What I'm interested in is if there's a link with migraines. Hypertension medication is quite often helpfull in preventing or modulating migraine attacks in severe sufferers. The underlying mechanisms of migraines are not fully known and what mechanisms are known, are poorly understood. There seems to be concensus that it involves a chemical inflamation proces of arteries in the skull, though and if this proposition holds, that might explain how these medications work for migraines, too.
There's still this 'war on drugs' and it doesn't look like it's going to go away anytime soon, even though most sane people (top economists, for instance) have declared it a complete failure.
It's a nice thought. Just don't hold your breath, will ya?
I am forever indebted to you for your apt remark. I am sure that a common standard will emerge, which we can all use to install Free Pacman clones and video game ports with a single klik. After all a smart package manager is a recipe for success.
Childrens minds work quite differently from those of adults (I'm a father of two, I think I have at least some experience.) Kids minds are much more impressionable than those of adults. No wonder, really, they have fewer pre-existing patterns and are much more pliable in all senses.
The problem is this: conservative adults are using the impressionability of children to justify broad measures, targeting not just content targeted at children but adults alike, to further their causes. Hence the mockingly exasperated use of the expression "Will nobody think of the children?!"
This is such an example and putting forward the example of Joe Camel against it is therefore a strawman's argument. Joe Camel adverts were most likely expressly targeted at children to get them to use an addictive substance because at a later age they are more likely to be swayed against using it due to them using their discrete thinking abilities.
These creative expressions, (yes, they're also creative expressions, besides being absolutely reprehensible to people with a less deviant sexual moral, like at least me, and I assume, perhaps to my peril, like you,) should be protected and not prosecuted. What adults do for their own pleasure, without harming anyone (not even just children) in the process, should be at their discretion, even if you disagree.
Corrolary: I could say riding motorcycles and mountaineering are examples of completely irresponsible behaviour, but as long as the risk to others is small (you mostly risk your own life and limb) there's very little I can bring forward to justify a ban.
Back on subject: it has been proven over and over again (I'm not backing this up with links to research, I think it is self-evident,) that trying to reduce the demand-side of an equation where people's deepest desires are involved doesn't work. Best to have government aim repressive measures at behaviour that is actually damaging to others (e.g. creation of real child pornography) and to make sure the demand side doesn't rise by making damaging behaviour socially unacceptible in a vocal way. A good example of this last idea is to ban smoking in the presence of non-smokers as has been demonstrated all over the world in the last decade.
[...]She presented the results at LISA V in Oct. 1991. See torture-testing Backup and Archive Programs.
(emphasis mine)
If you're going to go and quote something, please make sure that it is still relevant? I'm not entirely sure that more current versions, say 15 years younger, might not still have the same problems, but I think a re-match is in order to get some real information, here.
I have no ethnic background, external features, 'bad-sounding' name or other reason (as far as I know...) to be scrutinized, but I still won't go to the US. Not untill a 'regime change' and even then I'll wait for some time to see if things change enough.
I wouldn't just refuse money offered to go there, I will not even take a job that requires me to go 'stateside', for any length of time.
I think I've shown ample room for you to express yourself. You are the one bitching about the circumstances around where you live, denying others their right to pusue happiness the way they want because it doesn't match how you perceive happiness. You are wishing for more governement interference which is so neo-con (and so passe).
The only problem I have here is not with you but with your assertion of your own rights above those of others. You mentioned Singapore, not me, I just pointed out that if you think it is so great there and the only thing holding you back is the climate, then you're probably better of over there, accepting a lesser climate. And yes, you living in Singapore would benefit more people than just you, but that's beside the point. I'm just trying to help you make up your mind:).
Have a nice life but please, think of the children.;)
Please help me out here, I'm quite sure I must be misunderstanding you completely.
You are pursuing happiness by pursuing people whom you perceive as violating your basic right to live simply by them using drugs?
If that is correct then my, are you both the overly sensitive and the depraved kind rolled into one!:D
I suggest you try and get used to the Singaporian climate. I think you are more likely to get used to the climate in Singapore than you'll be able to get over feeling threatened by people using drugs. Besides, it'll be a win-win situation because we won't have to hear you rant without reason.
