If we think of the SiteFinder plan neutrally, granted, Verisign is offending most internet users and probably scerwing up the internet. But we should also think in terms of the average internet user - which is Joe Click-a-mouse.
These two things are probably more closely related than you think, in that when things go technically wrong, the people who get the most upset are the "Joe Click-a-mouse"s, who only know that they're getting more of those viagra e-mails now than they used to without any real idea why.
The internet is not all about linux, unix, code etc. It is also about usability. And if we think in this fashion it appears plausible that, *i might be wrong*, sitefinder might help people find the site they want?
tell me, how else would they find what they want if they dont have a complete URL? Suppose you had a wrong URL or did not remember the right URL? How would you find out the right one? Its impossible without sitefinder.
As others have pointed out, there are plenty of good search engines out there. Users have a great deal of choice in that area, they can pick Google, Altavista, Yahoo, Hotbot, Dogpile, etc. In the case of Verisign, however, they get what Verisign tells them they want, because Verisign is the one with the root servers. Not cool.
And again, a lot of the problems that people had with site-finder is the side-effects, such as the breaking of several spam-filtering tools, which trickles down to your buddy Joe, and the only difference between him and us is that we know why.
That's the whole point of package management, so there's one thing that knows what you have installed. Also, mandrake has a great util that works under redhat as well called checkinstall (so you'd do./configure, make, then as root checkinstall) which will make an RPM for you, so you uninstall something if you decide you don't like it, upgrade a package that you installed from RPM with source and still have RPM track it, etc. etc. etc.
Well, it does a lot of stuff... you might not use it all, but it's there.
It can't seem to associate file type with applications consistently
This is somewhat confusing, but I found in RH9 and Ximian's XD2, a lot of things are associated correctly from the get-go.
It has that annoying "feature" where any time I insert removable media, it opens a window of the media automatically. (I was going to bitch about it mounting automatically, as well, but I suspect that's RH's doing, there: god, sometimes I want to dd, you know)
RTFM? Try "gnome-cd-properties". This isn't nautilus' fault in the first place.
You close it and it still takes up the same ungodly amount of memory. If I want that kind of behavior, I'll look for it in Windows, thank you.
Then you haven't really closed it now, have you? What do you think is managing your desktop? If you don't like it, there's always KDE, or TWM if you'd prefer...
Not everyone on AOL dials up, some people use the BYOA plan (though I don't know why you would), that lets you connect through TCP/IP (say, if you have cable through someone else) and only pay like $15 a month. Not advocating AOL, and I have no idea how many people actually use that.. just saying your estimate might be a tad high.
Oh yes, so we should allow the government to be our model for moderation and responsibility. The government has never, and will never, have either moderation or responsibility. This country was founded on individual responsibility, and it is that which made our country great. Now, all we can think about is how to take away resposibility and let the government tell us what to do.
Hey, they can't be wrong all the time.
By the way, your analogy of marijuana use to drunk driving is highly flawed. Drunk driving is illegal, so is marijuana use. Yet, you argue that legalizing marijuana will lead to the same current problem that we have with drunk driving. Do you see the whhat's wrong?
Nope, because while driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal, purchasing and consuming it are not - which means comparitively there's a lot more out there than something that's illegal.
Yeah, and Hitler wanted his descendants to be Jew-Free too, but that doesn't justify oppression, now does it?
Oh, I'm sorry that the lack of marijuana is causing you that much pain. How dare you compare the suffering of a people who were truly oppressed and murdered to your inability to get high.
The needs of the MANY are made of of millions of individual needs; you hardly have the right to speak for society, or anyone else for that matter. Have you stopped and thought about what anyone but YOU wants? It seems unlikely.
Society has spoken - marijuana is already illegal. I think I'm at least in the right ballpark in assuming that most people out there consider this a good thing.
What is likely is that you'd be STUNNED by the number of people who smoke pot for RECREATIONAL uses that live normal, productive, happy lives. It's also obvious that your opinions come from an uneducated, "this-is-what-i-was-taught-by-my-momma" type of upbringing, which in my experience is usually held up by a foundation of ignorance, denial, and youth.
