Oh yes, forgot to mention that after setting up a fresh install of Win98 for my wife, IE continually brought the entire system to a halt just by typing in the address bar.
My dad had this problem... I fixed it by turning off autocomplete (which is what was crashing it). Only in a Microsoft product could something like autocomplete freeze up a whole system, eh? --
Some people swear Marlboro cigarettes taste better.
Not to drift off-topic here, but Marlboro cigarettes really do taste better (I smoke them). Not only that, but anybody who's a Marlboro smoker will have a tough time switching to anything else, because of all the crap they put in them. Marlboros are the only cigarettes that will satisfy my craving because, not only am I addicted to the nicotine, I'm addicted to the other shit they put in there too. --
Hey, I used to live in Berwyn Heights. Had a basement apartment in a house on Ruatan for about a year before I moved across 193 to share a Springhill Lake 3 bedroom.
I'm just outside Baltimore. I think Roblimo is somewhere around B'more too.
I'm in College Park, MD (well, Berwyn Heights, but same thing...) Yeah, Roblimo lives in Elkridge - we should get a bunch of Slashdotters together and get Roblimo drunk... that would be a sight to see (Roblimo sober is funny enough:) --
I've got a PS2, and the DVD playback works great, except that I can't figure out how to change the aspect ratio =P Everything is stretched vertically. Anybody know how to change this? On my computer's DVD decoder (Creative DXR2) it's an option in the menu, but I can't find anything in the PS2's menus... --
Realtime video encoding is extremely processor intensive - I tried using VideoRecorder for BeOS to do this a few weeks back, but using any sort of compression at all it would drop almost every frame, and using raw video the files were HUGE! This is on a P2-350, which I know isn't exactly top-of-the-line, but you'd still need a ridiculously fast box to do it. --
If I vote for the Green party, and the Green party loses (which it will), what difference have I made?
If one of the third-party candidates gets 15% of the vote, they'll get Federal funding for the next election. Then they can advertise more effectively and get more of the votes in 4 years. Of course neither of the 3rd party candidates will win this time, but the more votes they get this time the better they'll do next time.
It's a horribly cruel and twisted experiment designed simply to make human beings search endlessly and hopelessly for the answer to the question "Why does the Universe exist?" --
Very good, we're getting somewhere. Now are you ready to generalize this flash of insight to cannabinoids?;)
Heh, of course. Pot isn't something I use to get fucked up, it's something I use for the positive benefits it gives me - relaxation, creativity, headache relief (NOTHING is better than pot for getting rid of a headache), and a general sense of well-being. And so I don't smoke an obscene amount of it. If I did, I'd be stoned right now. But I've been at work all day. --
You seem to have missed the news about the natural cannabinoids, which are exactly analagous to endorphins.
Yes, I did miss this - do you have a URL? However, the study I read about the cannabinoid receptors didn't mention these.
Little fact of biology: if the human body didn't produce something to fit those receptors, we wouldn't have those receptors. Selection would stop removing the defective mutations and the unused receptor system would eventually become non-functional.
... unless people used marijuana extensively. The human body doesn't produce alcohol, and yet you just said that the liver was designed to handle it.
If you want to continue this conversation in a little more real-time environment, I'm on IRC on slashnet in #kuro5hin and #smokedot (my nick is DJBongHit). --
The human brain has receptors for opiates (endorphins), amphetamines, cocaine and a lot of other things. So what's your point?
If these substances were inert they wouldn't have any psychoactive properties, would they?
No, most other drugs bind to receptors which are meant for other substances, usually neurotransmitters such as seratonin. Cannabinoids binds to receptors which don't accept anything else (they also bind to other receptors as well, though).
I wish I still had the URL to this study, I'll go look for it in a minute (as soon as Perl stops being a bitch. Heh, if anybody has experience using fork() in Perl, please email me, this is getting ridiculous).