You are simply reiterating the same faulty argumentation you've been fed without any critical thinking. I think most sane people would agree that any crimes against others should be punished including the addict that robs some-one to satisfy his/her habbit. There are laws for those crimes that are fine in and of themselves. The problem begins when people are pushed into crime because the act of using/possession is made an offense. Using drugs isn't a crime against anyone. Most other behaviour that only endangers one-self is still allowed and even some behaviour, like riding a motor-bike or climbing mountains that can put other lives in danger, is allowed as well.) Anything illegal you do because of the drug or the habbit is a crime and should be punnishable.
I'm not saying drugs should be easily accessible, I'm saying that they shouldn't be illegal perse because it doesn't dissuade people from using. Regulate, tax (to compensate for social damages for instance), do whatever is needed but don't make it a crime in and of itself.
I hope you stay happy even though you are now labeling me:) Please rememeber that in order to all be able to pursue happiness, pursuing ones happiness shouldn't infringe on someone elses pursuit of happiness but that seems to be what you are doing.
This is an experiment that has been done and its consequences were (arguably) much worse than its benefits: alcohol-prohibition ring a bell?
Net result: more crime, not less. Lots of hardship for otherwise innocent people and for what? Because some people don't want other people to be intoxicated for the hell of it? Who do you think you are telling other people what they can or cannot do with their own mind and body?
Gradual increase in 'deterrants' has never worked. People haven't quit smoking in droves because the taxes went up year after year, they are stopping now because of social pressure and even then some members of the population will keep smoking perhaps even because other people frown upon it. There are other examples like the addiction to Gas that isn't hampered by the gradual increase in oil-prices. If things suddenly get a lot worse, people are willing to take another look at their habbits. Gradual measures are merely a patch on an arterial bleeding and in the case of taxes a nice cash-cow.
Prisons will fill up. More gradually perhaps, but they will. It is happening as we speak so denying is pointless. An ever larger portion (as in percentage) of the population is being incarcerated and mostly because of petty crime, not because of institionalised mob practices. The illegalisation of drugs is one of the major driving forces behind organized crime so your argument is upside down, from a mere practical perspective at least.
As for your other arguments: it is clear you like strict government control on other people's behaviours yet you say to despise the ones excersising it to the ultimate extent. Rather strange philosophy you keep. I do hope no future governement in your country will consider your morals 'reprehensive' and put you in jail for it with the measures you now propose for the 'gang-infested communities' of today.
I also hope you get a better sense of what is 'right' and what is 'right according to you'. There is a difference, you know.
Your post could be a troll, but since you attach your name to it, I'll reply.
Your 'plan' would mean that the prison system wouldn't just be 'overloaded' but it would gravitate out of control before the year was up, putting lots of people in prison who have been functioning members of society. The cost to society would be unimaginable: prisoners cost a lot of money to accomodate and those imprisoned do not contribute to society, monetary or otherwise.
And all this for what? Because your personal beliefs are different from these people's? People who use drugs or prostitute themselves are not harming anyone else with their actions, no matter how hard you argue.
Ow Come on! Why is such a flawed analogy rated Insightful? Unless I'm missing some sort of in-joke here, this doesn't even come close.
This is more akin to the automobile industry making you pay extra for their latest security innovation. Airbags, anyone? After a while, the feature becomes standard and something new is invented for which you pay extra like ABS, the various incantations of Stability Control and their bizarre acronyms, night-vision, etc.
The thing is, even that analogy is severely flawed. What Microsoft is trying to do here, is make a 'car' where the brakes fail once in a while because of shoddy construction and now they want you to pay for an 'augmented braking system' to catch those failures. If Windows was a car, they would have to recall it, fix the brakes and hope they wouldn't go under from liability suits.
As it stands, this is 'koppelverkoop', a 'linked sale' except that isn't the proper term english term. It would be illegal in The Netherlands.
"Don't bother, this guy's an authoritarian, one of the kind who loves his country like a 4 year old girl loves Mommy."
Ad hominem attacks are, however, not the way to point out the fallacies in other peoples arguments. At least not if you truly want to convince them that they just might be wrong. If he really believes in what he says that puts him at least one step ahead of you in a debate.
Perhaps you're right and nothing will change how he feels about it. I still had to try because if I hadn't, I would be foregoing my right to freedom of opinion and expression. I am glad though that you seem to share some of my ideas on how bad things can get if people think and act like him.