Yeah, but the funny thing is you never hear about them, only the ones that abuse it and end up in the gutters. And when you suggest I'm uneducated by drugs, if you mean I've never used an illegal drug, you're right. I don't know how it makes one feel, but then again I don't need to either. I know all that I need to come to a decision on the legality of marijuana, and I agree with the way things have been where it's against the law.
Quote from your 'blog. Recognize it?
Yes. My powers of short and long term memory still function impeccably, since I don't use nor abuse drugs.
Well hey, some of us have been working for YEARS since we graduated YEARS ago, and have what we like to call "experience". You should get some, in the real world. Once you've got some, use that towel they handed you on the way out of high-school. It's especially good for drying behind the ears.
Funny thing is I've probably seen a ton more drug abusers my own age fail out of school and give up on life than you did when you were my age. Gee, I wonder why that is, like maybe the problem is getting worse?
If pleasure is the byproduct of neurochemical states (it is), and drugs alter neurochemistry (the ones in question do), then people can use drugs for pleasure (some do). This is irrational how? The pleasure you get from anything is neurochemical, and while addiction/excesses are disgusting, your logic easily extends to the assertion that any sort of pleasure-seeking behavior is irrational. I know that's not what you meant, so I'm wondering if you're thought about your position. Drug use is just an example of rewarding behavior that reinforces itself, like sex or videogames. That some people take it to disgusting excesses (think compulsive masturbators or Everquest addicts) doesn't make them an inherently irrational source of pleasure.
The difference is that the changes in neurochemistry from sex or playing games are (usually) within the human body's ability to adjust itself. The irrationality comes from using chemicals that have no other purpose than to cause the human brain to go beyond that - and risk damaging it in the process.
Also, nobody's going to murder anybody for their medical marijuana. What a joke. Even outlawed, it is one of the cheaper illegal drugs. Fritter away life savings? If pot were legal, it would probably be no more expensive than cigarettes.
Gambling is legal, and a shot at a slot machine costs, what, a quarter? Now, tell me no one's ever blew their life savings on that, and that Gamblers Anonymous is a sham.
Pot has been shown numerous times to be beneficial for a number of maladies not addressed by other medication. I'm not going to cite links becuase I'm sure you're aware of them. If not, Google is your pal.
Yeah, and if you listen to marijuana users, they'd probably tell you it's beneficial for anything. So how does that make it the only remedy for said maladies?
It should be legal because we live in a country based on the concept that the individual knows best what is good for them. Roughly, one should be able to go to hell in thier own way, so long as they don't take others with them.
That's a nice theory if people were actually responsible enough to follow through with it. I've already quoted drunk driving injury and fatality statistics elsewhere in the thread to the effect that a person is injured or killed roughly every minute in the US due to alcohol. We, as a society, have proven that we don't understand things like moderation or responsibility.
We allow people do drive motorcycles, have dangerous sex, climb rocks, drink too much, and drop out of school. Even if pot were so harmful that it was worse that alcohol or cigarettes, it should still be legal. That the drug trade is dangerous to others is a self-referential argument - if it were legal, there wouldn't be crime surrounding the trade.
It is as harmful, becuase it alters the way people think, and the effects have been proven to be much longer term than alcohol. And even if the drug trade did disappear, it would be replaced by a whole new set of problems associated with rampant drug abuse. Now before you just dismiss that as pessimism, look at the stat above about drunk driving, and tell me that the US, as a society, will not abuse any other drugs that become legal.
Yes, I'm sure that there have been plenty of studies that show that an excess of pot is bad for you in some way. But there have also been plenty of studies that show that an excess of alcohol is bad for you. Should we go back to the days of the alcohol prohibition? In fact there have been studies that show that an excess of food, exercise, sex and even water can be bad for you. Should we ban those too? I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on your side.
Actually, It's not. Think about the number of alcohol related deaths and injuries ("An estimated 513,000 people are injured in alcohol-related crashes each year, an average of 59 people per hour or approximately one person every minute." - MADD) every year, through alcohol poisoning, drunk driving, etc, or the number of people who are obese to an unhealthy level. Now, every time you throw something else out there and say "knock yourselves out," you can chalk up that many more fatalities.
