I second this. For those who are unaware, this is where the Saturn V rocket was developed. It's been a LONG time since I've been but I recall they have SkyLab and Apollo modules you can check out, an assortment of every space suit used in the space program from beginning to present, and all sorts of other neat stuff including an Imax theater.
Please, don't bother replying suggesting "noscript"- it breaks necessary functionality of sites horribly.
I tried turning off Javascript one day because I was sick and tired of Google wrapping every link I copied from search queries. That's when I discovered the horrible truth--in 2009 the internet DOESN'T FUCKING WORK without Javascript enabled. What the fuck is this shit?
You know what, I think 3D could be a great part of the web in the future. But here's the thing. This whole fucking Web 2.x deal is a pile of shit that is already about to collapse under its own weight; the last thing we need is to duct tape more shit onto it. If you don't believe me, try using the Internet on a slow connection, like over a shared satellite link. It's a fucking nightmare. Javascript/AJAX/etc is garbage. Browser "back" buttons don't work anymore, and neither does the reload button in many cases. CSS is great idea until it's abused, as it always seems to be. (Translation: lazy ass developers who pile 500k worth of shit into a single page, then use CSS and Javascript to "hide" it until called on.)
Could we please redesign this "Web" thingy from the ground up before going any further?
In GTA4 I had a lot of fun finding unique ways to kill my dates. Like pick her up on the fastest motorcycle or sports car and get into a ridiculous accident at 180+ MPH, or jump it out into the ocean or something. Another good one is to pick her up in a helicopter, then fly it way up to the roof of a really tall building, and time it just right so that you jump out and land on the building right as the helicopter soars over the edge to crash in flames below. Bonus points if you can blow it up with a rocket as it's going down! No matter how horrifically she should have died, a few days later you get a call from her wanting you to pick her up at the hospital.. LOL
So Anonymous Dumbass knows how to read Wikipedia, and so he learned the LD50 of THC in rats. Too bad he didn't do some basic math to figure out that he didn't debunk my argument at all. The LD50 for humans is thought to be much higher, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it's the same. This would mean that a typical 80kg human would have to consume 3,340 milligrams of THC to have a 50% chance of dying. Let's do the math: a typical "hit" is around 50 mg (1/20 gram), and let's assume the user is smoking some high grade hashish containing 20% THC, thus yielding 10mg of THC per hit. It would take 334 hits from that pipe for the user to kill himself. This is laughable. Even a heavy marijuana smoker with a high tolerance would not be able to take more than 10-15, MAYBE 20 hits from that pipe without getting stoned as fuck and passing the fuck out. 334 hits would be fucking impossible.
Marijuana has been smoked by humankind for literally thousands of years, yet we don't have a single documented case of ANYONE ever dying from it. Why do you think that is, genius? Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people die from alcohol and tobacco every year. Shit, plenty of people die from caffeine, aspirin, tylenol, even water overdoses every year. Marijuana is literally one of the safest substances on the planet, and this is a scientific fact. Even the wikipedia article you cherry picked your quotes from acknowledges that there are NO documented deaths from cannabis use.
Smoke too much marijuana and you will... die of lung cancer just like you would smoking anything.
Yeah, that's what Dr. Donald Tashkin of the University of California was sure of too when he started studying marijuana 30 years ago. Then after conducting the largest study of its kind, involving more than 2,200 cancer patients, his results showed that there was no association at all between marijuana smoking and an increased risk of cancer. None at all, even amongst the heaviest smokers. Actually, their findings showed that smoking marijuana seemed to actually *reduce* the risk of cancer.
THC may be medicine - but strangely enough, it doesn't seem to have much therapeutic effect unless it's taken with the proper rituals, the one they use in drug culture (in other words, smoking it).
The Institute of Medicine, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, American Society of Addiction Medicine, AIDS Action Council, British Medical Association, California Academy of Family Physicians, California Legislative Council for Older Americans, California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, California Pharmacists Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, Colorado Nurses Association, Kaiser Permanente, Lymphoma Foundation of America, Multiple Sclerosis California Action Network, National Association of People with AIDS, National Nurses Society on Addictions, New Mexico Nurses Association, New York State Nurses Association, New England Journal of Medicine, Australian Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, Florida Medical Association, and Virginia Nurses Association would all disagree with your statement.
