The Church's teaching puts a heavy emphasis on expert theological interpretation of scripture, in fact to such a point that for well over a thousand years, being able to read the Bible itself was not even considered a particularly good idea for the general public.
Similarly, the Scientologists have taken a similar tactic: if you can't pay to afford to read the next book, too bad.
Of course, the "books" consist solely of science fiction that is outdated. But hey, you paid for it, might as well enjoy it right!??!
This is the same argument I used waaaay back in high school when I bought the Beastie Boys first album based on WBCN's playing of "Fight For Your Right" -- only to find out the rest of the whole damned thing was rap.
Both OSs were written with in a language that doesn't bounds check strings and arrays as a matter of policy.
Interesting... Adding those additional checks to the string and array handling will slow this OS down; it will not be as fast as an OS that does not perform these checks.
That's the theory. However, in practice, Windows chews up an entire extra core just running the antivirus software! I wonder if the additional checks would take an entire core? Doubtful.
Just had an interesting idea: post the video ahead of time to multiple locations and test pages that can hit them all. Then when youtube gets hit with the DMCA takedown notice, there'll be a daemon in the background checking and will just switch to the next page. Ad nauseum, with an email alert to the admin when there are only a few remaining, to find more.
Even better: it just continually reposts to youtube under a different title, or creates a new account, etc. Good luck with that.
I saw it a few days ago and it completely changed my world view. Well, I suppose updated it to better match reality would be a better way to put it; I've felt so much more connected to the world, and the people, and my brain, and have felt more confident as well. (I am totally serious, and I have no financial incentive with this movie; dis-incentive more like it, as I am planning to purchase a copy for every Senator and Congressperson.)
In the movie they talk about a correlation between mental illness and cannabis consumption, and that generally the consumption is used to mitigate the debilitating effects of the illness. In other words, it's self-medicating, and it works.
As to your idea about a "pot park" with it illegal elsewhere, that seems as feasible as a "hospital park" with doctors operating outside it jailed. From the title of the movie, we constantly have tumors growing in our bodies, that we fight off. Cannabis helps to fight those tumors. Blocking the receptors caused mice to both act more depressed, and grow larger tumors. Not allowing full and complete access to this naturally-occurring plant is a death sentence to all of us.
From the reduction in costs to the growers and sellers who no longer need to spend so many resources on hiding it, keeping it quiet, etc.
Imagine a few Wal-Mart-size warehouse grow rooms; those will operate much more efficiently, and the cost savings are passed on to the customer. Or kept for profits; but growers who choose to keep much more profit for the same quality will eventually lose market share to growers who keep their margins thinner. (Yes, Wal-Mart was an intentional example.)
But I definitely wouldn't start the valuation with "the prohibition cost", just as I can buy beer much cheaper (relatively) now than I could back in the 1920s.
I want to see CNN or Fox give a prize for the first person to find a stoned-on-the-job cop.
Did you miss the news story about the soldiers in Afghanistan getting stoned then abusing the population? Sure, they aren't "agents of US government force on American soil", but they are agents of US government force.
Sure, but you're still delaying the onset of full legalization for the country. I'm in MA; here there is a $100 fine for having under an ounce, so it's not as bad as other states. But I can't get a prescription here. Your vote is harming MA citizens (from a certain point of view, I mean), and those of other states, because if this law doesn't pass now it must wait for the next CA voting cycle, and won't have started the domino effect so the other states will also have a later start. Again, I agree with your principled stand but I would not make the same decision.
If anything the "War on Drugs" and "Just Say No" campaigns made me distrust government far more than anything else.
So perhaps if marijuana consumption was permitted kids would be less distrustful of government when they came around to being of voting age.
I think it is healthy for kids to be distrustful of government. Especially when the Obama administration just apologies for the deliberate government-backed syphilis infections they secretly carried out in Guam, 60 years ago; government can hurt you, as well as it can help you (like fire; it can cook, or it can burn).
Regarding healthy levels of distrust: I realized years ago that the lies we tell our children help them navigate a world of liars. The progression being: Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, God.
For instance a study this week announced that mental disorders are far higher among smokers then non-smokers. Gosh, I knew some smokers in the past, no kidding. Chicken and the Egg? Perhaps, perhaps it is only the mentally unstable to smoke but do we really want people with mental problems to consume yet more drugs?