So all in all, you're saying because things are already that bad, a few thousand more people wouldn't hurt?
But I'm also a member of the NARAL, and I don't have a uterus. Let's see, I'm also in the ACLU, but I'm an American so that makes selfish sense. Hmm, I'm also a member of GLAAD, but I'm heterosexual. Weird. I'm a member of Amnesty International, too, although I've never been a political prisoner. I've been outspoken against the Taliban since the beginning of their regime, and I was never forced to wear a burka or stop going to school (or get medical care). I have always supported NAFTA primarily because it transfers desperately needed capital to Mexico, and only secondarily because I believe that it eventually increases wealth north of the border.
I am informed and outspoken about the starving people in Ethiopa and Zimbabwe, and about the millions of people who have died of AIDS in Africa. But I'm neither African, nor starving, nor HIV-positive.
So, let me get this straight. You're a member of a variety of organizations concerning issues that don't, or some cases can't techincally apply to you? Way to be trendiliciously superficial. Seriously, there's a point where it goes beyond caring to resume padding, and I think you've hit the mark. Though I can't see how someone who claims to support such seemingly logical causes (except for NAFTA, of course) could support the proposed legalization of an illicit drug.
I don't just want to live in a just and rational society, I want to live in a just and rational world. Why?
Rational is where people don't burn and then inhale chemicals to alter their neurochemistry to make themselves happy.
At the beginning of Aristotle's "Nichomachean Ethics", he begins an argument by pointing out that at some basic level doing what is most in the interests of encouraging our own "well-being" is what is self-evidently the "right" thing to do. He then goes on to show how "well-being" cannot be restricted to merely immediate gratification and health. He asks, all things being equal, would you prefer that your descendents be healthy and happy? And if you prefer that, then isn't that part of the telos of "well-being"? Philosophers for thousands of years have reiterated or amplified and improved this argument. Quite simply, I don't perceive my well-being to be independent of everyone else's.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But what about the many that are going to lose themselves in the drug culture once it's legalized and mainstreamed and fritter away life savings? Or the people who are murdered so their medicinal marijuana may be sold on the street to the highest bidder? No thanks, I want my descendants to be healthy, happy, and drug free.
Well, I don't smoke pot and haven't since I tried it 25 years ago when I was in junior high. And that's the only illegal drug I've ever used in my entire life. But not only do I support medical marijuana, I also support legalized marijuana and the legalization of some other recreational drugs.
This might sound like a stupid question.. but.. why would you fight for a right that you don't intend to use? I realize that there are certain basic rights that everyone deserves, but if you ask me, reefer doesn't sound like one of them. If you want to worry about rights that are disappearing then join the EFF and tell companies to stop telling us how to use the media we buy from them. Or even better, go to a third world country and observe those that can't afford food much dream of pot.
So, maybe most people who advocate some sort of controversial political position are doing so in self interest, but not all of them. In this case, and others, I'm certainly not.
.. which still doesn't make sense to me, is it that you're following a crowd on something because it's controvesial? I don't see what difference you're trying to make...
Are you asserting that because people who don't medically need pot will use it, it should be denied to people who medically need it? You seem to be.
I have yet to see a reasonable argument why anyone "needs" it.
I'm running a business hoping to make money. Does that mean that when I open source things, I'm not doing something good? Think before answering.
No, becuase if you're a business, the point is making money. Now if you were opensourcing stuff that allowed you to use their machines to DDoS something (I know that wouldn't fly in opensource, but you're the one who picked computers as an analogy), I think people would question your motivations there. My point is - they're not saying medicinal marijuana should be legal because they really want to help people who supposedly need it - they want the laws to pass so they can get their hands on it easier and so penalties will be lessened, gramma with glaucoma be damned.
By the way, can you explain in clear, concise terms why pot _should_ be illegal?
Explain to me first why it should. Studies have shown the kind of damage it does to the human brain - so tell me how that's beneficial to anyone? And why people with certain diseases should be allowed to use it, then?