No you can't. This is totally false. YOU CANNOT OVERDOSE ON THC. The LD50 of marijuana is off the scale. It is estimated that a human would have to consume the equivalent of 15 lbs of marijuana in 15 minutes in order to overdose, a feat which is clearly impossible. Nobody has EVER died or been rendered seriously ill from consuming marijuana in any form; smoked OR eaten.
Take too much Tylenol (for example) and you will die the same way as if you ate poisonous mushrooms. Take too much of an anti-psychotic and you will die. Take too much nicotine and you will die.
Smoke too much marijuana and you will.... fall into a deep, peaceful sleep.
That obviously doesn't include a blog that includes links to sporadic articles that happen to appeal to the author on real news sites; I mean a site where you can go and get a large selection of current news in full. I don't believe it exists.
The real question is, why would you assume that these future news sources, when they come into full effect, will look anything like the existing news sources? It's kinda like in the 1950s where they had big events showing what the world would look like in 40-50 years. They thought it would be just like the 1950s, only fancier. The reality is everything now is completely different and much better in most respects than it was in the 1950s. Likewise, 2050 will not just be a fancier version of 2009.
Hint: news in the future will be a lot more decentralized and democratic. Think something like slashdot, with articles written by contributors--the best ones moderated up by consensus, the crap ones modded into oblivion, the ability to subscribe to favorite authors and "channels", etc, and maybe some Youtube mixed in.
Maybe you expect the news to be created by magic fairies from candyland.
Actually, news is created by events. We had newspapers and reporters in the past because limited communications made it difficult for the general public to learn of this information. The Internet is making it possible for me to hear about news the minute it happens. It's not there yet. The Internet is still a wild west frontier where things aren't quite figured out and organized yet, but it's getting there one step at a time. Once it does, newspapers will be obsolete. The smart people aren't trying to figure out ways to prop up their existing way of doing things, they're trying to figuring what the NEXT way of doing things will be and get a head start on implementing it.
But seriously--mod the GP flamebait. I'm sick of tired of seeing idiots talk shit about the South. I could write a post asserting that black people are worthless criminals, or Mexicans are gang members, and I would be modded into oblivion. Yet somebody throws out an offhand comment implying that most people from the South are retards, inbred rednecks, trailer trash, etc and it's just completely accepted. Fuck you elitist assholes.
Increase the sentence by 50% if the person tests positive for drugs. If a robbery charge carries a five year sentence, a robbery done by a drug user will be a seven and a half year sentence.
Sure, and let's make sure this rule also applies if the person is a cigarette smoker. Or a tylenol user, or a coffee drinker.
The purpose of criminal justice system is not to prevent crime, but PUNISH it. If the punishment isn't enough of a deterrent, then perhaps we need to increase it, until it is.
This idiotic attitude is the reason that the criminal system is a piece of shit. Simply "increasing punishment" until you're putting people behind bars for life for minor infractions won't do anything but fuck up society even worse than it already is. Please, STOP with the fucking "my way or no way" bullshit attitude, you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors.
because some judge couldn't figure out that 23 year olds shouldn't be fucking 15 year olds.
And why is that, exactly? Can you name a good reason besides "I personally don't like the idea" or "OMFG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!1"
The sad thing is that the way alcohol is treated makes no sense. Statistics show that the overwhelming majority of accidents caused by drinking are caused by people with BACs of 0.15 or higher.
Furthermore, marijuana does not cause accidents. I mean seriously, when was the last time you saw a stoner cause a 15 car pileup? Most people drive just fine (or better!) while stoned.
I have not seen any data, or had any personal experience, to suggest the same to be true of marijuana.