In it they discuss how cannabis is associated with people with personality disorders. People who have them, and smoke, tend to be more stable with their disorder than people who do not smoke.
It also reduces tumors, tumors that we are constantly growing and fighting off; it helps us fight them off better. And it makes us happier. When they blocked the endocannabinoids (receptors present in animal bodies) in mice, the mice acted depressed and grew much larger tumors which killed them quicker.
Outlawing this plant is a death sentence.
And it is me and countless other non-users you got to convince. Majority rule in a democracy remember?
Exactly. I am considering sending a copy of the movie to every Senator and Congressperson.
I say, let's first legalize marijuana and then see if it is a problem, rather than pre-emptively passing legislation in anticipation. There is nothing radical or unreasonable about my position.
Well, your position is rational, but it most definitely is also unreasonable.
Cannabis cures cancer. To say "I'll wait for a perfect law next voting season" means that people will die of tumors that could have been cured by cannabis.
Yours is a well-argued position, and as I said, rational. I feel for the victims, though. (Victims of our prohibition, that is.)
In short, it does, and the reason is our bodies have endocannabinoids which are receptors that combine with the cannabinoids in the cannabis. They are two constructs that started together and then evolved in different directions (one animal, one plant). These are shown through laboratory experiments to reduce tumors in mice -- and cause tumors when the endocannabinoid receptors are blocked, as well as depression in the mice. The opposite of "high" is "low"... which of these is preferable?
This has reminded me a great deal of Pandora, from Avatar. Their world was completely interrelated, and they knew it and made use of it. Our world, it's turning out, is also.
I mean, I've known for years that I need water and some of the water that flows through my organism has flown through billions of other organisms, so in that sense it's a shared experience.
However, to learn that there is something in my body that when treated with a substance from a plant both makes me happy, and goes to work reducing all my tumors (we always have many; mostly we are able to fight them off) -- this is truly mind-blowing.
And tragic, as well; it helps me to realize that these laws and the enforcers of these laws are acting against public health. These laws cause death.
Exactly. (And, why I added the disclaimer to the analogy, because it's not exactly the same -- one talks about busting into flame in a container, the other in open air.)
OT: every time I see your signature, I smile as the song plays in my head and I watch the large costumes go down the wacky slide in my mixed-up memories (yes I know that was a different show:).
No battle: "I could care less (if I tried, but not willing to expend the effort)", and "I couldn't care less (even if I tried, and I'm not willing to expend the effort)". The key to both is the futility, which, I agree, you expressed very well.:)
Something like flammable and inflammable, although those do have specific meanings.
Interesting argument. I especially like the "drying outdoors is forbidden" -- and wonder whether the dryer manufacturers had any hand in the creation of those laws.
Last night I watched an excellent movie that was referenced here a couple weeks ago, which I then ordered from their website: "What If Cannabis Cured Cancer?" I was completely blown away by this (hour-long) movie; it shows how two interlocking substances evolved in different directions, we have one of them in our bodies, and the other is found in cannabis; together, they reduce the size of tumors. Mice given drugs that block these receptors showed signs of depression, and developed tumors. Much more to it, highly recommended.
I mention it because of the duality -- perhaps dryer manufacturers passed laws that then propped up their industry; similarly, William Randolph Hearst helped pass the law making cannabis illegal because the law propped up his textile industry.
Taxes: the new draft. (War is fought mostly by machines these days, anyway -- they don't need your body, they need the resources that you can produce.) And yes, this does make us fat and careless.
Other responder showed beer is a discovery; I would argue that most of your list is also discoveries. Agriculture is simply "keeping one's environment clean" which is what an immune system does; telephony is communication, which is what nerves do; radio signals have been sent for billions of years by quasars; flight (aircraft) is a discovery, not an invention -- and with that last, perhaps I'm blurring the line; spacecraft also show that we discovered we cannot breathe up there and did something about it -- but perhaps the "did something about it" is the invention part. Either way, thanks for the thought experiment!
In fact, I wonder exactly how to differentiate "discovery" from "invention". Rarely do we decide to do something, without seeing how that action would benefit us. I would consider quantum mechanics to be more of an invention than a discovery; we had to come up with some far-out shit to be able to then make experiments that would verify our theories -- but continuing to breathe in a vacuum? That's simple, just bring your own air. I like to think that I've invented at least a few things in my career -- but perhaps I've just discovered them.
