionists." One time use is not abuse. I have no idea if the rate of one time use is higher in the homeless population than the population as a whole but that wasn't the question.
Seems like you are fishing for favorable statistics, rather than trying to find the truth.
Really? I just grabbed the very first statistic I hit. You are the one claiming that it all is caused by mental illness not drugs.
Sadly, the health system will not support mentally ill, but will support drug abusers,
I'm sorry for your family member. The health system in the USA sucks. The mental health system sucks. But that doesn't change what's happening to other groups of homelessness.
You've said nothing about *cause* other than asserting it without proof, or even a hint of evidence. Why?
Cause of what? Cause of homelessness? Cause of drug abuse? Cause of mental illness?
Considering the reputation meth and meth users have, I'm going to need to see something other than a random guess extrapolated from another guess based on a non-existent world to believe it would be even 1%.
OK that's fine. I don't. But the original claim was that prohibition didn't influence use and the smoking changes are a good example where we have seen a sustained drop in use through pressure.
Now obviously meth and cigarettes are different. I'm not saying 80% was possible for meth. I'm not saying workplaces wouldn't be very hostile to meth. I am saying that we have no idea how high the meth number can go. I don't see any reason to go after low hanging fruit like pot, LSD or even opiates before we try and experiment to find out how high the meth number would go.
Portugal de-criminalized all drugs and since then has had the lowest rate of use in Europe.
No they didn't. The de-criminalized personal possession: sales, distribution, advertising, warehousing... are all still quite illegal. And their rates of usage doubled on many drugs.
This is irrelevant, and Wayland does not add anything for improvement of those things what X doesn't already do.
It allow the application buffer to be shared with the video buffer.
This is completely wrong. [description of OSX]
Sorry I'm not taking this is wrong for an answer. I own a retina, I use a retina, I can see what it does. And yes what Apple claims is exactly what it is doing.
X11 is intended to be used on desktops and workstations
Fine Wayland is intended to be used primarily on tablets, phones and laptops. So there isn't a problem then.
but this is not what remote functionality in X is for. [[touch support]]
But it is what Wayland is for. To support the hardware of the 2010 not the hardware of the 1990s. If your argument is that X11 should exist to support the 1990s hardware, well it did. That happened. It is like arguing that Carter should be elected in 1976 instead of Ford.
Touch interface is irrelevant because it's not used remotely.
The primary touch interfaces are phone interfaces which are almost all client server. Yes it used remotely.