Smoking cannabis is much safer than smoking cigarettes. Almost all of the problems you associate with smoking cigarettes do not occur when smoking cannabis, for several reasons.
You can't really determine that believing in God is the wiser/safer proposition, and especially not a particular religion's God. There's no way to know if it's the "true" religion with the "true" God, and the real God might be pissed that you believe in the wrong one, you have no idea. Hell, God might be pissed that you're not taking the logically defensible position of not believing in a God, or at least not changing one's actions to accommodate the particular tenets of a God.
Maybe that is the point, but that's not the point that the RIAA guy was making. He doesn't mention the problem of incentives to invent and produce at all alongside his equation of car theft with data copying. He then goes on to say that someone who illegally copies something is "taking money out of the pockets of all of the people who have put their hard work into making the music." Regardless of the merits or dismerits of this statement, he's not stating that widespread copying will remove incentives.
Plagiarism isn't illegal in the first place. It's just dishonest and in academic and scientific settings will lead to reprimands. What's wrong with plagiarism being legal?
What are you talking about? The only thing you have to recompile and reboot if you want to upgrade is the kernel, and you there is so rarely a security hole in the kernel that you almost never need to do it.
What do you mean you cannot purchase goods with it anymore? If it's possible to exchange it at the central bank, why wouldn't a seller accept it as payment?
As for being a depressant, in all but small doses, alcohol depresses the central nervous system, including brain activity. This does not necessarily mean that a person becomes depressed due to this, especially since alcohol has several effects on the brain, many of which to lead to increased talkativeness, comfortability, empathy, and pleasure in the company of others. This counteracts the "depressant" effects of alcohol in medium to heavy doses. This is one reason why drinking (a lot) alone can be a bad thing, your body becomes depressed, and without the stimulation of others, you may become temporarily depressed as well. Cannabis does not have this effect, if you're not depressed before you smoke, you're most likely not going to be depressed after you smoke.
As for undesirable physiological effects of cannabis compared to that of tobacco (and especially frequent usage of cigarettes), cannabis has several things going for it.
Firstly, as you said, the frequency is lower, and while you say you know one or two counter-examples, that's hardly indicative of any norm. I don't know anyone who smokes the equivalent of 20 (1 pack of cigs) or 40 (2 packs) marijuana cigarettes a day, not to mention 20 or 40 a day for years on end, which happens a lot with nicotine addiction.
Secondly, almost all tobacco easily available in the United States contains radioactive particles (see http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_hea lth2.shtml, and it's not difficult to independently verify this by going step by step). Tobacco crops in the United States are required by law to be fertilized with phosphates that happen to be rich in the radioactive element radium-226, which decays into two long-living radioactive elements, lead-210 and polonium-210, which stay throughout your body and especially the lungs for decades, causing lesions, and anyway messing up your cells. Quote from abovementioned article: "According to U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop (on national television, 1990) radioactivity, not tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking related lung cancer."
Thirdly, THC (and other active ingredients?) in marijuana relax your lungs (such as the alveoli), which allows harmful material to be more readily expurgated, as by coughing or simply breathing, whereas nicotine constricts your lungs, keeping harmful material in them. Nicotine and related chemicals (such as nornicotine) also has all sorts of negative effects on the body, such as contributing to the growth of cancerous cells.
Cigarettes specifically also contain many other chemicals (various carcinogens, arsenic, possibly addictive substances additional to nicotine) not present in other tobacco products or in the tobacco leaf itself.
Smoking marijuana heavily certainly can increase coughing (production of phlegm, etc.) and the frequency of lung and throat infections, and may reduce lung capacity, but these are not life-threatening and would generally only be an annoyance. These are also not real problems for infrequent or light smokers.
How would you know it's not like drugs if you've never used a hallucinogen in your life (let alone trying all of the hallucinogens. It's certainly seems like certain aspects of synaesthesia are similar to the effects of some hallucinogens, and it's certainly reasonable that this would be possible. And of course, if you had used many hallucinogens, you could possibly say, "it's like LSD", or "it's like shrooms and LSD together", etc.
Then it's not really a depressant, as you said it's just an amplifier or whatnot. And it's certainly not more of a "depressant" than alcohol, which actually is a depressant, both physically and mentally.
As for the lungs, there are alternate means of use (oral consumption, vaporization) that make the lung issue moot. Nevertheless, smoked cannabis is far better for you than smoked tobacco for several reasons (THC vs. nicotine, radioactive content, frequency of use, etc.).
