I can't see anything really useful in this that would banefit human kind at all mostly just stuff to dink around with. Is there any redeeming value to this research at all?
know of any places where I can avoid getting arrested for getting drugs? I don't think so you have no idea of the person that is selling you drugs is an undercover informant.
Ive never tried crack, but its not because ive been waiting for it to be legalized so i wont get in trouble... i just dont want to do it, regardless of the law. Similiarly, i might choose to do a drug even though its illegal,
because i do want to; again, regardless of the law.
One of the main reasons that people don't do things like drugs is mainly because they don't want to get reamed by Bubba in prison for some doppy drug.
I was looking into something that could utilize caller-id data and do something with it but most of the apps I have seen have to have a "caller id compatable modem" whatever that means. Where or more precisely how do you get such a device.
Nazis like you should be the ones we're focusing on, then the world would truly be a better place.
Yeah like the case of the Chinese and opium right?
Ok kiddies here is a good poster child for what happens when you release drugs and call them a good procuct. Way back when many of the people in the world thought just like this and thought that people should be able to use drugs. Well they then thought well why don't we sell these good old fashioned hearty things to the Chinese. So they (British and Americans) decided to sell them drugs. Their entire civilization good almost totally hooked on the drugs and they eventually fought a war and lost over being hooked on drugs which are supposedly things we should legalize.
I mean to cite the second paragraph down
Factions from the main parties have historically died. The democratic party is a good example with it's own faction from the southern states splitting off when Truman wanted to help the civil rights reform. They called it something like the Constitutional Union party of something like that if memory servs.
The US is the only major country that doesn't run off of a coalition government. Practically all the power is held by the 'two major' parties, which have gotten so expansive that they have their own factions.
Having studied political trends within the USA for a while now you make me laugh. This dosn't work here. What happens is that you form a spliter group and it usually dies rather quickly because like Nader and Perot and the like are finding out it's impossible to work outside the system no matter how much money you have.
Freedom to say what you please is different from doing what you please.
You know what I am tired of is getting moderated down because I don't want to get myself all doped up and liking it. I mean it really must piss people off that I don't go home and shoot up with heroin or something like that.
Explain why use of various forms of hemp seems to cause students in high school to have lower scores on standardized tests according to reliable figures from ACT and SAT collections? Or how about why there appears to be massive scaring of brain tissue when hemp is usually used (I remember hearing from my dad who happens to hold a at least 2 upper collegiate degrees from prominent universities that research of cannibas usage was done and autopsy data revealed that massive scaring resulted in the region of the pitutary gland in several cases, explain that one away).
You canot explain away even the offhand rumors that correlate destruction of the brain and hemp usage. One reason that many people can say to make that statement is that the potency of the drug has increased since the stoners of the 60's first started using it mainly due to new control by various cartels in the southern part of the Western hemisphere and the like.
I am open to the idea that a certain part of the population has a higher LD-50 level for THC than others and the like but there is a limit (caffeene has one too but many people don't bother to think about that one).
My choice in saying this comes from a long line of data that hasn't been influenced by the new resergence of the idea that drugs are good for you.
From about 1970-1987 or so you have a massive increase in drug usage. It went down from there mostly due to the say no to drugs policy that was adopted by so many schools and the media. So no treatment didn't do shit to shop crack and pot.
I think that actually improing the structure of the communications system is a far better idea instead. How about trying to make it so that we have end to end digital connections. Everyone that has a phone line now has a connection via broadband to the internet. That is what should be done and financed by a simple tax hike for something objectionable like beer, cigs, and foreign imports.
Since the creation of the state of Israel from Palestinian hands it's been touch and go for the entire time. Those people will be killing each other 1000 years from now.
If you look at periods of time when you had massive unrestricted use of drugs (look at the 19th century England/America to see some good examples). Control of drugs has been a good thing. Getting stoned out of your gord and becomming insanely addicted to something and the social, political, societal, health, etc ramifactions of such were quite bad hence legislation. I don't know about you but I don't see too many opioum addicts roming around today.
How they can statistically claim that this is indeed the case. How can they guarantee that violent hate actions is actually the source that is perpetuating problems in the real world from the net as a source.