"I was just talking about that particular expression of it, which I found ludicrous. He has a right to talk, and I have a right to tell him to shut up."
In other words: you are willing to let people have different opinions, but they may not decide for themselves how to express them?
I think you better start learning on what 'freedom of speech/expression' truly means because you certainly aren't 'getting it', yet. Good luck with that, too.
If you are a 'true patriot', like you seem to be implying by mentioning the fact that you're a US marine, you would know that grand-parents right to express his opinion, any opinion, is bigger than any other right you have. His right to call for even the overthrow of governement, however much you may object, is bigger than your (perceived) right to safety. And what's more, you've sworn an oath to defend to death his right to do so.
Funnily, you yourself said exactly this in the first line of your post so, thankfully, I think you're mere confused instead of malicious. The fact that you are ok allowing the governement to infringe on anyones privacy because of their opinion seems to be based on the misguided idea that it is ok to infringe on privacy because of a person's ideas. Please understand that some day it may be your ideas the governement disagrees with and will use your reasoning to infringe on your privacy, which you seem to hold dear. Perhaps you can read some more on the definition of 'Liberty' and what has been done in the past to defend it to reflect on where the boundries lie.
Nothing can stop Google from loggin everything you do over their servers. What you can do is make it pointless: - use Gaim with - OTR for all your chat, routing it via - TOR by TORifying Gaim
Furthermore you better create a fresh account for this, using an invite that you got through a non-traceable route (for instance using Firefox with the Switchproxy plugin according to Tor's guidelines.) Don't forget to install Privoxy for this and configure your browser correctly or your DNS requests are still going over open channels. For more information you can refer to the documentation on the TOR website.
Yes you miss out on the new coolness, yes you have to have alternative channels to verify fingerprints to really be certain there's no man-in-the-middle and yes I'm really paranoid.
Speed isn't everything. (And given the 'average/. reader', if such a beast exists, I will refrain from remarks as to when speed is most unsuitable.:P)
On the topic of speed where it meets/. submissions, I see two good reasons to choose a bit more quality over getting a story to the front-page in the shortest time.
One of the bigger criticisms of/., for as long as I can remember, has been the posting of Dupes. Taking a bit more time to figure things out would help here.
The second reason is that, although I think you're right about attributing the fastest submitter, that doesn't mean you shouldn't use the best submission in qualitative terms. Given the comments that you choose certain submissions/submitters over others because, for the largest part submissions are crap, adds to this argument. What's wrong with 'first submitted by..., comprehensive summary by...'?
Being the fastest just isn't what the/. crowd is after. Please remember that a quick win doesn't mean you'll get out on top in the long run and at this point in time you are actively irritating loyal users to satisfy the click-hunger and page-views. People come here to discuss the topics at hand. Getting the news fast is better left to RSS-using click-junkies and sites that do away with any form of redacting at all.
If you can increase the story-quality I'm sure you'll increase both your readership and ad-income. (No I do not have a marketing degree to back that idea up with hard cold numbers but I'm still sure;).
Oh, and of course the obligatory: Keep up the good work! (obligatory only because I trust you will regardless of what I say.:)
But probably a better argument towards Mac fans, is the fact that it adds yet another wart on their beautiful piece of equipment and they'd be right in not wanting that. It's like adding a roof-rack to a Ferrari. Optical out should've been provided of the bat and the fact that it's missing means I won't be getting a Mac Mini front-end. Pitty though.
Please take the time to take a look at the CustomizeGoogle extension. It has the option of anonymizing the cookie as well as deleting the ads. The deletion of ads can be set per sub-site (like Gmail, Froogle, etc.)
But whatever makes you happy. I use NoScript, Adblock+ with Filterset.G updater and whitelisting as well as CustomizeGoogle and they don't seem to be biting each other.
My complete list of extensions: - CustomizeGoogle - Noscript - Adblock+ - Adblock Filterset.G updater - SwitchProxy tool (in combination with TOR, see tor.eff.org) - Fasterfox (Be certain to select 'Optimized' instead of the standards and website breaking default 'Turbo'.) - Tabmix Plus
Slashdot Mirror
Not too long ago a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori was a similarly 'radical' concept. We know how that ended up changing things with regard to the treatment of ulcers.