No, the parent is referring to the fact that any supposed damage incurred by copyright infringement necessitates that the infringer would have purchased the software or music (thus paying the copyright owner, etc.) if he had not downloaded it freely from the Internet. If the infringer would not have purchased the work even if he could not obtain it freely, then there is no "lost profit" on behalf of the copyright owner. It's still against the law, but the copyright owner isn't "losing" their profit. The presence of a software installation or a music file does not mean that the software company or recording company "lost" any money, just as traffic data and the fact that the site was blocked does not necessitate that the site owner "lost" any money.
The computer may be able to determine how it's betting strategy has worked against the other player's betting strategy in the past, but it does not work so well if the player changes his betting strategy, and it would probably work very badly if the computer was able to tune itself greatly, because the human player could goad to taylor itself to one particular (possibly extreme) style of betting, and then change his betting strategy to one which the computer is not prepared at all. There are many ways in which a human player could change his strategy to take advantage of the computer. Poker requires flexibility, both in order to play against different players, and to play against an individual players playing style. In fact, disregarding the above, the computer might be at a distinct disadvantage (at least compared to other players), if as you propose it does not read physiological changes in emotional response.
Keep in mind that on the "World Poker Tour" on the Travel Channel, only the most interesting and pivotal hands of the tournament are shown, so you might not get a complete picture of how the game is played in "all" possible contingencies, and you miss most of the hands where everyone folds (after all, depending on the number of players at the table, a solid player might fold 8 or 9 out of 10 hands). Not to mention, you don't see a single player overwhelmingly winning against a table of (weak) players, or a table destroying a single (weak) player, as what you're watching on the Travel Channel is the final table; it's the best players after several rounds of dozens (hundreds?) of players dropping out.
I'm not going to go into length about why poker, and especially hold'em is more of a game of skill than it is luck, but suffice it to say that many of the same people get to the final rounds of these tournaments, and it's can be very clear who's good and who's bad when playing at a table with players of differing skill level, which is to say that there is much more than random chance involved, and the outcome of skill in an individual is repeatable and, depending on the opponents, can give the skillful a significant advantage.
That's not even "not doing thing's the gambler's way", drawing that one card with four of a kind is an excellent move, and one any good poker player would make.
Apathetic votes don't necessarily vote in a "truly random fashion". Apathetic voters who do not look into issues might be particularly influenced by the candidates charisma, appearance, or any feature that a more discerning voter might see through to the candidates true (possibly undesirable) positions.
Well, if it makes sense for Debian because it wouldn't be good to have a DPL who isn't liked by a large part of the developers, then it would be good for any voting system for any purpose, as it would minimize outcomes where a large part of the voting population doesn't like the elected person or option.
Re:steering AWAY from the xenophobic right wing nu
on
SuSE 8.2 Announced
·
· Score: 1
There have been several studies on neurological and cognitive effects of marijuana usage. There have been few credible studies that demonstrate harmful neurological effects of marijuana. In fact, several studies show that marijuana may be neuroprotective and anti-oxidative, and useful for treatment of several neurological disorders. Credible studies that do indicate that marijuana may have neurotoxic properties focus on administering marijuana to rats for extended periods of time (according to one review, 10% of their life) and the results of these studies are not reproduced when conducted on animals more related to us, such as monkeys.
As for cognitive effects (on IQ, memory, etc. rather than neurological effects such as changes in brain metabolism and neuronal changes), studies usually indicate that, in the long-term (10 years of abstinence for instance), marijuana has no negative effect on cognition when consumed lightly, moderately, or heavily. In the shorter term (a month of abstinence for instance), light or moderate consumption of marijuana has not proven to have negative cognitive effects. However, there has been shown to be decreases in cognitive performance after a month for heavy users of marijuana. However, in most of these studies, heavy is defined as the equivalent of more than 20 or 30 joints in one week, which far exceeds the amount usually consumed by most users and is very rare in extended periods of time.
My above comments are from memory of studies I have read in the past, but I went over to pubmed to have some URLs to post of such studies. I grew tired of this, however, but here are a few abstracts of studies and reviews.
Slashdot Mirror
Smoking cannabis is much safer than smoking cigarettes. Almost all of the problems you associate with smoking cigarettes do not occur when smoking cannabis, for several reasons.
Why does the artist have "rights" to exclusively control the product of his work?
