I have a theory based on this there was no actual process to anything until we startes looking for the process. Reading things like this article seem to confirm my thoughts.
It's not really this simple but as I understand it there are three major points that most people miss when attempting to "packet sniff" the intentions of the opposite sex:
1. There are three types of people:
a: People who are hung up on their past. These people don't understand their own intentions and will create elaborate "reasons" for their actions after the fact.
b: People who live in the present. These people are aware of their intentions, but can lack the ability to realize the consequences of their actions, which can create confusion and disorient their companions.
c: people who live in the future. These people can often seem cryptic unless you are aware of their goals, or they can properly communicate their future desires.
2. There is a powerful tool that women use to communicate with each other. Men call it deception, but that word imposes a negative bias that women don't associate with this tool, so I won't use it here. This tool creates alot of extra rules for women to follow, such as disguising language/appearances/, keeping detailed records of what people did/said/wore, who is an ally/enemy/neutral. The concept of honor is completely foreign to a woman. A huge amount of confusion arise from people thinking that men and women are on the same playing field, when in fact we are so far removed that we are barely playing the same game! (I realize men practice many forms of deception as well, but it is not as ingrained in the psyche/communication of men, nor is it as widespread)
3. Sadly the majority of people reframe communication and action to apply to themselves, and then act out of that application. This creates constant confusion, as everyone is only able to think in the context of themselves and not in the context of the person they are communicating with.
That's how I have been raising my daughter. She is now four, and aside from a bit of shyness she seems pretty well adjusted. we'll see what happens once she is in school, correcting the other children on the myth of santa and the easter bunny. I foresee many parent-teacher meetings.
I'm afraid I don't see any difference in our definitions of tolerance. I haven't smoked pot on almost ten years; smoking even a little would reduce me to a nonfunctional state (as it did when I tried it ten years ago). However, if I were to keep smoking it over the next few months I would be able to function normally while under the influence of the drug (as I did 15 years ago).
I realize that there are a host of more dangerous substances out there (I already mentioned my pro-legalization stance), however your statements that marijuana is a gateway drug only by the company it keeps and that you cannot build a tolerance to it were erroneous, and given the nature of the article, I felt obliged to respond. That other substances are worse has no relevance.
Tolerance has nothing to do with physical addiction. It is merely the ability to "tolerate." I could learn to tolerate the feeling of free floating, it would not make me physically addicted to it. I could put a straight pin through my hand every day untill I built a tolerance to the pain, same concept. Remember when you were first getting high? Were you able to concentrate well enough to drive a car? Go to school/work? I sure wasn't, but I overcame that by building a tolerance.
However you want to spin it, use of marijuana is mentally altering. Prolonged use will alter the way your brain functions (prolonged repeated anything will alter brain states). People who are using to self-medicate will move on to other things as the medicating abilities of the marijuana decrease.
My experiences are what I am drawing on to make this argument (your gov't propaganda quip notwithstanding). I was a regular marijuana user for many years, and have met similar crowds. I have no desire to debate personal experiences, so I will leave it at that.
and rather than leading to harder drugs the laws against it lead to harder drugs
This is untrue. There are a large number of people who use marijuana as a form of self-medication, and over time the medicating effects of the marijuana cease to work (usually because the brain learns to tolerate the substance through constant use). When that happens, the user will seek out something else to use (in most reported cases this ends up being speed or coke). While you may argue that they wouldn't have attempted to seek out an illegal substance if marijuana was legal, the fact remains that when the marijuana stops working the user will seek something more potent.
FWIW, I agree that marijuana has been demonized with many untrue declarations and the laws prohibiting its use should be reviewed, but considering the topic I felt the need to weigh in.
All this research for ice cream? What about combatting hypothermia? If we fortified malt liquors with this stuff, we could stop worrying about the homeless freezing on our lawns...
Slashdot Mirror
honestly how much downtime are we talking here? 30 seconds?
[citation needed]
Seriously, that sounds awesome. I gotta see it.
I have a theory based on this there was no actual process to anything until we startes looking for the process. Reading things like this article seem to confirm my thoughts.
For a less technical view of how cool this is:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RJwqkWawcU
Wow I didn't realize how close it sounded to hairy hardon untill you said that.
did you see the link to http://safesmokes.net/ on the wiki page? free shipping in the states, even.
It's not really this simple but as I understand it there are three major points that most people miss when attempting to "packet sniff" the intentions of the opposite sex:
1. There are three types of people:
a: People who are hung up on their past. These people don't understand their own intentions and will create elaborate "reasons" for their actions after the fact.
b: People who live in the present. These people are aware of their intentions, but can lack the ability to realize the consequences of their actions, which can create confusion and disorient their companions.
c: people who live in the future. These people can often seem cryptic unless you are aware of their goals, or they can properly communicate their future desires.