Slashdot Mirror
Similarly, the Scientologists have taken a similar tactic: if you can't pay to afford to read the next book, too bad.
Of course, the "books" consist solely of science fiction that is outdated. But hey, you paid for it, might as well enjoy it right!??!
This is the same argument I used waaaay back in high school when I bought the Beastie Boys first album based on WBCN's playing of "Fight For Your Right" -- only to find out the rest of the whole damned thing was rap.
I wonder. If we called them "political funerals" instead of "political parties", would we be any better off?
Here I am: can't see out of my left eye from birth; smartest person I know.
Interesting... Adding those additional checks to the string and array handling will slow this OS down; it will not be as fast as an OS that does not perform these checks.
That's the theory. However, in practice, Windows chews up an entire extra core just running the antivirus software! I wonder if the additional checks would take an entire core? Doubtful.
Just had an interesting idea: post the video ahead of time to multiple locations and test pages that can hit them all. Then when youtube gets hit with the DMCA takedown notice, there'll be a daemon in the background checking and will just switch to the next page. Ad nauseum, with an email alert to the admin when there are only a few remaining, to find more.
Even better: it just continually reposts to youtube under a different title, or creates a new account, etc. Good luck with that.
And prisons. Which are mostly now corporations.
And, strange for Americans to hate on socialism when we just passed socialized medicine. "Buy our insurance or go to jail."
Please watch What if Cannabis Cured Cancer?
I saw it a few days ago and it completely changed my world view. Well, I suppose updated it to better match reality would be a better way to put it; I've felt so much more connected to the world, and the people, and my brain, and have felt more confident as well. (I am totally serious, and I have no financial incentive with this movie; dis-incentive more like it, as I am planning to purchase a copy for every Senator and Congressperson.)
In the movie they talk about a correlation between mental illness and cannabis consumption, and that generally the consumption is used to mitigate the debilitating effects of the illness. In other words, it's self-medicating, and it works.
As to your idea about a "pot park" with it illegal elsewhere, that seems as feasible as a "hospital park" with doctors operating outside it jailed. From the title of the movie, we constantly have tumors growing in our bodies, that we fight off. Cannabis helps to fight those tumors. Blocking the receptors caused mice to both act more depressed, and grow larger tumors. Not allowing full and complete access to this naturally-occurring plant is a death sentence to all of us.
From the reduction in costs to the growers and sellers who no longer need to spend so many resources on hiding it, keeping it quiet, etc.
Imagine a few Wal-Mart-size warehouse grow rooms; those will operate much more efficiently, and the cost savings are passed on to the customer. Or kept for profits; but growers who choose to keep much more profit for the same quality will eventually lose market share to growers who keep their margins thinner. (Yes, Wal-Mart was an intentional example.)
But I definitely wouldn't start the valuation with "the prohibition cost", just as I can buy beer much cheaper (relatively) now than I could back in the 1920s.
Did you miss the news story about the soldiers in Afghanistan getting stoned then abusing the population? Sure, they aren't "agents of US government force on American soil", but they are agents of US government force.
Sure, but you're still delaying the onset of full legalization for the country. I'm in MA; here there is a $100 fine for having under an ounce, so it's not as bad as other states. But I can't get a prescription here. Your vote is harming MA citizens (from a certain point of view, I mean), and those of other states, because if this law doesn't pass now it must wait for the next CA voting cycle, and won't have started the domino effect so the other states will also have a later start. Again, I agree with your principled stand but I would not make the same decision.
I think it is healthy for kids to be distrustful of government. Especially when the Obama administration just apologies for the deliberate government-backed syphilis infections they secretly carried out in Guam, 60 years ago; government can hurt you, as well as it can help you (like fire; it can cook, or it can burn).
Regarding healthy levels of distrust: I realized years ago that the lies we tell our children help them navigate a world of liars. The progression being: Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, God.
Please watch What if Cannabis Cured Cancer?
In it they discuss how cannabis is associated with people with personality disorders. People who have them, and smoke, tend to be more stable with their disorder than people who do not smoke.
It also reduces tumors, tumors that we are constantly growing and fighting off; it helps us fight them off better. And it makes us happier. When they blocked the endocannabinoids (receptors present in animal bodies) in mice, the mice acted depressed and grew much larger tumors which killed them quicker.