--
The hell it wasn't. It produces a bunch of enzymes, including alcohol dehydrogenase, which are specific to the function of handling alcohol. Since the digestive system produces alcohol in the normal course of business (some of our symbiotic bugs like to make ethanol), and there's some methanol in various foods including grape juice, you simply cannot make that claim. Western culture has made alcohol into a social substance, and we've co-evolved with it for hundreds of generations. The long and short of it is, we are adapted to alcohol.
I stand corrected. I did not know that.
But the liver certainly is not equipped to handle the huge quantities of alcohol that some people throw at it (frat boys come to mind). --
And I've seen enlightened people before. I don't think Ghandi was into LSD, I doubt Einstien hit the bong, and Tesla probably would have had issues with snorting heroin. Your idea of enlightned and mine may differ a bit.
I didn't mean to imply that drug use and Enlightenment are the same thing (although, if you're comparing crack to the window manager, they're pretty close:). I meant that hallucination is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a great way to get new insights into your life, as tripping lets you experience your emotions and feelings most strongly without your ego in the way to "protect" you from them.
And you're right, Ghandi didn't do acid. Einstein probably didn't hit the bong. But so what? Freud was a heroin addict almost his entire life. Many of the greatest minds of the last century have been drug users, be it alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, or other drugs. But that isn't the point anyway. My only point with this entire conversation is that drug users should be allowed to use their drug of choice, even if it's not alcohol.
And as for the last attempt at a crack...apples....oranges....see the difference?
No, I don't. The guy was complaining that potheads are always trying to get other people to smoke pot. I'm complaining that Linux zealots are always trying to get other people to use Linux. What's the difference?
Anyway, I gotta get back to work - gotta finish this Perl script.
--
Well...while we are quoting research, abcnews.com had an artical on recently that said Marijuana may be somewhat addictive in some people afterall.
Yes. Here
I'm not arguing that pot can't be psychologically addictive - anything can. If you enjoy doing something, and then suddenly stop, it's going to be hard. But pot is not physically addictive, and therein lies the difference. This study was completely bogus, and anybody who reads the article will be able to tell that.
--
Caffeine is not a more dangerous drug than pot, even when assuming well-above average of consumption of the former.
It absolutely is. It's addictive, causes heart trouble, and even kills more brain cells than pot. I don't have a link to this, but I just read an article about the "study" that "proved" that pot killed brain cells. It turns out that they used tissue in a petri dish and had to bathe them in many thousands of times as much THC as a normal person would smoke in order to have any neuron damage. At a much lower level of caffeine, much more neuron damage was observed. This is the study which is quoted by anti-marijuana activists, and they never tell you the whole story.
The only reason people don't consider caffeine a damaging drug is that it doesn't have many noticeable effects, besides that of a stimulant, while pot is an intoxicant.
Pot increases the liklihood and acceptance to harder drugs, such as cocaine and heroin. The medical literature has shown this time and time again.
This is a ridiculous claim that has been debunked time and time again. It doesn't prove cause - just correlation. Of course people who use drugs started with pot - it's an extremely safe drug, especially compared to cocaine or heroin. It's the natural starting point. Also, since pot is illegal, to get it you have to go through dealers who have a vested interest in hooking you on harder drugs. If it was legal you could buy it at a liquor store or coffee shop.
Legalize pot and the number of users of it gets closer to that of a fraction of the total population number.
50 million adults in this country have smoked pot. That's an awful large percentage of our population. Yet there are only 3,000 drug-related deaths each year, but 300,000 alcohol-related deaths. Anybody who wants to smoke pot will do it, regardless of the fact that it's illegal. Anybody who doesn't want to do it still won't want to if it was made legal.
See, one fallout of cracking down on drugs was that the addictive potential of those drugs went up. You got fewer users (maybe) but those that got hooked got hooked bad. Better enforcements means the illegal substance passes through fewer hands and the result is purer product for the users--your addiction potential goes up.
Now I'm just confused. Are you arguing with me or agreeing with me that drugs should be legalized?
