IBM is a *huge* IP company. They make a lot of money from licensing. Why do you think that they host a patent database? IBM can be expected to take part in anything which strenghtens IP laws, even to the detriment of consumers.
As for the other companies, the reason is largely because due to conglomeration, the hardware companies are either a) content owners as well (Sony), or b) have content-owner/hardware-company hybrids -- like Sony -- as major OEM customers.
If Sony tells Hitachi/Seagate/whoever, "implement CPRM in your drives or Vaios will come with someone elses drives installed", and Sony accounts for a significant percentage of their OEM sales, and the drive still behaves as a normal drive -- so as not to impact their other OEM customers, they'll implement it.
Though you have confused the terms "agonist" and "antagonist", you're mostly correct and I thank you for pointing out that methadone is a pure agonist.
I still think it sucks, as the only "effective" methadone therapy is maintenance (which is the way methadone treatment was commonly done in the late-80's/early-90's in the Northeast, whence my exposure to people familiar with methadone occured). I.e., the premise is "to cure the addict, let's keep him addicted, but to a drug isn't quite as euphoria-inducing, that's cheaper, legally availbe - to addicts- and doesn't cause the onset of withdrawl symptoms as soon." Thus, not only does one remain dependant on drugs, but on the state as the supplier of drugs.
For tapering, methadone sucks, because it takes so long to completely leave the system, and no tapering therapy gets rid of the addict's underlying desire for an altered state of consciousness. It's that desire which leads an addict to do drugs in the first place, whether the desire itself is merely the expression of people's natural desire to get fsck'd up -- all known human cultures (except Mormons) use intoxicants of one form or another -- or, partly a reaction to an unpleasant "normal" state of consciousness caused by depression or anxiety disorders.
Moderators, any chance of a "Interesting even though completely off topic?"
Re:Methadone and alcoholism
on
"Traffic"
·
· Score: 1
I'm no expert, but here's my understanding: Basically, methadone is an opiate that doesn't get you high, so that you can take it on a regular schedule and it will take care of the physical craving while the addict can take care of all the psychological craving.
That's the myth. In reality, methadone is an agonist/antagonist -- it partially adheres to the opioid receptors in the brain while completely blocking them. Its effect as an agonist is stronger than many doctors would probably hope/admit; it's possible to get very high on methadone.
In fact, attenuation of the euphoria probably only comes as a result of tolerance after prolonged treatment at high doses (junkies know that this happens even with heroin -- if you do enough of it for long enough, you can't get high, only avert withdrawl symtpoms).
Methadone's primary aid in getting off dope is that it completely eradicates physical withdrawl which is very uncomfortable (but, contrary to what you said in your post, never fatal -- though alcohol witdrawl and barbiturate withdrawl can be and often are).
In short, I think that there are much better therapies.
It seems to me that the corporate profits of IBM, Intel, Matsushita and Toshiba depend quite heavily on the hard work of lots of Software Engineers, Hardware Engineers, System Administrators, Project Managers, and Helpdesk folk -- i.e. geeks.
Not to mention all the artsy geeks (e.g., animators) that greatly contribute to the corporate profits of the "content owners."
I wonder how attached to CPRM IBM, Matsushita, Toshiba and Intel would be if all of their Software Engineers, Hardware Engineers, System Administrators, Project Managers, and Helpdesk folk ditched work for a month or two (or even a couple of weeks).
It always surprises me how "of one voice" we can be as a demographic about issues such as this, and yet our actions (or suggestions of action) are so ineffectual compared to those of other segments of the labor force who learned around a century ago how to get large companies to respect their wishes.
GASP!! The commie bastard is talking about <shudder> UNIONS.
I know it probably goes against the capatalist, libertarian grain of my fellow slashdot readers to even suggest such a thing as a geek general strike, but look at it this way: you can talk all you want about boycotts, but though we might like to think otherwise, geeks probably represent a relative minority of technology consumers. Our power & value in this society derive from our being a significant majority of the labor force required to produce technology.
Anyone who thinks that geeks stand an iota of a chance fighting attacks on our liberty from Mega-Corps by appealing to a majority of tech consumers who could't care less if Sony & Time Warner control their hard drive is kidding themselves. We already agree that the bastards need to be forced to grow a clue, why not take advantage of the means of influence of which we are most uniquely capable?
Slashdot Mirror
As for the other companies, the reason is largely because due to conglomeration, the hardware companies are either a) content owners as well (Sony), or b) have content-owner/hardware-company hybrids -- like Sony -- as major OEM customers.
If Sony tells Hitachi/Seagate/whoever, "implement CPRM in your drives or Vaios will come with someone elses drives installed", and Sony accounts for a significant percentage of their OEM sales, and the drive still behaves as a normal drive -- so as not to impact their other OEM customers, they'll implement it.
I still think it sucks, as the only "effective" methadone therapy is maintenance (which is the way methadone treatment was commonly done in the late-80's/early-90's in the Northeast, whence my exposure to people familiar with methadone occured). I.e., the premise is "to cure the addict, let's keep him addicted, but to a drug isn't quite as euphoria-inducing, that's cheaper, legally availbe - to addicts- and doesn't cause the onset of withdrawl symptoms as soon." Thus, not only does one remain dependant on drugs, but on the state as the supplier of drugs.
For tapering, methadone sucks, because it takes so long to completely leave the system, and no tapering therapy gets rid of the addict's underlying desire for an altered state of consciousness. It's that desire which leads an addict to do drugs in the first place, whether the desire itself is merely the expression of people's natural desire to get fsck'd up -- all known human cultures (except Mormons) use intoxicants of one form or another -- or, partly a reaction to an unpleasant "normal" state of consciousness caused by depression or anxiety disorders.
Moderators, any chance of a "Interesting even though completely off topic?"
In fact, attenuation of the euphoria probably only comes as a result of tolerance after prolonged treatment at high doses (junkies know that this happens even with heroin -- if you do enough of it for long enough, you can't get high, only avert withdrawl symtpoms).
Methadone's primary aid in getting off dope is that it completely eradicates physical withdrawl which is very uncomfortable (but, contrary to what you said in your post, never fatal -- though alcohol witdrawl and barbiturate withdrawl can be and often are).
In short, I think that there are much better therapies.
Not to mention all the artsy geeks (e.g., animators) that greatly contribute to the corporate profits of the "content owners."
I wonder how attached to CPRM IBM, Matsushita, Toshiba and Intel would be if all of their Software Engineers, Hardware Engineers, System Administrators, Project Managers, and Helpdesk folk ditched work for a month or two (or even a couple of weeks).
It always surprises me how "of one voice" we can be as a demographic about issues such as this, and yet our actions (or suggestions of action) are so ineffectual compared to those of other segments of the labor force who learned around a century ago how to get large companies to respect their wishes.
GASP!! The commie bastard is talking about <shudder> UNIONS .
I know it probably goes against the capatalist, libertarian grain of my fellow slashdot readers to even suggest such a thing as a geek general strike, but look at it this way: you can talk all you want about boycotts, but though we might like to think otherwise, geeks probably represent a relative minority of technology consumers. Our power & value in this society derive from our being a significant majority of the labor force required to produce technology.
Anyone who thinks that geeks stand an iota of a chance fighting attacks on our liberty from Mega-Corps by appealing to a majority of tech consumers who could't care less if Sony & Time Warner control their hard drive is kidding themselves. We already agree that the bastards need to be forced to grow a clue, why not take advantage of the means of influence of which we are most uniquely capable?