Most of the people I know who advocate medicinal marijuana have nothing wrong with them, and you're kidding yourself if you think they're in it for their friend's brother-in-law's mom with glaucoma. If you read his comments, notice how he says that the ads are targeting him if he purchases marijuana. Since he seems to have a problem with his inability to do this legally, I kinda figured his following arguments, would.. ya know.. apply to him. Also, he advocates the growing of marijuana, which I'm pretty sure isn't covered by medicinal marijuana laws (side note - it's a damn good thing things like Excstacy don't sprout if you plant it). Seriously, everybody assumes that since someone is - coincidentally - furthering the interests of people who are in pain, they're doing the world a big favor, when they're probably in it for themselves.
If you ask me, McClane put it best: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Stop being part of the fucking problem"
It's time we catch up with the rest of the world and realize that Medical Marijuana provides the ability to relieve the pain of many sufferers with debilitating illnesses such as Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson's disease.
I agree that the movie sucked. It was an insult to history. Bletchley park built an enigma machine without actually seeing a real one. Another machine was taken from a german U-boat, but well after the codebreakers had already cracked the code. In that case a British destroyer forced a U-boat to surface. After the Germans abandoned and scuttled the ship, the Brits boarded it and managed to close the valve. Which they towed to port.
Sounds like your history is a little muddled as well. The enigma machine wasn't the ONLY thing they were after. More important were the CODEBOOKS, as the WHOLE POINT behind the enigma was the fact that the codes could be changed by rotating the three (and later, four) wheels in the machine. It's been a while since I've seen the flick but I remember at least one scene involving the codebook, and that one officer making a big deal out of it, and why the Germans had to think the ship was sunk (so they wouldn't make new codebooks for the other enigma machines).
eva DVD's aren't that bad, are *excellent* quality, and are a blast to watch with friends. 4 ep/dvd.
Just a minor correction, 4 episodes per disc on the first two discs. The rest only have 3, making a grand total of 8 discs for the whole series. A lot of people complained about the way ADV films cut the number down, cause.. yeah, that's $60 more (roughly) you end up paying. That being said, I totally think that Evangelion is worth the money, although you might want to wait or plan to finish getting the dvds around the end of October when the movies come out on dvd. Be thankful you no longer have to wait 6 months between discs!
- rew
DISCLAIMER! I am not suggesting anyone tinker with the prices on ebay in any way by this post, just making an observation
like most folks, i couldn't believe my eyes when i saw this article or the actual prices on ebay for playstation 2s, but as some people pointed out earlier and i noticed by looking at the bid histories, it looks like there are a few people out there interested in monkeying with the high-bids on these systems, because there are a LOT of systems with multiple bids from the same person. in a way, i kinda feel bad for e-bay because now they get to police all these fakers, but in another way, i feel somewhat vindicated that someone is wasting some (granted not much) of these auctioneers' time. it almost makes up for the "who wants to buy this off me?" and "grandma here is gonna play this as soon as we get home!" cracks i had to endure after standing outside my local store for 2 hours while the people who actually got consoles waited inside.
Unfortunately, there are very few who gravitate towards the technical aspects, most do "everything but the robot."
Yep, we have the same problem at my school. Our major problem was not having a lot of adult leadership, so students took up that part, and what we ended up with was the same kind of elitism as sports and other teams. We had a few girls on this years team, and a few are considering going into "geek" fields (some here have done "Everything but the bot"), but i don't think FIRST is having the reaching power that it's meant to because of team politics.
Slashdot Mirror
If we think of the SiteFinder plan neutrally, granted, Verisign is offending most internet users and probably scerwing up the internet. But we should also think in terms of the average internet user - which is Joe Click-a-mouse.
These two things are probably more closely related than you think, in that when things go technically wrong, the people who get the most upset are the "Joe Click-a-mouse"s, who only know that they're getting more of those viagra e-mails now than they used to without any real idea why.
The internet is not all about linux, unix, code etc. It is also about usability. And if we think in this fashion it appears plausible that, *i might be wrong*, sitefinder might help people find the site they want?
tell me, how else would they find what they want if they dont have a complete URL? Suppose you had a wrong URL or did not remember the right URL? How would you find out the right one? Its impossible without sitefinder.