What!? Capt. Hector has never attacked me, he only bugs you and sometimes steals your money.
anti-establishment
What's one of their claims? That there was a flood, or that the floods in other religious sects are false?
You can't really determine that believing in God is the wiser/safer proposition, and especially not a particular religion's God. There's no way to know if it's the "true" religion with the "true" God, and the real God might be pissed that you believe in the wrong one, you have no idea. Hell, God might be pissed that you're not taking the logically defensible position of not believing in a God, or at least not changing one's actions to accommodate the particular tenets of a God.
No you can't. You have no idea how many UFO flights there have been that haven't crashed.
Maybe that is the point, but that's not the point that the RIAA guy was making. He doesn't mention the problem of incentives to invent and produce at all alongside his equation of car theft with data copying. He then goes on to say that someone who illegally copies something is "taking money out of the pockets of all of the people who have put their hard work into making the music." Regardless of the merits or dismerits of this statement, he's not stating that widespread copying will remove incentives.
Plagiarism isn't illegal in the first place. It's just dishonest and in academic and scientific settings will lead to reprimands. What's wrong with plagiarism being legal?
What are you talking about? The only thing you have to recompile and reboot if you want to upgrade is the kernel, and you there is so rarely a security hole in the kernel that you almost never need to do it.
What do you mean you cannot purchase goods with it anymore? If it's possible to exchange it at the central bank, why wouldn't a seller accept it as payment?
As for being a depressant, in all but small doses, alcohol depresses the central nervous system, including brain activity. This does not necessarily mean that a person becomes depressed due to this, especially since alcohol has several effects on the brain, many of which to lead to increased talkativeness, comfortability, empathy, and pleasure in the company of others. This counteracts the "depressant" effects of alcohol in medium to heavy doses. This is one reason why drinking (a lot) alone can be a bad thing, your body becomes depressed, and without the stimulation of others, you may become temporarily depressed as well. Cannabis does not have this effect, if you're not depressed before you smoke, you're most likely not going to be depressed after you smoke.
As for undesirable physiological effects of cannabis compared to that of tobacco (and especially frequent usage of cigarettes), cannabis has several things going for it.
Firstly, as you said, the frequency is lower, and while you say you know one or two counter-examples, that's hardly indicative of any norm. I don't know anyone who smokes the equivalent of 20 (1 pack of cigs) or 40 (2 packs) marijuana cigarettes a day, not to mention 20 or 40 a day for years on end, which happens a lot with nicotine addiction.
Secondly, almost all tobacco easily available in the United States contains radioactive particles (see http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_hea lth2.shtml, and it's not difficult to independently verify this by going step by step). Tobacco crops in the United States are required by law to be fertilized with phosphates that happen to be rich in the radioactive element radium-226, which decays into two long-living radioactive elements, lead-210 and polonium-210, which stay throughout your body and especially the lungs for decades, causing lesions, and anyway messing up your cells. Quote from abovementioned article: "According to U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop (on national television, 1990) radioactivity, not tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking related lung cancer."
Thirdly, THC (and other active ingredients?) in marijuana relax your lungs (such as the alveoli), which allows harmful material to be more readily expurgated, as by coughing or simply breathing, whereas nicotine constricts your lungs, keeping harmful material in them. Nicotine and related chemicals (such as nornicotine) also has all sorts of negative effects on the body, such as contributing to the growth of cancerous cells.
Cigarettes specifically also contain many other chemicals (various carcinogens, arsenic, possibly addictive substances additional to nicotine) not present in other tobacco products or in the tobacco leaf itself.
Smoking marijuana heavily certainly can increase coughing (production of phlegm, etc.) and the frequency of lung and throat infections, and may reduce lung capacity, but these are not life-threatening and would generally only be an annoyance. These are also not real problems for infrequent or light smokers.
How would you know it's not like drugs if you've never used a hallucinogen in your life (let alone trying all of the hallucinogens. It's certainly seems like certain aspects of synaesthesia are similar to the effects of some hallucinogens, and it's certainly reasonable that this would be possible. And of course, if you had used many hallucinogens, you could possibly say, "it's like LSD", or "it's like shrooms and LSD together", etc.
Then it's not really a depressant, as you said it's just an amplifier or whatnot. And it's certainly not more of a "depressant" than alcohol, which actually is a depressant, both physically and mentally.
As for the lungs, there are alternate means of use (oral consumption, vaporization) that make the lung issue moot. Nevertheless, smoked cannabis is far better for you than smoked tobacco for several reasons (THC vs. nicotine, radioactive content, frequency of use, etc.).