So pot less dangerous? Maybe. I don't want to find out if you're right, just because you insist on smoking it. That's -your- business. Just don't make it mine.
I'm not trying to make it yours. The Government is, by using your tax dollars to fight the War on Drugs. I just want to be left alone and be able to smoke a joint after dinner and watch TV. --
Yeah...but if they really need to see the world from a different perspective..why don't they focus on using their imaginations. It's a quick fix for a lazy or weak mind. Hallucinating generally isn't associated with good health practices...so the "it's a healthy thing to do" arguement is kinda odd.
"Enlightenment," which has been sought after by monks and shamans for thousands of years is nothing more than hallucination. Hallucinogenic drugs have been used by mystic healers since the dawn of time. Hallucinating really does open up a whole new universe - your imagination just doesn't cut it when compared to an acid trip. That's the way I thought before I did acid for the first time, but god damn - it's a mind blowing experience.
Also, just recently researchers have found cannabinoid receptors in the human brain (sorry, I don't have a URL handy). These receptors don't bind to anything but various chemicals which are found in marijuana. So it seems kind of odd to make marijuana illegal when the human brain was designed to take these chemicals.
Well...I can agree that some keep to themselves....but WAAAY too many have the "man...you gotta try this" mentality...and are almost as active at drawing people in, as the war on drugs is at trying to keep them out. It's what I have seen way too much of personally anyways. Take it at face value.
Ok, Linux should be illegal then. Those damn Linux zealots keep trying to get other people to use their OS, and are almost as active at drawing people in as Microsoft is at keeping them out. It's what I have seen way too much of personally anyways. Take it at face value. --
Dumbshit, you do have every right to smoke tobacco. Looks like your brain has more tar in it than your lungs.
Dear God, shut the fuck up. I know I have every right to smoke tobacco. I'm complaining that I don't have the right to smoke pot, and there's no reason for that. --
That was not my point. I don't agree those substances should be illeagle.
Ok, sorry, my mistake.
I guess I just find it amusing when people insist on the freedom to give their freedom away.
Doing a drug doesn't give your freedom away - you get intoxicated in one way or another for a short period of time. Some people enjoy that. Why shouldn't they be allowed to?
It's almost like people thrive off of the situations they create by being self-destructive.
There are far worse, perfectly legal, self-destructive things you can do to your body than smoking pot. Eating McDonalds every day is one. Driving at 110 mph is another. Pot is not that bad for you. Other drugs are, and I would never touch heroin or cocaine, but I would defend (to the death) people's right to do them.
On a completely unrelated topic, does anybody know what is up with the Windows 2000 driver for Logitech's wheel mouse? The scrolling is all funky, and it's the same way on all the Win2k machines here in the office. --
Alot of people don't like drunks OR potheads...quit playing the alcohol card. Alot of people agree that alcohol isn't so great either. If more people had a little more control and didn't need chemical help in general, the whole issue would be gone.
Alcohol is terrible, and yes, we would be better off without it. Same with most drugs (the exceptions in my mind being pot and hallucinogenics, because they allow you to see the world from a different perspective, and this is a healthy thing to do [just not too often]). But they're here to stay, and people who use drugs and don't bother other people should not be throw in jail.
Personally the only amount of alcohol I will consume is one that I really don't feel anything from...a glass of wine or a beer...drink for taste...not the feeling.
Me too.
Potheads generally aren't like that.
So? They still don't bother anybody (well, they may annoy some people, but everybody annoys somebody for one reason or another).
--
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yes, forgot to mention that after setting up a fresh install of Win98 for my wife, IE continually brought the entire system to a halt just by typing in the address bar.
My dad had this problem... I fixed it by turning off autocomplete (which is what was crashing it). Only in a Microsoft product could something like autocomplete freeze up a whole system, eh?
--
Some people swear Marlboro cigarettes taste better.