Can both of you put to rest the foolish idea that many of the internet audience and slashdot especially do of thinking that there is one political party and that you are *not* controlled by various industry interests. I really feel that democracy works and that there is little to fear but many of my associates feel that there is some problem. Could you set this straight.
Have you ever talked with someone from a country with strict gun control like england? Sure the murder rate is lower, but other crimes are MUCH higher. You can't even keep a nice stereo in your car because of how
quickly it will get stolen. That same problem goes for canada, I know people who went to canada to see a concert and their cars were robbed. If england is so safe, why do they have cameras on every street corner and
highway constantly looking for criminals?
Wow that sure sucks. Maybe you could rig a little canister of hyrodgen cyanide gas to open if anyone tryed to remove your stero from your car. Or even better install a GPS beacon in the device and then get the police to converge on the house of the person who had the stolen object?
Really I am quite interested in it. Persoanally I can find some dirt if I dig enough off the top of my head:
1. England: Well when you have instability in the country you remove your leader. That has been a fundamental constant throughout parlimentary British history and is really something I find scary. If someone pulls a hitler you have a good chance of seeing him in the prime minister's position. Quite bad.
2. Mexico:
PRI controlls the country pretty much but other contenders are there as well. Massive corruption and maffia control over highest offices of the government but drug cartels and the like. This formula usually goes for most of the region to the south although this may varry with intensity and force.
3. Canada: Massive problems with trying to fund various programs that are for the social welfare. Their health care system can only now offer modicum levels of care to almost anyone and that's usually after a good wait. Also containing a very discontented group of ex-French could really cost their country if they ever got independence and cost the all of Canada in the form of trade losses and unemployment which is also high in certain regions.
I could go on but those are the most obvious ones.
An unorganized militia composed of buck toothed red necks playing with guns that the government dosn't want them to have is just another standoff away from ending. They never win and never will beacuse the organized professional soldilerly class is much larger and better equipped with larger supply bases and better sources of new recruits. David Koresh, the Freemen, etc they all got their asses kicked and they are never going to get anywhere.
Depends on what kind of control you have. I propose this senario.
1. Get together a substantial loyal group of the military which is composed of seasoned, well trained people who are very loyal to you. Brainwashing is optional in this case.
2. Get some nice collection of high tech nasites. Including small range nuclear weapons and stuff like botulism, anthrax, and sarin.
3. Destroy the people quickly and quietly who don't agree with you (nukes com in handy for this.
4. Use the remainder of the people who are now mostly loyal to subdue the population.
Well, then how do you explain the exponentially higher level of gun-related deaths per-capita in the states, relative to other countries, like Canada? Or the difference in the number of violent crimes involving firearms?
Granted, there's going to be many factors involved in this, but I think gun regulation is at least partially to blame. For example, there are no regulations, AFAIK, which describe how a firearm should be stored, such as
stored in a locked cabinet and not loaded. I suspect just regulating storage would greatly reduce the number of accidental gun-related injuries. And yes yes, I'm aware that enforcement would be an issue, but just having
the law in place would be a deterrant, and would provide a method for charging folks if their weapons are involved in an accident.
Kind of like the one's for jaywalking right? How about littering? When was the last time you actually saw anyone getting a ticket for that gum wrapper they dropped on the ground. I am also sure that the police have done their share of littering.
Personally I think guns give you at least a fighting chance of surviving a fight. If you get in a fight with a group of guys (say >=5) it's far better ods that you will survive in the absence of being incredibly fast with a gun then with a large stick. Just the fact that you have a gun and perhaps get a few shots into some thugs will convince them not to mess with you.
Reagan was a "crooked criminal" by the same standards you would apply to Gore. Janet Reno has done an honorable job in the face of a virulent opposition. If Dubya gets elected, however, he better watch his back...If
you think Clinton got harassed, to quote Reagan: "You ain't seen nothin' yet."
By whom? I mean unless you have a really bad antagonism going you usually aren't going to have that hard a time in the presidency. Now if you look at Andrew Johnson that's an example of how to get a lot of people who are powerful pissed really fast. But somehow I don't see Bush getting harassed in that manner.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't see anything really useful in this that would banefit human kind at all mostly just stuff to dink around with. Is there any redeeming value to this research at all?
I am just curious if any slashdot people actually work in a patent office or related?
They are not designed. They are cobbled together by people who are trying to win the lowest bid.