No, the parent is referring to the fact that any supposed damage incurred by copyright infringement necessitates that the infringer would have purchased the software or music (thus paying the copyright owner, etc.) if he had not downloaded it freely from the Internet. If the infringer would not have purchased the work even if he could not obtain it freely, then there is no "lost profit" on behalf of the copyright owner. It's still against the law, but the copyright owner isn't "losing" their profit. The presence of a software installation or a music file does not mean that the software company or recording company "lost" any money, just as traffic data and the fact that the site was blocked does not necessitate that the site owner "lost" any money.
The computer may be able to determine how it's betting strategy has worked against the other player's betting strategy in the past, but it does not work so well if the player changes his betting strategy, and it would probably work very badly if the computer was able to tune itself greatly, because the human player could goad to taylor itself to one particular (possibly extreme) style of betting, and then change his betting strategy to one which the computer is not prepared at all. There are many ways in which a human player could change his strategy to take advantage of the computer. Poker requires flexibility, both in order to play against different players, and to play against an individual players playing style. In fact, disregarding the above, the computer might be at a distinct disadvantage (at least compared to other players), if as you propose it does not read physiological changes in emotional response.
Keep in mind that on the "World Poker Tour" on the Travel Channel, only the most interesting and pivotal hands of the tournament are shown, so you might not get a complete picture of how the game is played in "all" possible contingencies, and you miss most of the hands where everyone folds (after all, depending on the number of players at the table, a solid player might fold 8 or 9 out of 10 hands). Not to mention, you don't see a single player overwhelmingly winning against a table of (weak) players, or a table destroying a single (weak) player, as what you're watching on the Travel Channel is the final table; it's the best players after several rounds of dozens (hundreds?) of players dropping out.
I'm not going to go into length about why poker, and especially hold'em is more of a game of skill than it is luck, but suffice it to say that many of the same people get to the final rounds of these tournaments, and it's can be very clear who's good and who's bad when playing at a table with players of differing skill level, which is to say that there is much more than random chance involved, and the outcome of skill in an individual is repeatable and, depending on the opponents, can give the skillful a significant advantage.
That's not even "not doing thing's the gambler's way", drawing that one card with four of a kind is an excellent move, and one any good poker player would make.
Apathetic votes don't necessarily vote in a "truly random fashion". Apathetic voters who do not look into issues might be particularly influenced by the candidates charisma, appearance, or any feature that a more discerning voter might see through to the candidates true (possibly undesirable) positions.
I know, Boston's hilariously great isn't it ;)
Ironically, tobacco smoke is full of radiation that gets into your lungs.
Well, if it makes sense for Debian because it wouldn't be good to have a DPL who isn't liked by a large part of the developers, then it would be good for any voting system for any purpose, as it would minimize outcomes where a large part of the voting population doesn't like the elected person or option.
Where are the ISOs though?
huh?
There have been several studies on neurological and cognitive effects of marijuana usage. There have been few credible studies that demonstrate harmful neurological effects of marijuana. In fact, several studies show that marijuana may be neuroprotective and anti-oxidative, and useful for treatment of several neurological disorders. Credible studies that do indicate that marijuana may have neurotoxic properties focus on administering marijuana to rats for extended periods of time (according to one review, 10% of their life) and the results of these studies are not reproduced when conducted on animals more related to us, such as monkeys.
As for cognitive effects (on IQ, memory, etc. rather than neurological effects such as changes in brain metabolism and neuronal changes), studies usually indicate that, in the long-term (10 years of abstinence for instance), marijuana has no negative effect on cognition when consumed lightly, moderately, or heavily. In the shorter term (a month of abstinence for instance), light or moderate consumption of marijuana has not proven to have negative cognitive effects. However, there has been shown to be decreases in cognitive performance after a month for heavy users of marijuana. However, in most of these studies, heavy is defined as the equivalent of more than 20 or 30 joints in one week, which far exceeds the amount usually consumed by most users and is very rare in extended periods of time.
My above comments are from memory of studies I have read in the past, but I went over to pubmed to have some URLs to post of such studies. I grew tired of this, however, but here are a few abstracts of studies and reviews.
Review of literature on neurotoxicity:= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1666926&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
Neuroprotective and anti-oxidative qualities:= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12054093&dopt=Abstrac t
= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11157423&dopt=Abstrac t
= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9653176&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
Long-term cognitive: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11949984&dopt=Abstrac t