Not to drift off-topic here, but Marlboro cigarettes really do taste better (I smoke them). Not only that, but anybody who's a Marlboro smoker will have a tough time switching to anything else, because of all the crap they put in them. Marlboros are the only cigarettes that will satisfy my craving because, not only am I addicted to the nicotine, I'm addicted to the other shit they put in there too.
--
This doesn't ring true. US 95 is in Idaho and other western states.
No, I-95 runs from Maine to Florida. I drive it from Massachusetts to Maryland and vice versa whenever I visit my parents...
--
Hey, I used to live in Berwyn Heights. Had a basement apartment in a house on Ruatan for about a year before I moved across 193 to share a Springhill Lake 3 bedroom.
Heh, I'm at the corner of 60th and Osage.
--
I'm just outside Baltimore. I think Roblimo is somewhere around B'more too.
:)
I'm in College Park, MD (well, Berwyn Heights, but same thing...) Yeah, Roblimo lives in Elkridge - we should get a bunch of Slashdotters together and get Roblimo drunk... that would be a sight to see (Roblimo sober is funny enough
--
I've got a PS2, and the DVD playback works great, except that I can't figure out how to change the aspect ratio =P Everything is stretched vertically. Anybody know how to change this? On my computer's DVD decoder (Creative DXR2) it's an option in the menu, but I can't find anything in the PS2's menus...
--
Realtime video encoding is extremely processor intensive - I tried using VideoRecorder for BeOS to do this a few weeks back, but using any sort of compression at all it would drop almost every frame, and using raw video the files were HUGE! This is on a P2-350, which I know isn't exactly top-of-the-line, but you'd still need a ridiculously fast box to do it.
--
Poor Man's Tripwire? What are you talking about? In case you can't afford... something free? :)
--
Ack! Pico? No! Bad!
... medic....quick...get me a big dose of vim....
*sounds of me choking to death on my tongue*
--
If I vote for the Green party, and the Green party loses (which it will), what difference have I made?
If one of the third-party candidates gets 15% of the vote, they'll get Federal funding for the next election. Then they can advertise more effectively and get more of the votes in 4 years. Of course neither of the 3rd party candidates will win this time, but the more votes they get this time the better they'll do next time.
That said... VOTE HARRY BROWNE!
--
It's a horribly cruel and twisted experiment designed simply to make human beings search endlessly and hopelessly for the answer to the question "Why does the Universe exist?"
--
Very good, we're getting somewhere. Now are you ready to generalize this flash of insight to cannabinoids? ;)
Heh, of course. Pot isn't something I use to get fucked up, it's something I use for the positive benefits it gives me - relaxation, creativity, headache relief (NOTHING is better than pot for getting rid of a headache), and a general sense of well-being. And so I don't smoke an obscene amount of it. If I did, I'd be stoned right now. But I've been at work all day.
--
You seem to have missed the news about the natural cannabinoids, which are exactly analagous to endorphins.
... unless people used marijuana extensively. The human body doesn't produce alcohol, and yet you just said that the liver was designed to handle it.
Yes, I did miss this - do you have a URL? However, the study I read about the cannabinoid receptors didn't mention these.
Little fact of biology: if the human body didn't produce something to fit those receptors, we wouldn't have those receptors. Selection would stop removing the defective mutations and the unused receptor system would eventually become non-functional.
If you want to continue this conversation in a little more real-time environment, I'm on IRC on slashnet in #kuro5hin and #smokedot (my nick is DJBongHit).
--
The human brain has receptors for opiates (endorphins), amphetamines, cocaine and a lot of other things. So what's your point?
If these substances were inert they wouldn't have any psychoactive properties, would they?
No, most other drugs bind to receptors which are meant for other substances, usually neurotransmitters such as seratonin. Cannabinoids binds to receptors which don't accept anything else (they also bind to other receptors as well, though). I wish I still had the URL to this study, I'll go look for it in a minute (as soon as Perl stops being a bitch. Heh, if anybody has experience using fork() in Perl, please email me, this is getting ridiculous).