2. There is a powerful tool that women use to communicate with each other. Men call it deception, but that word imposes a negative bias that women don't associate with this tool, so I won't use it here. This tool creates alot of extra rules for women to follow, such as disguising language/appearances/, keeping detailed records of what people did/said/wore, who is an ally/enemy/neutral. The concept of honor is completely foreign to a woman. A huge amount of confusion arise from people thinking that men and women are on the same playing field, when in fact we are so far removed that we are barely playing the same game!
(I realize men practice many forms of deception as well, but it is not as ingrained in the psyche/communication of men, nor is it as widespread)
3. Sadly the majority of people reframe communication and action to apply to themselves, and then act out of that application. This creates constant confusion, as everyone is only able to think in the context of themselves and not in the context of the person they are communicating with.
That's how I have been raising my daughter. She is now four, and aside from a bit of shyness she seems pretty well adjusted. we'll see what happens once she is in school, correcting the other children on the myth of santa and the easter bunny. I foresee many parent-teacher meetings.
Not "to be", eh? Well I guess that finally answer that question.
Now we just have to figure out if that means 'not "to be"' or not 'not "to be"'
It would have been easier to follow if you had used a different brand name, like say trucks?
or if you are really fast: start, select, start.
Sounds like some has been staring at the BSD logo again...
I am constantly hearing about the creation of a dependant class, but never a howto on joining : /
I am having a comeback overload, so pick your favorite and mod me accordingly:
1)
Second, it is not even "whose" because Pi isn't a person.
Don't tell this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_Rixiu
2)
I am reminded of the rule that that all grammar correcting comments will contain at least one error when I ask: should not Grammar Day be capitalized?
3)
All grammar nazis should be required to read this:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html
lazier nazis can be distracted here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3737179
I believe you mean bohred-feet.
This is really nice to see. Clear concise points, several opinions, and decent story background. good work, let's hope it keeps up.
FWIW, I believe math is universal because of my hallucinogenic experiences...
Tell that to the dragonfly
I'm afraid I don't see any difference in our definitions of tolerance. I haven't smoked pot on almost ten years; smoking even a little would reduce me to a nonfunctional state (as it did when I tried it ten years ago). However, if I were to keep smoking it over the next few months I would be able to function normally while under the influence of the drug (as I did 15 years ago).
I realize that there are a host of more dangerous substances out there (I already mentioned my pro-legalization stance), however your statements that marijuana is a gateway drug only by the company it keeps and that you cannot build a tolerance to it were erroneous, and given the nature of the article, I felt obliged to respond. That other substances are worse has no relevance.
Tolerance has nothing to do with physical addiction. It is merely the ability to "tolerate." I could learn to tolerate the feeling of free floating, it would not make me physically addicted to it. I could put a straight pin through my hand every day untill I built a tolerance to the pain, same concept. Remember when you were first getting high? Were you able to concentrate well enough to drive a car? Go to school/work? I sure wasn't, but I overcame that by building a tolerance.
However you want to spin it, use of marijuana is mentally altering. Prolonged use will alter the way your brain functions (prolonged repeated anything will alter brain states). People who are using to self-medicate will move on to other things as the medicating abilities of the marijuana decrease.
My experiences are what I am drawing on to make this argument (your gov't propaganda quip notwithstanding). I was a regular marijuana user for many years, and have met similar crowds. I have no desire to debate personal experiences, so I will leave it at that.
and rather than leading to harder drugs the laws against it lead to harder drugs
This is untrue. There are a large number of people who use marijuana as a form of self-medication, and over time the medicating effects of the marijuana cease to work (usually because the brain learns to tolerate the substance through constant use). When that happens, the user will seek out something else to use (in most reported cases this ends up being speed or coke). While you may argue that they wouldn't have attempted to seek out an illegal substance if marijuana was legal, the fact remains that when the marijuana stops working the user will seek something more potent.
FWIW, I agree that marijuana has been demonized with many untrue declarations and the laws prohibiting its use should be reviewed, but considering the topic I felt the need to weigh in.
Am I the only one who thought snappy meant you didn't see the apple like animations?
BTW- slashdot: fix mobile.slashdot.org so us new centro owners don't have to fight with the webpage!
They did when the started hiding magnets in the table to help force a lose.
[Citation Needed]
All this research for ice cream? What about combatting hypothermia? If we fortified malt liquors with this stuff, we could stop worrying about the homeless freezing on our lawns...