As others have pointed out, there are plenty of good search engines out there. Users have a great deal of choice in that area, they can pick Google, Altavista, Yahoo, Hotbot, Dogpile, etc. In the case of Verisign, however, they get what Verisign tells them they want, because Verisign is the one with the root servers. Not cool.
And again, a lot of the problems that people had with site-finder is the side-effects, such as the breaking of several spam-filtering tools, which trickles down to your buddy Joe, and the only difference between him and us is that we know why.
That's the whole point of package management, so there's one thing that knows what you have installed. Also, mandrake has a great util that works under redhat as well called checkinstall (so you'd do ./configure, make, then as root checkinstall) which will make an RPM for you, so you uninstall something if you decide you don't like it, upgrade a package that you installed from RPM with source and still have RPM track it, etc. etc. etc.
not flamebait
Debatable.
Nautilus takes an ungodly amount of memory to run
Well, it does a lot of stuff... you might not use it all, but it's there.
It can't seem to associate file type with applications consistently
This is somewhat confusing, but I found in RH9 and Ximian's XD2, a lot of things are associated correctly from the get-go.
It has that annoying "feature" where any time I insert removable media, it opens a window of the media automatically. (I was going to bitch about it mounting automatically, as well, but I suspect that's RH's doing, there: god, sometimes I want to dd, you know)
RTFM? Try "gnome-cd-properties". This isn't nautilus' fault in the first place.
You close it and it still takes up the same ungodly amount of memory. If I want that kind of behavior, I'll look for it in Windows, thank you.
Then you haven't really closed it now, have you? What do you think is managing your desktop? If you don't like it, there's always KDE, or TWM if you'd prefer...
where can I download this 30-second spot?
I'm guessing you mean "Triumph of the Nerds" since "Revenge" is a comedy..
Let's see... ~35,000,000 * $22.99 =...
Not everyone on AOL dials up, some people use the BYOA plan (though I don't know why you would), that lets you connect through TCP/IP (say, if you have cable through someone else) and only pay like $15 a month. Not advocating AOL, and I have no idea how many people actually use that.. just saying your estimate might be a tad high.
Oh yes, so we should allow the government to be our model for moderation and responsibility. The government has never, and will never, have either moderation or responsibility. This country was founded on individual responsibility, and it is that which made our country great. Now, all we can think about is how to take away resposibility and let the government tell us what to do.
Hey, they can't be wrong all the time.
By the way, your analogy of marijuana use to drunk driving is highly flawed. Drunk driving is illegal, so is marijuana use. Yet, you argue that legalizing marijuana will lead to the same current problem that we have with drunk driving. Do you see the whhat's wrong?
Nope, because while driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal, purchasing and consuming it are not - which means comparitively there's a lot more out there than something that's illegal.
Yeah, and Hitler wanted his descendants to be Jew-Free too, but that doesn't justify oppression, now does it?
Oh, I'm sorry that the lack of marijuana is causing you that much pain. How dare you compare the suffering of a people who were truly oppressed and murdered to your inability to get high.
The needs of the MANY are made of of millions of individual needs; you hardly have the right to speak for society, or anyone else for that matter. Have you stopped and thought about what anyone but YOU wants? It seems unlikely.
Society has spoken - marijuana is already illegal. I think I'm at least in the right ballpark in assuming that most people out there consider this a good thing.
What is likely is that you'd be STUNNED by the number of people who smoke pot for RECREATIONAL uses that live normal, productive, happy lives. It's also obvious that your opinions come from an uneducated, "this-is-what-i-was-taught-by-my-momma" type of upbringing, which in my experience is usually held up by a foundation of ignorance, denial, and youth.
Yeah, but the funny thing is you never hear about them, only the ones that abuse it and end up in the gutters. And when you suggest I'm uneducated by drugs, if you mean I've never used an illegal drug, you're right. I don't know how it makes one feel, but then again I don't need to either. I know all that I need to come to a decision on the legality of marijuana, and I agree with the way things have been where it's against the law.
Quote from your 'blog. Recognize it?