Marijuana does not result in any kind of physical dependency whatsoever. I know a lot of marijuana smokers (including myself) and 95% of them have no trouble quitting for weeks, months, or permanently for whatever reason. (Upcoming drug test, low funds, no access, personal choice, etc.) Marijuana can only be addictive in the same way that video games, gambling, money, power, sex, hunting can be addictive--in other words, its addictiveness is caused by the user's weakness, not the drug itself. You will never see a marijuana smoker rob somebody or pawn shit to support their habit, unless the person was just a worthless piece of shit to begin with.
Who the hell smuggles cigarettes? And where do you actually find these cigarettes? I've never seen a pack of "under the counter" cigarettes and I don't know anyone who has. Yet if I wanted to buy an ounce of weed I could have it in my hands within an hour.
Wait.. LOL, are you saying pot smokers are dangerous criminals? I've been on slashdot many years and I would have to say that is the dumbest thing I have ever read on here. Congrats, I guess.
Wow, talk about totally twisting the GP's statements to suit your own agenda. And modded +5 insightful to boot? There go the slashdot mods again, clueless as ever.
An employer's ability to fire a shitty employee is not a "baseball bat" that "the man" can use to beat someone down, it's a tool that allows a business to get rid of an idiot/unproductive/otherwise undesirable employee and hire a better one. To expound on what the GP's point, which you seem to have totally missed: employment percentages shift the balance of power between employee (low unemployment) and business (high unemployment.) Obviously neither extreme is really desirable. Just like most anything else in life, a good balance between employer and employee power is what's needed and what works best for everyone.
OK then, how about this: 100% of a service plan's bandwidth must be network neutral when the total bandwidth is less than 6 mbit, 80% above 6mbit, and 60% above 20mbit. The other part of the bandwidth can be throttled or degraded as the provider pleases. Also, extra bandwidth which is for company provided services only (i.e. streaming TV, VOIP, etc) would not count towards the totals. I think this would make a good compromise.
Slashdot Mirror
So that's the structure of our nation, a republic. As far as how laws are passed? Representative democracy.
I second this. For those who are unaware, this is where the Saturn V rocket was developed. It's been a LONG time since I've been but I recall they have SkyLab and Apollo modules you can check out, an assortment of every space suit used in the space program from beginning to present, and all sorts of other neat stuff including an Imax theater.
[quote]Please, don't bother replying suggesting "noscript"- it breaks necessary functionality of sites horribly.[/quote] ur doin it rong.
Now that's irony...
Please, don't bother replying suggesting "noscript"- it breaks necessary functionality of sites horribly.
I tried turning off Javascript one day because I was sick and tired of Google wrapping every link I copied from search queries. That's when I discovered the horrible truth--in 2009 the internet DOESN'T FUCKING WORK without Javascript enabled. What the fuck is this shit?
You know what, I think 3D could be a great part of the web in the future. But here's the thing. This whole fucking Web 2.x deal is a pile of shit that is already about to collapse under its own weight; the last thing we need is to duct tape more shit onto it. If you don't believe me, try using the Internet on a slow connection, like over a shared satellite link. It's a fucking nightmare. Javascript/AJAX/etc is garbage. Browser "back" buttons don't work anymore, and neither does the reload button in many cases. CSS is great idea until it's abused, as it always seems to be. (Translation: lazy ass developers who pile 500k worth of shit into a single page, then use CSS and Javascript to "hide" it until called on.)
Could we please redesign this "Web" thingy from the ground up before going any further?
In GTA4 I had a lot of fun finding unique ways to kill my dates. Like pick her up on the fastest motorcycle or sports car and get into a ridiculous accident at 180+ MPH, or jump it out into the ocean or something. Another good one is to pick her up in a helicopter, then fly it way up to the roof of a really tall building, and time it just right so that you jump out and land on the building right as the helicopter soars over the edge to crash in flames below. Bonus points if you can blow it up with a rocket as it's going down! No matter how horrifically she should have died, a few days later you get a call from her wanting you to pick her up at the hospital.. LOL
So Anonymous Dumbass knows how to read Wikipedia, and so he learned the LD50 of THC in rats. Too bad he didn't do some basic math to figure out that he didn't debunk my argument at all. The LD50 for humans is thought to be much higher, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it's the same. This would mean that a typical 80kg human would have to consume 3,340 milligrams of THC to have a 50% chance of dying. Let's do the math: a typical "hit" is around 50 mg (1/20 gram), and let's assume the user is smoking some high grade hashish containing 20% THC, thus yielding 10mg of THC per hit. It would take 334 hits from that pipe for the user to kill himself. This is laughable. Even a heavy marijuana smoker with a high tolerance would not be able to take more than 10-15, MAYBE 20 hits from that pipe without getting stoned as fuck and passing the fuck out. 334 hits would be fucking impossible.