Why is that a bad thing? I don't undetstand cheap things are usually better for consumers. At least I know that they are for me.
know of any places where I can avoid getting arrested for getting drugs? I don't think so you have no idea of the person that is selling you drugs is an undercover informant.
Ive never tried crack, but its not because ive been waiting for it to be legalized so i wont get in trouble... i just dont want to do it, regardless of the law. Similiarly, i might choose to do a drug even though its illegal,
because i do want to; again, regardless of the law.
One of the main reasons that people don't do things like drugs is mainly because they don't want to get reamed by Bubba in prison for some doppy drug.
I was looking into something that could utilize caller-id data and do something with it but most of the apps I have seen have to have a "caller id compatable modem" whatever that means. Where or more precisely how do you get such a device.
At least the death is far less painful then a full on beating from 5 guys with sticks/clubs.
Nazis like you should be the ones we're focusing on, then the world would truly be a better place.
Yeah like the case of the Chinese and opium right?
Ok kiddies here is a good poster child for what happens when you release drugs and call them a good procuct. Way back when many of the people in the world thought just like this and thought that people should be able to use drugs. Well they then thought well why don't we sell these good old fashioned hearty things to the Chinese. So they (British and Americans) decided to sell them drugs. Their entire civilization good almost totally hooked on the drugs and they eventually fought a war and lost over being hooked on drugs which are supposedly things we should legalize.
I mean to cite the second paragraph down
Factions from the main parties have historically died. The democratic party is a good example with it's own faction from the southern states splitting off when Truman wanted to help the civil rights reform. They called it something like the Constitutional Union party of something like that if memory servs.
The US is the only major country that doesn't run off of a coalition government. Practically all the power is held by the 'two major' parties, which have gotten so expansive that they have their own factions.
Having studied political trends within the USA for a while now you make me laugh. This dosn't work here. What happens is that you form a spliter group and it usually dies rather quickly because like Nader and Perot and the like are finding out it's impossible to work outside the system no matter how much money you have.
Freedom to say what you please is different from doing what you please.
You know what I am tired of is getting moderated down because I don't want to get myself all doped up and liking it. I mean it really must piss people off that I don't go home and shoot up with heroin or something like that.
Explain why use of various forms of hemp seems to cause students in high school to have lower scores on standardized tests according to reliable figures from ACT and SAT collections? Or how about why there appears to be massive scaring of brain tissue when hemp is usually used (I remember hearing from my dad who happens to hold a at least 2 upper collegiate degrees from prominent universities that research of cannibas usage was done and autopsy data revealed that massive scaring resulted in the region of the pitutary gland in several cases, explain that one away).
You canot explain away even the offhand rumors that correlate destruction of the brain and hemp usage. One reason that many people can say to make that statement is that the potency of the drug has increased since the stoners of the 60's first started using it mainly due to new control by various cartels in the southern part of the Western hemisphere and the like.
I am open to the idea that a certain part of the population has a higher LD-50 level for THC than others and the like but there is a limit (caffeene has one too but many people don't bother to think about that one).
My choice in saying this comes from a long line of data that hasn't been influenced by the new resergence of the idea that drugs are good for you.
From about 1970-1987 or so you have a massive increase in drug usage. It went down from there mostly due to the say no to drugs policy that was adopted by so many schools and the media. So no treatment didn't do shit to shop crack and pot.
I think that actually improing the structure of the communications system is a far better idea instead. How about trying to make it so that we have end to end digital connections. Everyone that has a phone line now has a connection via broadband to the internet. That is what should be done and financed by a simple tax hike for something objectionable like beer, cigs, and foreign imports.
Since the creation of the state of Israel from Palestinian hands it's been touch and go for the entire time. Those people will be killing each other 1000 years from now.
Eventually peopel have to vote them in. You can't very well think that calling people stupid sops will get you elected.
That's like getting Hitler to join in the debates. Ralph Nader will win the election when pigs fly.
If you look at periods of time when you had massive unrestricted use of drugs (look at the 19th century England/America to see some good examples). Control of drugs has been a good thing. Getting stoned out of your gord and becomming insanely addicted to something and the social, political, societal, health, etc ramifactions of such were quite bad hence legislation. I don't know about you but I don't see too many opioum addicts roming around today.
