What a wonderful thing, being able to come to one place and read all about wonderful microsoft...just wonderful!
Forewarned is forearmed, as they say. Still, at least we're not discussing Apple imploding into Steve Jobs' digestive system again, or gaining vital insight into which brand of deodorant* Linus Torvalds uses.
*Real Linux developers don't use deodorant, so that'd be silly.
Uncured tobacco is very potent -- the Indians who used it would often pass out after as little as one cigarette, and "communicate with the gods." This type of tobacco should be smoked with caution. The danger here is death from overdose rather than addiction. When used as a ritual narcotic it is not smoked often enough to result in addiction.
Wild tobacco is native to the southwestern United States, Mexico, and parts of South America. Its botanical name is Nicotiana rustica. [snip] "Nicotiana rustica" is the most potent strain of tobacco known to man it is commonly used for tobacco dust or pesticides.
Note that article quotes a nicotine content of 6.5% for Y1, while the entry for Nicotiana Rustica claims 9%; in other words, the wild variety contains more nicotine than the cultivar specifically bred for a high nicotine content by tobacco companies.
Nicotine is also a powerful psychochemical, which acts on the nervous system. In large doses it can be a hallucinogen. In smaller doses it affects the functioning of the nervous system in various ways, as well as affecting the circulatory and endocrine systems. These effects are considered pleasurable and desirable by tobacco users.
The hallucinogenic compound in wild tobacco is nicotine. It isn't addictive is because it simply isn't possible to smoke wild tobacco in the same quantities as the cured tobacco used in cigarettes without dying; or, looking at it the other way, cigarettes are addictive because they aren't strong enough to have a hallucinogenic effect, so you can chain smoke them and remain conscious.
It would be somewhat difficult for anyone to grow a significant amount of tobacco on their own, because even casual smokers smoke several cigarettes a day.
Quoth Wikipedia:
In the nineteenth century, bright tobacco began to be harvested by pulling individual leaves off the stalk as they ripened. The leaves ripen from the ground upwards, so a field of tobacco may go through several so-called "pullings," more commonly known as topping (topping always refers to the removal of the tobacco flower before the leaves are systematically removed and, eventually, entirely harvested.
Tobacco grows at rate roughly the same rate as spinach; a few plants could easily provide several leaves a day, and smoked through a bong or pipe that would be more enough. Who said tobacco can only be smoked as cigarettes?
It's easy for someone to grow significant amounts of cannabis on their own, because it takes so little to fill a bong, and casual smokers might just smoke one or two "bingers" on Saturday night.
I work in the entertainment business; I can name names who spark up a three paper spliff every half hour. Hell, when I was playing in bands and designing electronics for a living I used to smoke a quarter ounce a week. No way are those kind of quantities possible from home growing.
Seeds are, however, readily available.
But depending on where you live, growing tobacco may be illegal without a license.
To be honest, I wouldn't mind the idea of cannabis being taxed and regulated like tobacco. Too much isn't good for physical health, and I've seen more than a few people lose the plot after smoking hydro skunk heads like backyard leaf, so I figure if people are going to smoke it anyway we should take every step to minimise the harm (and that includes decriminalising/legalising it). Not that I'm biased...
Closing Guantanamo Bay is fixing a symptom in that there are as yet no plans to codify the practices of the intelligence, military and executive to prevent these kinds of systemic human rights abuses happening again, or at least make it obvious when a future administration has that intent.
As for closing the "places where torture is allowed to happen", Bush did exactly that with Abu Grahib once irrefutable evidence was made public, but it didn't affect the policy. Obama may indeed be as good as his word, but that doesn't mean we should now sit back and say everything is just peachy.
Have the B-2 and F-117 accomplished anything that couldn't have been done far more cheaply with cruise missiles, or at lower risk to air crews than with unmanned drones? That is, of course, a hypothetical question that can really only be answered by a knowledgable military analyst; what I do know is that having been built, those aircraft had to be deployed if only to avoid accusations of being a colossal waste of money.
And frankly, if you lump all black ops under the same category, then you are in more dire need of life lessons than me.
I'd say that's to an populist start that avoids many awkward questions; it's fixing a symptom, not the disease.
Of course, I'd be delighted to be proven wrong; maybe he is Hercules re-routing the Alpheus through the Augean stable of US politics. But like the fable, the old cattle will still be there afterwards, filling the place with BS again...
You kids were born too late to remember McCarthy, and Hoover's FBI, apparently.
That's why it is news. Sadly, every generation seems to need to learn first hand that the government that says "trust us and don't ask questions" can't be trusted and should be questioned.