Outlawing this plant is a death sentence.
Exactly. I am considering sending a copy of the movie to every Senator and Congressperson.
Well, your position is rational, but it most definitely is also unreasonable.
Cannabis cures cancer. To say "I'll wait for a perfect law next voting season" means that people will die of tumors that could have been cured by cannabis.
Yours is a well-argued position, and as I said, rational. I feel for the victims, though. (Victims of our prohibition, that is.)
I think it's better to educate than to advocate self-immolation. For the GP, please watch What if Cannabis Cured Cancer?
A couple days ago I watched a movie that forever changed my world view: What if Cannabis Cured Cancer?
In short, it does, and the reason is our bodies have endocannabinoids which are receptors that combine with the cannabinoids in the cannabis. They are two constructs that started together and then evolved in different directions (one animal, one plant). These are shown through laboratory experiments to reduce tumors in mice -- and cause tumors when the endocannabinoid receptors are blocked, as well as depression in the mice. The opposite of "high" is "low" ... which of these is preferable?
This has reminded me a great deal of Pandora, from Avatar. Their world was completely interrelated, and they knew it and made use of it. Our world, it's turning out, is also.
I mean, I've known for years that I need water and some of the water that flows through my organism has flown through billions of other organisms, so in that sense it's a shared experience.
However, to learn that there is something in my body that when treated with a substance from a plant both makes me happy, and goes to work reducing all my tumors (we always have many; mostly we are able to fight them off) -- this is truly mind-blowing.
And tragic, as well; it helps me to realize that these laws and the enforcers of these laws are acting against public health. These laws cause death.
Exactly. (And, why I added the disclaimer to the analogy, because it's not exactly the same -- one talks about busting into flame in a container, the other in open air.)
Or, take it a step further and remove the joke! (For those of you who've heard the prison joke: "Number 23!" ;)
Thanks for the pointer, I'll check it out (it's at the top of my Blockbuster queue now :).
You're an incredibly kind person. But you seem to have issues demonstrating it.
OT: every time I see your signature, I smile as the song plays in my head and I watch the large costumes go down the wacky slide in my mixed-up memories (yes I know that was a different show :).
No battle: "I could care less (if I tried, but not willing to expend the effort)", and "I couldn't care less (even if I tried, and I'm not willing to expend the effort)". The key to both is the futility, which, I agree, you expressed very well. :)
Something like flammable and inflammable, although those do have specific meanings.
Interesting argument. I especially like the "drying outdoors is forbidden" -- and wonder whether the dryer manufacturers had any hand in the creation of those laws.
Last night I watched an excellent movie that was referenced here a couple weeks ago, which I then ordered from their website: "What If Cannabis Cured Cancer?" I was completely blown away by this (hour-long) movie; it shows how two interlocking substances evolved in different directions, we have one of them in our bodies, and the other is found in cannabis; together, they reduce the size of tumors. Mice given drugs that block these receptors showed signs of depression, and developed tumors. Much more to it, highly recommended.
I mention it because of the duality -- perhaps dryer manufacturers passed laws that then propped up their industry; similarly, William Randolph Hearst helped pass the law making cannabis illegal because the law propped up his textile industry.
Taxes: the new draft. (War is fought mostly by machines these days, anyway -- they don't need your body, they need the resources that you can produce.) And yes, this does make us fat and careless.
Other responder showed beer is a discovery; I would argue that most of your list is also discoveries. Agriculture is simply "keeping one's environment clean" which is what an immune system does; telephony is communication, which is what nerves do; radio signals have been sent for billions of years by quasars; flight (aircraft) is a discovery, not an invention -- and with that last, perhaps I'm blurring the line; spacecraft also show that we discovered we cannot breathe up there and did something about it -- but perhaps the "did something about it" is the invention part. Either way, thanks for the thought experiment!
In fact, I wonder exactly how to differentiate "discovery" from "invention". Rarely do we decide to do something, without seeing how that action would benefit us. I would consider quantum mechanics to be more of an invention than a discovery; we had to come up with some far-out shit to be able to then make experiments that would verify our theories -- but continuing to breathe in a vacuum? That's simple, just bring your own air. I like to think that I've invented at least a few things in my career -- but perhaps I've just discovered them.