Marijuana has been smoked by humankind for literally thousands of years, yet we don't have a single documented case of ANYONE ever dying from it. Why do you think that is, genius? Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people die from alcohol and tobacco every year. Shit, plenty of people die from caffeine, aspirin, tylenol, even water overdoses every year. Marijuana is literally one of the safest substances on the planet, and this is a scientific fact. Even the wikipedia article you cherry picked your quotes from acknowledges that there are NO documented deaths from cannabis use.
Smoke too much marijuana and you will... die of lung cancer just like you would smoking anything.
Yeah, that's what Dr. Donald Tashkin of the University of California was sure of too when he started studying marijuana 30 years ago. Then after conducting the largest study of its kind, involving more than 2,200 cancer patients, his results showed that there was no association at all between marijuana smoking and an increased risk of cancer. None at all, even amongst the heaviest smokers. Actually, their findings showed that smoking marijuana seemed to actually *reduce* the risk of cancer.
THC may be medicine - but strangely enough, it doesn't seem to have much therapeutic effect unless it's taken with the proper rituals, the one they use in drug culture (in other words, smoking it).
The Institute of Medicine, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, American Society of Addiction Medicine, AIDS Action Council, British Medical Association, California Academy of Family Physicians, California Legislative Council for Older Americans, California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, California Pharmacists Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, Colorado Nurses Association, Kaiser Permanente, Lymphoma Foundation of America, Multiple Sclerosis California Action Network, National Association of People with AIDS, National Nurses Society on Addictions, New Mexico Nurses Association, New York State Nurses Association, New England Journal of Medicine, Australian Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, Florida Medical Association, and Virginia Nurses Association would all disagree with your statement.
No you can't. This is totally false. YOU CANNOT OVERDOSE ON THC. The LD50 of marijuana is off the scale. It is estimated that a human would have to consume the equivalent of 15 lbs of marijuana in 15 minutes in order to overdose, a feat which is clearly impossible. Nobody has EVER died or been rendered seriously ill from consuming marijuana in any form; smoked OR eaten.
for example, the vast majority of a human brain, or even the human DNA sequence, is unused.
[citation needed]
Take too much Tylenol (for example) and you will die the same way as if you ate poisonous mushrooms. Take too much of an anti-psychotic and you will die. Take too much nicotine and you will die.
Smoke too much marijuana and you will.... fall into a deep, peaceful sleep.
Not ALL medicines are poison.
That obviously doesn't include a blog that includes links to sporadic articles that happen to appeal to the author on real news sites; I mean a site where you can go and get a large selection of current news in full. I don't believe it exists.
The real question is, why would you assume that these future news sources, when they come into full effect, will look anything like the existing news sources? It's kinda like in the 1950s where they had big events showing what the world would look like in 40-50 years. They thought it would be just like the 1950s, only fancier. The reality is everything now is completely different and much better in most respects than it was in the 1950s. Likewise, 2050 will not just be a fancier version of 2009.
Hint: news in the future will be a lot more decentralized and democratic. Think something like slashdot, with articles written by contributors--the best ones moderated up by consensus, the crap ones modded into oblivion, the ability to subscribe to favorite authors and "channels", etc, and maybe some Youtube mixed in.
Maybe you expect the news to be created by magic fairies from candyland.
Actually, news is created by events. We had newspapers and reporters in the past because limited communications made it difficult for the general public to learn of this information. The Internet is making it possible for me to hear about news the minute it happens. It's not there yet. The Internet is still a wild west frontier where things aren't quite figured out and organized yet, but it's getting there one step at a time. Once it does, newspapers will be obsolete. The smart people aren't trying to figure out ways to prop up their existing way of doing things, they're trying to figuring what the NEXT way of doing things will be and get a head start on implementing it.