Yes. My powers of short and long term memory still function impeccably, since I don't use nor abuse drugs.
Well hey, some of us have been working for YEARS since we graduated YEARS ago, and have what we like to call "experience". You should get some, in the real world. Once you've got some, use that towel they handed you on the way out of high-school. It's especially good for drying behind the ears.
Funny thing is I've probably seen a ton more drug abusers my own age fail out of school and give up on life than you did when you were my age. Gee, I wonder why that is, like maybe the problem is getting worse?
If pleasure is the byproduct of neurochemical states (it is), and drugs alter neurochemistry (the ones in question do), then people can use drugs for pleasure (some do). This is irrational how? The pleasure you get from anything is neurochemical, and while addiction/excesses are disgusting, your logic easily extends to the assertion that any sort of pleasure-seeking behavior is irrational. I know that's not what you meant, so I'm wondering if you're thought about your position. Drug use is just an example of rewarding behavior that reinforces itself, like sex or videogames. That some people take it to disgusting excesses (think compulsive masturbators or Everquest addicts) doesn't make them an inherently irrational source of pleasure.
The difference is that the changes in neurochemistry from sex or playing games are (usually) within the human body's ability to adjust itself. The irrationality comes from using chemicals that have no other purpose than to cause the human brain to go beyond that - and risk damaging it in the process.
Also, nobody's going to murder anybody for their medical marijuana. What a joke. Even outlawed, it is one of the cheaper illegal drugs. Fritter away life savings? If pot were legal, it would probably be no more expensive than cigarettes.
Gambling is legal, and a shot at a slot machine costs, what, a quarter? Now, tell me no one's ever blew their life savings on that, and that Gamblers Anonymous is a sham.
Pot has been shown numerous times to be beneficial for a number of maladies not addressed by other medication. I'm not going to cite links becuase I'm sure you're aware of them. If not, Google is your pal.
Yeah, and if you listen to marijuana users, they'd probably tell you it's beneficial for anything. So how does that make it the only remedy for said maladies?
It should be legal because we live in a country based on the concept that the individual knows best what is good for them. Roughly, one should be able to go to hell in thier own way, so long as they don't take others with them.
That's a nice theory if people were actually responsible enough to follow through with it. I've already quoted drunk driving injury and fatality statistics elsewhere in the thread to the effect that a person is injured or killed roughly every minute in the US due to alcohol. We, as a society, have proven that we don't understand things like moderation or responsibility.
We allow people do drive motorcycles, have dangerous sex, climb rocks, drink too much, and drop out of school. Even if pot were so harmful that it was worse that alcohol or cigarettes, it should still be legal. That the drug trade is dangerous to others is a self-referential argument - if it were legal, there wouldn't be crime surrounding the trade.
It is as harmful, becuase it alters the way people think, and the effects have been proven to be much longer term than alcohol. And even if the drug trade did disappear, it would be replaced by a whole new set of problems associated with rampant drug abuse. Now before you just dismiss that as pessimism, look at the stat above about drunk driving, and tell me that the US, as a society, will not abuse any other drugs that become legal.
Yes, I'm sure that there have been plenty of studies that show that an excess of pot is bad for you in some way. But there have also been plenty of studies that show that an excess of alcohol is bad for you. Should we go back to the days of the alcohol prohibition? In fact there have been studies that show that an excess of food, exercise, sex and even water can be bad for you. Should we ban those too? I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on your side.
Actually, It's not. Think about the number of alcohol related deaths and injuries ("An estimated 513,000 people are injured in alcohol-related crashes each year, an average of 59 people per hour or approximately one person every minute." - MADD) every year, through alcohol poisoning, drunk driving, etc, or the number of people who are obese to an unhealthy level. Now, every time you throw something else out there and say "knock yourselves out," you can chalk up that many more fatalities.
So all in all, you're saying because things are already that bad, a few thousand more people wouldn't hurt?