--
The hell it wasn't. It produces a bunch of enzymes, including alcohol dehydrogenase, which are specific to the function of handling alcohol. Since the digestive system produces alcohol in the normal course of business (some of our symbiotic bugs like to make ethanol), and there's some methanol in various foods including grape juice, you simply cannot make that claim. Western culture has made alcohol into a social substance, and we've co-evolved with it for hundreds of generations. The long and short of it is, we are adapted to alcohol.
I stand corrected. I did not know that.
But the liver certainly is not equipped to handle the huge quantities of alcohol that some people throw at it (frat boys come to mind).
--
And I've seen enlightened people before. I don't think Ghandi was into LSD, I doubt Einstien hit the bong, and Tesla probably would have had issues with snorting heroin. Your idea of enlightned and mine may differ a bit.
:). I meant that hallucination is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a great way to get new insights into your life, as tripping lets you experience your emotions and feelings most strongly without your ego in the way to "protect" you from them.
I didn't mean to imply that drug use and Enlightenment are the same thing (although, if you're comparing crack to the window manager, they're pretty close
And you're right, Ghandi didn't do acid. Einstein probably didn't hit the bong. But so what? Freud was a heroin addict almost his entire life. Many of the greatest minds of the last century have been drug users, be it alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, or other drugs. But that isn't the point anyway. My only point with this entire conversation is that drug users should be allowed to use their drug of choice, even if it's not alcohol.
And as for the last attempt at a crack...apples....oranges....see the difference?
No, I don't. The guy was complaining that potheads are always trying to get other people to smoke pot. I'm complaining that Linux zealots are always trying to get other people to use Linux. What's the difference?
Anyway, I gotta get back to work - gotta finish this Perl script.
--
Son of a bitch. Hereis that link again. :-p Bastard-ass internet explorer changing my ;gt& 's.
--
Well...while we are quoting research, abcnews.com had an artical on recently that said Marijuana may be somewhat addictive in some people afterall.
Yes. Here
I'm not arguing that pot can't be psychologically addictive - anything can. If you enjoy doing something, and then suddenly stop, it's going to be hard. But pot is not physically addictive, and therein lies the difference. This study was completely bogus, and anybody who reads the article will be able to tell that.
--
Caffeine is not a more dangerous drug than pot, even when assuming well-above average of consumption of the former.
It absolutely is. It's addictive, causes heart trouble, and even kills more brain cells than pot. I don't have a link to this, but I just read an article about the "study" that "proved" that pot killed brain cells. It turns out that they used tissue in a petri dish and had to bathe them in many thousands of times as much THC as a normal person would smoke in order to have any neuron damage. At a much lower level of caffeine, much more neuron damage was observed. This is the study which is quoted by anti-marijuana activists, and they never tell you the whole story.
The only reason people don't consider caffeine a damaging drug is that it doesn't have many noticeable effects, besides that of a stimulant, while pot is an intoxicant.
Pot increases the liklihood and acceptance to harder drugs, such as cocaine and heroin. The medical literature has shown this time and time again.
This is a ridiculous claim that has been debunked time and time again. It doesn't prove cause - just correlation. Of course people who use drugs started with pot - it's an extremely safe drug, especially compared to cocaine or heroin. It's the natural starting point. Also, since pot is illegal, to get it you have to go through dealers who have a vested interest in hooking you on harder drugs. If it was legal you could buy it at a liquor store or coffee shop.
Legalize pot and the number of users of it gets closer to that of a fraction of the total population number.
50 million adults in this country have smoked pot. That's an awful large percentage of our population. Yet there are only 3,000 drug-related deaths each year, but 300,000 alcohol-related deaths. Anybody who wants to smoke pot will do it, regardless of the fact that it's illegal. Anybody who doesn't want to do it still won't want to if it was made legal.
See, one fallout of cracking down on drugs was that the addictive potential of those drugs went up. You got fewer users (maybe) but those that got hooked got hooked bad. Better enforcements means the illegal substance passes through fewer hands and the result is purer product for the users--your addiction potential goes up.