How they can statistically claim that this is indeed the case. How can they guarantee that violent hate actions is actually the source that is perpetuating problems in the real world from the net as a source.
Can both of you put to rest the foolish idea that many of the internet audience and slashdot especially do of thinking that there is one political party and that you are *not* controlled by various industry interests. I really feel that democracy works and that there is little to fear but many of my associates feel that there is some problem. Could you set this straight.
Have you ever talked with someone from a country with strict gun control like england? Sure the murder rate is lower, but other crimes are MUCH higher. You can't even keep a nice stereo in your car because of how
quickly it will get stolen. That same problem goes for canada, I know people who went to canada to see a concert and their cars were robbed. If england is so safe, why do they have cameras on every street corner and
highway constantly looking for criminals?
Wow that sure sucks. Maybe you could rig a little canister of hyrodgen cyanide gas to open if anyone tryed to remove your stero from your car. Or even better install a GPS beacon in the device and then get the police to converge on the house of the person who had the stolen object?
Really I am quite interested in it. Persoanally I can find some dirt if I dig enough off the top of my head:
1. England: Well when you have instability in the country you remove your leader. That has been a fundamental constant throughout parlimentary British history and is really something I find scary. If someone pulls a hitler you have a good chance of seeing him in the prime minister's position. Quite bad.
2. Mexico:
PRI controlls the country pretty much but other contenders are there as well. Massive corruption and maffia control over highest offices of the government but drug cartels and the like. This formula usually goes for most of the region to the south although this may varry with intensity and force.
3. Canada: Massive problems with trying to fund various programs that are for the social welfare. Their health care system can only now offer modicum levels of care to almost anyone and that's usually after a good wait. Also containing a very discontented group of ex-French could really cost their country if they ever got independence and cost the all of Canada in the form of trade losses and unemployment which is also high in certain regions.
I could go on but those are the most obvious ones.
An unorganized militia composed of buck toothed red necks playing with guns that the government dosn't want them to have is just another standoff away from ending. They never win and never will beacuse the organized professional soldilerly class is much larger and better equipped with larger supply bases and better sources of new recruits. David Koresh, the Freemen, etc they all got their asses kicked and they are never going to get anywhere.
Depends on what kind of control you have. I propose this senario.
1. Get together a substantial loyal group of the military which is composed of seasoned, well trained people who are very loyal to you. Brainwashing is optional in this case.
2. Get some nice collection of high tech nasites. Including small range nuclear weapons and stuff like botulism, anthrax, and sarin.
3. Destroy the people quickly and quietly who don't agree with you (nukes com in handy for this.
4. Use the remainder of the people who are now mostly loyal to subdue the population.
Well, then how do you explain the exponentially higher level of gun-related deaths per-capita in the states, relative to other countries, like Canada? Or the difference in the number of violent crimes involving firearms?
Granted, there's going to be many factors involved in this, but I think gun regulation is at least partially to blame. For example, there are no regulations, AFAIK, which describe how a firearm should be stored, such as
stored in a locked cabinet and not loaded. I suspect just regulating storage would greatly reduce the number of accidental gun-related injuries. And yes yes, I'm aware that enforcement would be an issue, but just having
the law in place would be a deterrant, and would provide a method for charging folks if their weapons are involved in an accident.
Kind of like the one's for jaywalking right? How about littering? When was the last time you actually saw anyone getting a ticket for that gum wrapper they dropped on the ground. I am also sure that the police have done their share of littering.
Personally I think guns give you at least a fighting chance of surviving a fight. If you get in a fight with a group of guys (say >=5) it's far better ods that you will survive in the absence of being incredibly fast with a gun then with a large stick. Just the fact that you have a gun and perhaps get a few shots into some thugs will convince them not to mess with you.
Reagan was a "crooked criminal" by the same standards you would apply to Gore. Janet Reno has done an honorable job in the face of a virulent opposition. If Dubya gets elected, however, he better watch his back...If
you think Clinton got harassed, to quote Reagan: "You ain't seen nothin' yet."
By whom? I mean unless you have a really bad antagonism going you usually aren't going to have that hard a time in the presidency. Now if you look at Andrew Johnson that's an example of how to get a lot of people who are powerful pissed really fast. But somehow I don't see Bush getting harassed in that manner.