But I'm also a member of the NARAL, and I don't have a uterus. Let's see, I'm also in the ACLU, but I'm an American so that makes selfish sense. Hmm, I'm also a member of GLAAD, but I'm heterosexual. Weird. I'm a member of Amnesty International, too, although I've never been a political prisoner. I've been outspoken against the Taliban since the beginning of their regime, and I was never forced to wear a burka or stop going to school (or get medical care). I have always supported NAFTA primarily because it transfers desperately needed capital to Mexico, and only secondarily because I believe that it eventually increases wealth north of the border.
I am informed and outspoken about the starving people in Ethiopa and Zimbabwe, and about the millions of people who have died of AIDS in Africa. But I'm neither African, nor starving, nor HIV-positive.
So, let me get this straight. You're a member of a variety of organizations concerning issues that don't, or some cases can't techincally apply to you? Way to be trendiliciously superficial. Seriously, there's a point where it goes beyond caring to resume padding, and I think you've hit the mark. Though I can't see how someone who claims to support such seemingly logical causes (except for NAFTA, of course) could support the proposed legalization of an illicit drug.
I don't just want to live in a just and rational society, I want to live in a just and rational world. Why?
Rational is where people don't burn and then inhale chemicals to alter their neurochemistry to make themselves happy.
At the beginning of Aristotle's "Nichomachean Ethics", he begins an argument by pointing out that at some basic level doing what is most in the interests of encouraging our own "well-being" is what is self-evidently the "right" thing to do. He then goes on to show how "well-being" cannot be restricted to merely immediate gratification and health. He asks, all things being equal, would you prefer that your descendents be healthy and happy? And if you prefer that, then isn't that part of the telos of "well-being"? Philosophers for thousands of years have reiterated or amplified and improved this argument. Quite simply, I don't perceive my well-being to be independent of everyone else's.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But what about the many that are going to lose themselves in the drug culture once it's legalized and mainstreamed and fritter away life savings? Or the people who are murdered so their medicinal marijuana may be sold on the street to the highest bidder? No thanks, I want my descendants to be healthy, happy, and drug free.
Well, I don't smoke pot and haven't since I tried it 25 years ago when I was in junior high. And that's the only illegal drug I've ever used in my entire life. But not only do I support medical marijuana, I also support legalized marijuana and the legalization of some other recreational drugs.
.. which still doesn't make sense to me, is it that you're following a crowd on something because it's controvesial? I don't see what difference you're trying to make...
This might sound like a stupid question.. but.. why would you fight for a right that you don't intend to use? I realize that there are certain basic rights that everyone deserves, but if you ask me, reefer doesn't sound like one of them. If you want to worry about rights that are disappearing then join the EFF and tell companies to stop telling us how to use the media we buy from them. Or even better, go to a third world country and observe those that can't afford food much dream of pot.
So, maybe most people who advocate some sort of controversial political position are doing so in self interest, but not all of them. In this case, and others, I'm certainly not.
Are you asserting that because people who don't medically need pot will use it, it should be denied to people who medically need it? You seem to be.
I have yet to see a reasonable argument why anyone "needs" it.
I'm running a business hoping to make money. Does that mean that when I open source things, I'm not doing something good? Think before answering.
No, becuase if you're a business, the point is making money. Now if you were opensourcing stuff that allowed you to use their machines to DDoS something (I know that wouldn't fly in opensource, but you're the one who picked computers as an analogy), I think people would question your motivations there. My point is - they're not saying medicinal marijuana should be legal because they really want to help people who supposedly need it - they want the laws to pass so they can get their hands on it easier and so penalties will be lessened, gramma with glaucoma be damned.
By the way, can you explain in clear, concise terms why pot _should_ be illegal?
Explain to me first why it should. Studies have shown the kind of damage it does to the human brain - so tell me how that's beneficial to anyone? And why people with certain diseases should be allowed to use it, then?
Ah yes, "proof by attacking the person".
Most of the people I know who advocate medicinal marijuana have nothing wrong with them, and you're kidding yourself if you think they're in it for their friend's brother-in-law's mom with glaucoma. If you read his comments, notice how he says that the ads are targeting him if he purchases marijuana. Since he seems to have a problem with his inability to do this legally, I kinda figured his following arguments, would.. ya know.. apply to him. Also, he advocates the growing of marijuana, which I'm pretty sure isn't covered by medicinal marijuana laws (side note - it's a damn good thing things like Excstacy don't sprout if you plant it). Seriously, everybody assumes that since someone is - coincidentally - furthering the interests of people who are in pain, they're doing the world a big favor, when they're probably in it for themselves.