What I'm interested in is if there's a link with migraines. Hypertension medication is quite often helpfull in preventing or modulating migraine attacks in severe sufferers. The underlying mechanisms of migraines are not fully known and what mechanisms are known, are poorly understood. There seems to be concensus that it involves a chemical inflamation proces of arteries in the skull, though and if this proposition holds, that might explain how these medications work for migraines, too.
There's still this 'war on drugs' and it doesn't look like it's going to go away anytime soon, even though most sane people (top economists, for instance) have declared it a complete failure.
It's a nice thought. Just don't hold your breath, will ya?
Thanks, L Vegas.
"You just made my Friday." And you just made my weekend...The mars rovers produce imagery so vivid, I think I can touch it!
The difference being the target audience.
Childrens minds work quite differently from those of adults (I'm a father of two, I think I have at least some experience.) Kids minds are much more impressionable than those of adults. No wonder, really, they have fewer pre-existing patterns and are much more pliable in all senses.
The problem is this: conservative adults are using the impressionability of children to justify broad measures, targeting not just content targeted at children but adults alike, to further their causes. Hence the mockingly exasperated use of the expression "Will nobody think of the children?!"
This is such an example and putting forward the example of Joe Camel against it is therefore a strawman's argument. Joe Camel adverts were most likely expressly targeted at children to get them to use an addictive substance because at a later age they are more likely to be swayed against using it due to them using their discrete thinking abilities.
These creative expressions, (yes, they're also creative expressions, besides being absolutely reprehensible to people with a less deviant sexual moral, like at least me, and I assume, perhaps to my peril, like you,) should be protected and not prosecuted. What adults do for their own pleasure, without harming anyone (not even just children) in the process, should be at their discretion, even if you disagree.
Corrolary: I could say riding motorcycles and mountaineering are examples of completely irresponsible behaviour, but as long as the risk to others is small (you mostly risk your own life and limb) there's very little I can bring forward to justify a ban.
Back on subject: it has been proven over and over again (I'm not backing this up with links to research, I think it is self-evident,) that trying to reduce the demand-side of an equation where people's deepest desires are involved doesn't work. Best to have government aim repressive measures at behaviour that is actually damaging to others (e.g. creation of real child pornography) and to make sure the demand side doesn't rise by making damaging behaviour socially unacceptible in a vocal way. A good example of this last idea is to ban smoking in the presence of non-smokers as has been demonstrated all over the world in the last decade.
If you're going to go and quote something, please make sure that it is still relevant? I'm not entirely sure that more current versions, say 15 years younger, might not still have the same problems, but I think a re-match is in order to get some real information, here.
I have no ethnic background, external features, 'bad-sounding' name or other reason (as far as I know...) to be scrutinized, but I still won't go to the US. Not untill a 'regime change' and even then I'll wait for some time to see if things change enough.
I wouldn't just refuse money offered to go there, I will not even take a job that requires me to go 'stateside', for any length of time.
You are definitely not alone.
I think I've shown ample room for you to express yourself. You are the one bitching about the circumstances around where you live, denying others their right to pusue happiness the way they want because it doesn't match how you perceive happiness. You are wishing for more governement interference which is so neo-con (and so passe).
:).
;)
The only problem I have here is not with you but with your assertion of your own rights above those of others. You mentioned Singapore, not me, I just pointed out that if you think it is so great there and the only thing holding you back is the climate, then you're probably better of over there, accepting a lesser climate. And yes, you living in Singapore would benefit more people than just you, but that's beside the point. I'm just trying to help you make up your mind
Have a nice life but please, think of the children.
Please help me out here, I'm quite sure I must be misunderstanding you completely.
:D
You are pursuing happiness by pursuing people whom you perceive as violating your basic right to live simply by them using drugs?
If that is correct then my, are you both the overly sensitive and the depraved kind rolled into one!
I suggest you try and get used to the Singaporian climate. I think you are more likely to get used to the climate in Singapore than you'll be able to get over feeling threatened by people using drugs. Besides, it'll be a win-win situation because we won't have to hear you rant without reason.