Well, yes, the basic principle is obvious, but as with most seemingly obvious studies like this the point is to quantify the effects. It's all very well and good saying "this substance does X", but since people tend to be rather bad at self-monitoring the effect of substances that are harmless below a certain threshold (particularly psychoactives), knowing how much can induce adverse effect is important.
Put it this way: you wouldn't make a decision about buying a processor solely on the glib description "faster". "Lots of coffee" is equally uninformative.
That doesn't quite solve the problem, since you still have to answer the door to accept the delivery*. Unless you have an outhouse, which I understand are fairly rare in apartment buildings, and there could be a delay for suburban or rural deliveries.
BTW, I'd be very wary ordering from Amazon. Some of those ads say "new or used", and recession or not I think that's taking economising one step too far. I just pity the poor bastards who have to put the paper back on the rolls...
*The whole scenario assumes there's nobody around to assist, of course.
Not just handy, you could download party political statements, marketing hype, photos of celebrities, etcetera, and make some very satisfying commentary, which you could then dispose of so it would never be seen again.
After all, all you need to do to make a battery removeable is install some contacts (which would have to exist in some form or another anyways) and a latch mechanism (which could be just a simple screw).
A laptop battery is made up of smaller individual cells, which (if the ones I've taken apart are any guide) are usually off-the-shelf cylindrical types, one of the worst shapes for efficient packing. There's also the on-board monitor circuitry, and if the terminals are going to be even close to sturdy enough to survive being thrown in a bag unprotected without breaking or shorting at the first opportunity they need some kind of housing, which is wasted space inside the computer when in use. Even the plastic case itself has a volume greater than zero, which has to be taken into account.
A removable battery also means that you have to design the computer's internals so nothing extends into the area reserved for the battery, or looking at it from the other perspective, you can't shoehorn cells into any spare space because they have to be removable as a single, self-contained module. That can mean wasted space, depending on the size and shape of other components.
Frankly, 40% sounds a little high to me, but there would definitely be space savings with a built-in battery. That doesn't necessarily make it a good idea, though.
Slashdot Mirror
What a wonderful thing, being able to come to one place and read all about wonderful microsoft...just wonderful!
Forewarned is forearmed, as they say. Still, at least we're not discussing Apple imploding into Steve Jobs' digestive system again, or gaining vital insight into which brand of deodorant* Linus Torvalds uses.
*Real Linux developers don't use deodorant, so that'd be silly.
Maybe you were just trying to be funny, in which case, you failed.
Spot on, so there's no need to be an arsehole.
They can't. Pot is classified as a performance enhancing substance...which just shows how backwards the world of sport is.
wild tobacco is almost hallucinogenic and non-addictive whereas commercial tobacco is just addictive because of its extreme nicotene content.
Sorry, but that's simply incorrect. From "Growing the Hallucinogens":
And Wikipedia's entry on wild tobacco:
Note that article quotes a nicotine content of 6.5% for Y1, while the entry for Nicotiana Rustica claims 9%; in other words, the wild variety contains more nicotine than the cultivar specifically bred for a high nicotine content by tobacco companies.
Finally, New World Encyclopedia's entry on tobacco:
The hallucinogenic compound in wild tobacco is nicotine. It isn't addictive is because it simply isn't possible to smoke wild tobacco in the same quantities as the cured tobacco used in cigarettes without dying; or, looking at it the other way, cigarettes are addictive because they aren't strong enough to have a hallucinogenic effect, so you can chain smoke them and remain conscious.
It would be somewhat difficult for anyone to grow a significant amount of tobacco on their own, because even casual smokers smoke several cigarettes a day.
Quoth Wikipedia:
Tobacco grows at rate roughly the same rate as spinach; a few plants could easily provide several leaves a day, and smoked through a bong or pipe that would be more enough. Who said tobacco can only be smoked as cigarettes?
It's easy for someone to grow significant amounts of cannabis on their own, because it takes so little to fill a bong, and casual smokers might just smoke one or two "bingers" on Saturday night.
I work in the entertainment business; I can name names who spark up a three paper spliff every half hour. Hell, when I was playing in bands and designing electronics for a living I used to smoke a quarter ounce a week. No way are those kind of quantities possible from home growing.
Seeds are, however, readily available.
But depending on where you live, growing tobacco may be illegal without a license.
To be honest, I wouldn't mind the idea of cannabis being taxed and regulated like tobacco. Too much isn't good for physical health, and I've seen more than a few people lose the plot after smoking hydro skunk heads like backyard leaf, so I figure if people are going to smoke it anyway we should take every step to minimise the harm (and that includes decriminalising/legalising it). Not that I'm biased...