If you ask me, McClane put it best:
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Stop being part of the fucking problem"
It's time we catch up with the rest of the world and realize that Medical Marijuana provides the ability to relieve the pain of many sufferers with debilitating illnesses such as Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson's disease.
And which of these do you have?
"ASCETIC FOOLS! THERES NO ESCAPE!!" - StarScream in Transformers: The Movie
Pretty sure that's just his roboty voicebox garbling the phrase "Pathetic Fools!"
Not that I have the movie on DVD and watch it on a daily basis, or anything, in case you were wondering.
I agree that the movie sucked. It was an insult to history. Bletchley park built an enigma machine without actually seeing a real one. Another machine was taken from a german U-boat, but well after the codebreakers had already cracked the code. In that case a British destroyer forced a U-boat to surface. After the Germans abandoned and scuttled the ship, the Brits boarded it and managed to close the valve. Which they towed to port.
Sounds like your history is a little muddled as well. The enigma machine wasn't the ONLY thing they were after. More important were the CODEBOOKS, as the WHOLE POINT behind the enigma was the fact that the codes could be changed by rotating the three (and later, four) wheels in the machine. It's been a while since I've seen the flick but I remember at least one scene involving the codebook, and that one officer making a big deal out of it, and why the Germans had to think the ship was sunk (so they wouldn't make new codebooks for the other enigma machines).
The story behind Daikatana is actually pretty interesting to read, Knee Deep in a dream: The story of Daikatana.
Why doesn't someone at MIT set up a video camera to record everything?
;)
You do realize this is in a bathroom, right?
Hey, they have to pay off their student loans somehow you know.
yeah, but it is MIT... i dunno about you, but if i want to watch a bunch of geeks, i'll look out in the hall... or in a mirror
eva DVD's aren't that bad, are *excellent* quality, and are a blast to watch with friends. 4 ep/dvd.
Just a minor correction, 4 episodes per disc on the first two discs. The rest only have 3, making a grand total of 8 discs for the whole series. A lot of people complained about the way ADV films cut the number down, cause.. yeah, that's $60 more (roughly) you end up paying. That being said, I totally think that Evangelion is worth the money, although you might want to wait or plan to finish getting the dvds around the end of October when the movies come out on dvd. Be thankful you no longer have to wait 6 months between discs! - rew
DISCLAIMER! I am not suggesting anyone tinker with the prices on ebay in any way by this post, just making an observation
like most folks, i couldn't believe my eyes when i saw this article or the actual prices on ebay for playstation 2s, but as some people pointed out earlier and i noticed by looking at the bid histories, it looks like there are a few people out there interested in monkeying with the high-bids on these systems, because there are a LOT of systems with multiple bids from the same person. in a way, i kinda feel bad for e-bay because now they get to police all these fakers, but in another way, i feel somewhat vindicated that someone is wasting some (granted not much) of these auctioneers' time. it almost makes up for the "who wants to buy this off me?" and "grandma here is gonna play this as soon as we get home!" cracks i had to endure after standing outside my local store for 2 hours while the people who actually got consoles waited inside.
ah well, back to my trusty old Playstation.
- rewster
ya know.. the way katz-bashers keep dodging that question, maybe politics isn't quite dead afterall...
I really can't understand why people think they are smart enough to start such an arguement but can't find their own damn slashdot preferences...
- rewster
Unfortunately, there are very few who gravitate towards the technical aspects, most do "everything but the robot."
Yep, we have the same problem at my school. Our major problem was not having a lot of adult leadership, so students took up that part, and what we ended up with was the same kind of elitism as sports and other teams. We had a few girls on this years team, and a few are considering going into "geek" fields (some here have done "Everything but the bot"), but i don't think FIRST is having the reaching power that it's meant to because of team politics.
well.. there's my rant..
- rewster