Now I'm just confused. Are you arguing with me or agreeing with me that drugs should be legalized?
So pot less dangerous? Maybe. I don't want to find out if you're right, just because you insist on smoking it. That's -your- business. Just don't make it mine.
I'm not trying to make it yours. The Government is, by using your tax dollars to fight the War on Drugs. I just want to be left alone and be able to smoke a joint after dinner and watch TV.
--
Kinda like Hillary had no power?
She didn't have any "official" power, but she had an awful lot of influence on things. That's what I'm talking about.
--
Yeah...but if they really need to see the world from a different perspective..why don't they focus on using their imaginations. It's a quick fix for a lazy or weak mind. Hallucinating generally isn't associated with good health practices...so the "it's a healthy thing to do" arguement is kinda odd.
"Enlightenment," which has been sought after by monks and shamans for thousands of years is nothing more than hallucination. Hallucinogenic drugs have been used by mystic healers since the dawn of time. Hallucinating really does open up a whole new universe - your imagination just doesn't cut it when compared to an acid trip. That's the way I thought before I did acid for the first time, but god damn - it's a mind blowing experience.
Also, just recently researchers have found cannabinoid receptors in the human brain (sorry, I don't have a URL handy). These receptors don't bind to anything but various chemicals which are found in marijuana. So it seems kind of odd to make marijuana illegal when the human brain was designed to take these chemicals.
Well...I can agree that some keep to themselves....but WAAAY too many have the "man...you gotta try this" mentality...and are almost as active at drawing people in, as the war on drugs is at trying to keep them out. It's what I have seen way too much of personally anyways. Take it at face value.
Ok, Linux should be illegal then. Those damn Linux zealots keep trying to get other people to use their OS, and are almost as active at drawing people in as Microsoft is at keeping them out. It's what I have seen way too much of personally anyways. Take it at face value.
--
You do. Simple enough for you retard?
Fuck you. I don't. If I decide I want to become a junkie, I can get thrown in jail for that. Even though I'm not hurting anybody but myself.
Is that simple enough for you, dumbass?
--
Dumbshit, you do have every right to smoke tobacco. Looks like your brain has more tar in it than your lungs.
Dear God, shut the fuck up. I know I have every right to smoke tobacco. I'm complaining that I don't have the right to smoke pot, and there's no reason for that.
--
That was not my point. I don't agree those substances should be illeagle.
Ok, sorry, my mistake.
I guess I just find it amusing when people insist on the freedom to give their freedom away.
Doing a drug doesn't give your freedom away - you get intoxicated in one way or another for a short period of time. Some people enjoy that. Why shouldn't they be allowed to?
It's almost like people thrive off of the situations they create by being self-destructive.
There are far worse, perfectly legal, self-destructive things you can do to your body than smoking pot. Eating McDonalds every day is one. Driving at 110 mph is another. Pot is not that bad for you. Other drugs are, and I would never touch heroin or cocaine, but I would defend (to the death) people's right to do them.
On a completely unrelated topic, does anybody know what is up with the Windows 2000 driver for Logitech's wheel mouse? The scrolling is all funky, and it's the same way on all the Win2k machines here in the office.
--
Alot of people don't like drunks OR potheads...quit playing the alcohol card. Alot of people agree that alcohol isn't so great either. If more people had a little more control and didn't need chemical help in general, the whole issue would be gone.
Alcohol is terrible, and yes, we would be better off without it. Same with most drugs (the exceptions in my mind being pot and hallucinogenics, because they allow you to see the world from a different perspective, and this is a healthy thing to do [just not too often]). But they're here to stay, and people who use drugs and don't bother other people should not be throw in jail.
Personally the only amount of alcohol I will consume is one that I really don't feel anything from...a glass of wine or a beer...drink for taste...not the feeling.
Me too.
Potheads generally aren't like that.
So? They still don't bother anybody (well, they may annoy some people, but everybody annoys somebody for one reason or another).
--