Technically speaking tobacco is a weed too, but they manage to tax that. Note that you don't find seeds in cigarettes.
Why are our tax dollars being paid to Wackenhut Corp to drive hundreds of empty buses around Tucson AZ in the dead of night?
Because driving at night saves fuel that would otherwise be used to run the air conditioning, obviously.
Closing Guantanamo Bay is fixing a symptom in that there are as yet no plans to codify the practices of the intelligence, military and executive to prevent these kinds of systemic human rights abuses happening again, or at least make it obvious when a future administration has that intent.
As for closing the "places where torture is allowed to happen", Bush did exactly that with Abu Grahib once irrefutable evidence was made public, but it didn't affect the policy. Obama may indeed be as good as his word, but that doesn't mean we should now sit back and say everything is just peachy.
Shouldn't there be a little more questioning of what he wants to do?
Absolutely. What it boils down to is that Obama is still a politician, and politicians lie when it's convenient. Anyone who forgets that is a fool.
Have the B-2 and F-117 accomplished anything that couldn't have been done far more cheaply with cruise missiles, or at lower risk to air crews than with unmanned drones? That is, of course, a hypothetical question that can really only be answered by a knowledgable military analyst; what I do know is that having been built, those aircraft had to be deployed if only to avoid accusations of being a colossal waste of money.
And frankly, if you lump all black ops under the same category, then you are in more dire need of life lessons than me.
I'd say that's to an populist start that avoids many awkward questions; it's fixing a symptom, not the disease.
Of course, I'd be delighted to be proven wrong; maybe he is Hercules re-routing the Alpheus through the Augean stable of US politics. But like the fable, the old cattle will still be there afterwards, filling the place with BS again...
You kids were born too late to remember McCarthy, and Hoover's FBI, apparently.
That's why it is news. Sadly, every generation seems to need to learn first hand that the government that says "trust us and don't ask questions" can't be trusted and should be questioned.
Which means they've proved its never too late to have a happy childhood.
You have to get the grunts interested in it somehow...
I'd rather make a lame joke than waste effort explaining why I didn't.
rolls over in his grave.
If that's because of DC, does it mean he's fitted with a brushless commutator?
..come to mind.
Well, yes, the basic principle is obvious, but as with most seemingly obvious studies like this the point is to quantify the effects. It's all very well and good saying "this substance does X", but since people tend to be rather bad at self-monitoring the effect of substances that are harmless below a certain threshold (particularly psychoactives), knowing how much can induce adverse effect is important.
Put it this way: you wouldn't make a decision about buying a processor solely on the glib description "faster". "Lots of coffee" is equally uninformative.
I'm pretty sure that's the previous head of the FCC. Or his hat, anyway.
That doesn't quite solve the problem, since you still have to answer the door to accept the delivery*. Unless you have an outhouse, which I understand are fairly rare in apartment buildings, and there could be a delay for suburban or rural deliveries.
BTW, I'd be very wary ordering from Amazon. Some of those ads say "new or used", and recession or not I think that's taking economising one step too far. I just pity the poor bastards who have to put the paper back on the rolls...
*The whole scenario assumes there's nobody around to assist, of course.
Perhaps were raided by the BSA for using unlicensed copies of Acrobat Distiller.
Hey, a man can dream...
...only less comfortable.
Beating the crap out isn't recommended; just a gentle wipe will suffice.
Not just handy, you could download party political statements, marketing hype, photos of celebrities, etcetera, and make some very satisfying commentary, which you could then dispose of so it would never be seen again.
Hmm, sounds a lot like blogging.
After all, all you need to do to make a battery removeable is install some contacts (which would have to exist in some form or another anyways) and a latch mechanism (which could be just a simple screw).
A laptop battery is made up of smaller individual cells, which (if the ones I've taken apart are any guide) are usually off-the-shelf cylindrical types, one of the worst shapes for efficient packing. There's also the on-board monitor circuitry, and if the terminals are going to be even close to sturdy enough to survive being thrown in a bag unprotected without breaking or shorting at the first opportunity they need some kind of housing, which is wasted space inside the computer when in use. Even the plastic case itself has a volume greater than zero, which has to be taken into account.
A removable battery also means that you have to design the computer's internals so nothing extends into the area reserved for the battery, or looking at it from the other perspective, you can't shoehorn cells into any spare space because they have to be removable as a single, self-contained module. That can mean wasted space, depending on the size and shape of other components.
Frankly, 40% sounds a little high to me, but there would definitely be space savings with a built-in battery. That doesn't necessarily make it a good idea, though.
....just use your iPhone while you're on the can to read it.
Sure, that's possible, but what good is an iPhone if you run out of toilet paper? 3G won't help you there.