You are simply reiterating the same faulty argumentation you've been fed without any critical thinking. I think most sane people would agree that any crimes against others should be punished including the addict that robs some-one to satisfy his/her habbit. There are laws for those crimes that are fine in and of themselves. The problem begins when people are pushed into crime because the act of using/possession is made an offense. Using drugs isn't a crime against anyone. Most other behaviour that only endangers one-self is still allowed and even some behaviour, like riding a motor-bike or climbing mountains that can put other lives in danger, is allowed as well.) Anything illegal you do because of the drug or the habbit is a crime and should be punnishable.
:) Please rememeber that in order to all be able to pursue happiness, pursuing ones happiness shouldn't infringe on someone elses pursuit of happiness but that seems to be what you are doing.
I'm not saying drugs should be easily accessible, I'm saying that they shouldn't be illegal perse because it doesn't dissuade people from using. Regulate, tax (to compensate for social damages for instance), do whatever is needed but don't make it a crime in and of itself.
I hope you stay happy even though you are now labeling me
Right. That settles it. You're off your trolley.
This is an experiment that has been done and its consequences were (arguably) much worse than its benefits: alcohol-prohibition ring a bell?
Net result: more crime, not less. Lots of hardship for otherwise innocent people and for what? Because some people don't want other people to be intoxicated for the hell of it? Who do you think you are telling other people what they can or cannot do with their own mind and body?
Gradual increase in 'deterrants' has never worked. People haven't quit smoking in droves because the taxes went up year after year, they are stopping now because of social pressure and even then some members of the population will keep smoking perhaps even because other people frown upon it. There are other examples like the addiction to Gas that isn't hampered by the gradual increase in oil-prices. If things suddenly get a lot worse, people are willing to take another look at their habbits. Gradual measures are merely a patch on an arterial bleeding and in the case of taxes a nice cash-cow.
Prisons will fill up. More gradually perhaps, but they will. It is happening as we speak so denying is pointless. An ever larger portion (as in percentage) of the population is being incarcerated and mostly because of petty crime, not because of institionalised mob practices. The illegalisation of drugs is one of the major driving forces behind organized crime so your argument is upside down, from a mere practical perspective at least.
As for your other arguments: it is clear you like strict government control on other people's behaviours yet you say to despise the ones excersising it to the ultimate extent. Rather strange philosophy you keep. I do hope no future governement in your country will consider your morals 'reprehensive' and put you in jail for it with the measures you now propose for the 'gang-infested communities' of today.
I also hope you get a better sense of what is 'right' and what is 'right according to you'. There is a difference, you know.
All the best.
Your post could be a troll, but since you attach your name to it, I'll reply.
m )
Your 'plan' would mean that the prison system wouldn't just be 'overloaded' but it would gravitate out of control before the year was up, putting lots of people in prison who have been functioning members of society. The cost to society would be unimaginable: prisoners cost a lot of money to accomodate and those imprisoned do not contribute to society, monetary or otherwise.
And all this for what? Because your personal beliefs are different from these people's? People who use drugs or prostitute themselves are not harming anyone else with their actions, no matter how hard you argue.
(And should you drink alcohol, you yourself are a 'drug-user' too. One of the 'hardest' drugs around, actually: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.st
I suggest you read up on the principles of penal systems before you go and advise modifications to one.
Ow Come on! Why is such a flawed analogy rated Insightful? Unless I'm missing some sort of in-joke here, this doesn't even come close.
This is more akin to the automobile industry making you pay extra for their latest security innovation. Airbags, anyone? After a while, the feature becomes standard and something new is invented for which you pay extra like ABS, the various incantations of Stability Control and their bizarre acronyms, night-vision, etc.
The thing is, even that analogy is severely flawed. What Microsoft is trying to do here, is make a 'car' where the brakes fail once in a while because of shoddy construction and now they want you to pay for an 'augmented braking system' to catch those failures. If Windows was a car, they would have to recall it, fix the brakes and hope they wouldn't go under from liability suits.
As it stands, this is 'koppelverkoop', a 'linked sale' except that isn't the proper term english term. It would be illegal in The Netherlands.
Perhaps you're right and nothing will change how he feels about it. I still had to try because if I hadn't, I would be foregoing my right to freedom of opinion and expression. I am glad though that you seem to share some of my ideas on how bad things can get if people think and act like him.