Have you ever even been to Earth?
It's nowhere even close to being cleared of vegetation.
Thanks, that's exactly what I was asking for!
But seriously--mod the GP flamebait. I'm sick of tired of seeing idiots talk shit about the South. I could write a post asserting that black people are worthless criminals, or Mexicans are gang members, and I would be modded into oblivion. Yet somebody throws out an offhand comment implying that most people from the South are retards, inbred rednecks, trailer trash, etc and it's just completely accepted. Fuck you elitist assholes.
If you want to pretend that drug use doesn't lead to crime
Drug use doesn't lead to crime. Drug prohibition leads to crime.
Increase the sentence by 50% if the person tests positive for drugs. If a robbery charge carries a five year sentence, a robbery done by a drug user will be a seven and a half year sentence.
Sure, and let's make sure this rule also applies if the person is a cigarette smoker. Or a tylenol user, or a coffee drinker.
The purpose of criminal justice system is not to prevent crime, but PUNISH it. If the punishment isn't enough of a deterrent, then perhaps we need to increase it, until it is.
This idiotic attitude is the reason that the criminal system is a piece of shit. Simply "increasing punishment" until you're putting people behind bars for life for minor infractions won't do anything but fuck up society even worse than it already is. Please, STOP with the fucking "my way or no way" bullshit attitude, you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors.
because some judge couldn't figure out that 23 year olds shouldn't be fucking 15 year olds.
And why is that, exactly? Can you name a good reason besides "I personally don't like the idea" or "OMFG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!1"
The sad thing is that the way alcohol is treated makes no sense. Statistics show that the overwhelming majority of accidents caused by drinking are caused by people with BACs of 0.15 or higher.
Furthermore, marijuana does not cause accidents. I mean seriously, when was the last time you saw a stoner cause a 15 car pileup? Most people drive just fine (or better!) while stoned.
I have not seen any data, or had any personal experience, to suggest the same to be true of marijuana.
Marijuana does not result in any kind of physical dependency whatsoever. I know a lot of marijuana smokers (including myself) and 95% of them have no trouble quitting for weeks, months, or permanently for whatever reason. (Upcoming drug test, low funds, no access, personal choice, etc.) Marijuana can only be addictive in the same way that video games, gambling, money, power, sex, hunting can be addictive--in other words, its addictiveness is caused by the user's weakness, not the drug itself. You will never see a marijuana smoker rob somebody or pawn shit to support their habit, unless the person was just a worthless piece of shit to begin with.
Who the hell smuggles cigarettes? And where do you actually find these cigarettes? I've never seen a pack of "under the counter" cigarettes and I don't know anyone who has. Yet if I wanted to buy an ounce of weed I could have it in my hands within an hour.
Wait.. LOL, are you saying pot smokers are dangerous criminals? I've been on slashdot many years and I would have to say that is the dumbest thing I have ever read on here. Congrats, I guess.
Wow, talk about totally twisting the GP's statements to suit your own agenda. And modded +5 insightful to boot? There go the slashdot mods again, clueless as ever.
An employer's ability to fire a shitty employee is not a "baseball bat" that "the man" can use to beat someone down, it's a tool that allows a business to get rid of an idiot/unproductive/otherwise undesirable employee and hire a better one. To expound on what the GP's point, which you seem to have totally missed: employment percentages shift the balance of power between employee (low unemployment) and business (high unemployment.) Obviously neither extreme is really desirable. Just like most anything else in life, a good balance between employer and employee power is what's needed and what works best for everyone.
Uh, this is an American bomb dude... re-read the summary
OK then, how about this: 100% of a service plan's bandwidth must be network neutral when the total bandwidth is less than 6 mbit, 80% above 6mbit, and 60% above 20mbit. The other part of the bandwidth can be throttled or degraded as the provider pleases. Also, extra bandwidth which is for company provided services only (i.e. streaming TV, VOIP, etc) would not count towards the totals. I think this would make a good compromise.