I think you better start learning on what 'freedom of speech/expression' truly means because you certainly aren't 'getting it', yet. Good luck with that, too.
If you are a 'true patriot', like you seem to be implying by mentioning the fact that you're a US marine, you would know that grand-parents right to express his opinion, any opinion, is bigger than any other right you have. His right to call for even the overthrow of governement, however much you may object, is bigger than your (perceived) right to safety. And what's more, you've sworn an oath to defend to death his right to do so.
Funnily, you yourself said exactly this in the first line of your post so, thankfully, I think you're mere confused instead of malicious. The fact that you are ok allowing the governement to infringe on anyones privacy because of their opinion seems to be based on the misguided idea that it is ok to infringe on privacy because of a person's ideas. Please understand that some day it may be your ideas the governement disagrees with and will use your reasoning to infringe on your privacy, which you seem to hold dear. Perhaps you can read some more on the definition of 'Liberty' and what has been done in the past to defend it to reflect on where the boundries lie.
Goes to show you that even authorities don't RTFM...
Three options:
In this case I vote for the second option because it satisfies both explanations to some degree
Nothing can stop Google from loggin everything you do over their servers. What you can do is make it pointless:
- use Gaim with
- OTR for all your chat, routing it via
- TOR by TORifying Gaim
Furthermore you better create a fresh account for this, using an invite that you got through a non-traceable route (for instance using Firefox with the Switchproxy plugin according to Tor's guidelines.) Don't forget to install Privoxy for this and configure your browser correctly or your DNS requests are still going over open channels. For more information you can refer to the documentation on the TOR website.
Yes you miss out on the new coolness, yes you have to have alternative channels to verify fingerprints to really be certain there's no man-in-the-middle and yes I'm really paranoid.
Questions?
(Inquiring minds need to know
Speed isn't everything. (And given the 'average /. reader', if such a beast exists, I will refrain from remarks as to when speed is most unsuitable. :P)
/. submissions, I see two good reasons to choose a bit more quality over getting a story to the front-page in the shortest time.
/., for as long as I can remember, has been the posting of Dupes. Taking a bit more time to figure things out would help here.
/submitters over others because, for the largest part submissions are crap, adds to this argument. What's wrong with 'first submitted by ..., comprehensive summary by ...'?
/. crowd is after. Please remember that a quick win doesn't mean you'll get out on top in the long run and at this point in time you are actively irritating loyal users to satisfy the click-hunger and page-views. People come here to discuss the topics at hand. Getting the news fast is better left to RSS-using click-junkies and sites that do away with any form of redacting at all.
;).
:)
On the topic of speed where it meets
One of the bigger criticisms of
The second reason is that, although I think you're right about attributing the fastest submitter, that doesn't mean you shouldn't use the best submission in qualitative terms. Given the comments that you choose certain submissions
Being the fastest just isn't what the
If you can increase the story-quality I'm sure you'll increase both your readership and ad-income. (No I do not have a marketing degree to back that idea up with hard cold numbers but I'm still sure
Oh, and of course the obligatory: Keep up the good work! (obligatory only because I trust you will regardless of what I say.
But probably a better argument towards Mac fans, is the fact that it adds yet another wart on their beautiful piece of equipment and they'd be right in not wanting that. It's like adding a roof-rack to a Ferrari. Optical out should've been provided of the bat and the fact that it's missing means I won't be getting a Mac Mini front-end. Pitty though.
Please take the time to take a look at the CustomizeGoogle extension. It has the option of anonymizing the cookie as well as deleting the ads. The deletion of ads can be set per sub-site (like Gmail, Froogle, etc.)
But whatever makes you happy. I use NoScript, Adblock+ with Filterset.G updater and whitelisting as well as CustomizeGoogle and they don't seem to be biting each other.
My complete list of extensions:
- CustomizeGoogle
- Noscript
- Adblock+
- Adblock Filterset.G updater
- SwitchProxy tool (in combination with TOR, see tor.eff.org)
- Fasterfox (Be certain to select 'Optimized' instead of the standards and website breaking default 'Turbo'.)
- Tabmix Plus
As always, ymmv.
Cheers.
Better yet: CustomizeGoogle
(And let's throw in a few additional links, for good measure