Disclaimer: I use Nvidia and have since the TNT2 was out. I'm not a fanboy though.
I have never held a grudge against ATI but these driver issues have been a problem for them for a VERY long time. I remember buying my first TNT2 card and back then, the competing product from ATI (can't remember what it was) was riddled with driver problems. So I avoided ATI like the plague and went with Nvidia. Wash, rinse and repeat for each iteration of cards...
It's very interesting to me that here we are - 10 years later - and the EXACT same issues keep cropping up with ATI drivers.
Save yourself some time and hassel and just buy Nvidia. In my 10 years of using their cards, I have had very few problems. I am not shilling or anything -- I am just astounded that ATI's poor QA is still an issue. You'd think they would have acted by now.
And please -- I am open to refutation. Please post if I am incorrect but judging from the thread here and elsewhere, I am not.
I just really hate easy to fix user interface issues with a passion.
Amen to that, brother. They are the bain of my existence.
I LOL about your serial port comment because we deal with that ALL the time. We have to use HART modems (protocol for communicating with PLC's and instruments) and I have bought more than a few laptops that I later found out didn't have serial ports. Yea, I should have checked but jeez.....isn't serial still widely used? Apparently not. haha
...because bleach is already banned from flights. It has been for some time. Not sure about Ammonia though. I would guess anhydrous ammonia is a no-no simply because it can kill you even without the bleach.
Agreed. In an ideal world, everything gets fixed that SHOULD be fixed. And nothing is impossible to fix. But fixes cost time and money and my choice is not quite as clear cut as you make it out to be. Believe me, if I thought I could push and make this software "perfect", then we would be pushing for that. Hell, I would LOVE to have an SEI/CMM level 5 operation. But there are only a few operations that can spend the money to acheive that level of quality -- NASA and Motorola being two of them that I know. I am certain that the software vendor we are using is not that tight.
And you don't have to pay for the poor implementation -- I do. You see, I don't design or implement software for a living. I used to. But those days are behind me and now I have a business to run that is dependent on other people's software. When you get your business up and running on a vendor's software and that software doesn't do exactly what you want it to do, then you have two choices:
a) Switch (with HUGE costs in both IT, training, business operations, etc)
b) Deal with it as best you can and hope that you can get it fixed at some point (and it IS a negotiation with the vendor).
The point of my previous post was that it's very easy to say "well, if your vendor isn't doing things right, then switch or push harder" -- but the reality is far different. Just look at any SAP implementation and you will see what I am talking about. The IT world is riddled with failed implementations. Some are due to technology. Many more are due to poor requirements, poor training, poor documentaiton, and an overall poor understanding of what it was supposed to do.
In sum, you have to pick your battles. And the caps-lock key is NOT a battle I am going to pick with my vendors. There are other, larger issues to worry about.
You said it yourself that you can re-map the caps-lock. So just go do that. And let the rest of us keep using the caps-lock since it's been there, well, since we started using keyboards.
(note: We certainly agree on detesting badly written software but my comments were more about -- what do you do when you already HAVE badly written software)
Your question, Okay... If the task requires a field to be in all caps why didn't the programmer just convert what every was entered in that field in all caps??? is a very legitimate question.
Now, let me give you a legitimate answer.
We would have loved to do that. But due to time, resources, and budget, this feature is NOT IN THE SOFTWARE.
You now have 3 choices:
a) don't use the software
b) use the software as-is (ie: use the caps lock key)
c) Spend $xxxx, that you don't have, to implement this feature and convince your software vendor to actually do it.
This is the difference between the real world and the theoretical world. In theory, we'd all love to have perfectly engineered software. In the real world, that very rarely, if ever, happens. And sorry to pick on you....its just that your post summed up a pet-peeve of mine. Sometimes it's not possible nor cost-effective to fix these things. So we deal with them the best way we can.
Yes, I am sure that stat is right. But there is one fundamental difference here: The alien believers of the world aren't passing laws equating their alien-beliefs with non-believers.
The same can not be said for evolution. Just look at what Kansas did. That's why it's on/. so much, and rightly so.
There it is. Right there in black and white. Here is one of the core issues that continues to be a problem for many of us railing against Boards not doing their jobs and holding executives accountable. Bad numbers. Poor operations. FANTASTIC pay package for the CxO's and directors. We all know it goes on. We have all seen it. And yet, nobody ever admits to it.
Quote: "He said "I'm just tired of being a CFO," and he's as pure as the driven snow. He said, "I'm tired of going to conferences and speaking with investors and always feeling like I'm guilty of something." He said all the fun was gone. So I put him on the board. He used to work for me. Now I work for him."
Cronyism at it's finest. Fan-f'ing-tastic. I just can't believe he put it on paper. How can anyone seriously read this and think that the board is doing it's job here?
Is this a serious question? Not only does the difference between strike price and grant price come from company profits but the options also increase the number of shares outstanding -- which further dilutes the profits per share. The SEC has addressed the disclosure of options but yet, companies still dole them out left and right. At the expense of the OTHER shareholders (ie: you and me)
I am astounded that this 'executive' asks such a stupid question. And yes, it is a STUPID question for anyone who has taken more than 1 finance class. Methinks there is more to this story than his 'innocent' question.
...When I have kids, I'm enrolling them in a martial arts class...
Pu-leeeze. Where I went to high school, saying you had martial arts training was the surest way to get your ass kicked. It's not that people hate martial arts. It's just that mentioning it sort-of challenges others to "test" you. And we did. I can safely say that 99.9% of the martial-arts people I saw fight, lost. And usually lost badly. Don't forget you are going up against other people who "street fight" and don't fight to choreographed moves. It is my belief that martial arts unfairly makes people believe they are better fighters than they really are**.
From reading the posts, I'd say I was on the other side of things. I never got picked on much but I picked on a few people and I regret doing so. But, the GP was dead-on.....fighting back is really the only way to get out of it. Even if you only get in one good punch (make it count!). Almost always, a mutual respect will be earned and you will at least get them off YOUR back.
But martial arts is not the way to do this. Perhaps consider boxing or wrestling instead.
(**note: I realize there are SOME martial artists that are bad-asses. But the vast vast majority of high-schoolers are not in this category and unless you are, martial-arts won't help you.)
Growing weed is a lot more work, it needs light and you need to take care of the water levels all the time
Nonsense. Marijuana grows ALL OVER THE US. It grows in the wild very very easily. The tipoff is in the nickname: weed.
Weeds grow well in adverse conditions. And marijuana is NO exception. In fact, in certain parts of the US, it literally grows on the roads. In fact, I hunt in SW Kansas every year and one of the popular Dove spots is right in the middle of a giant marijuana patch. And there are many of them all along the countryside.
No, growing marijuana is not hard. What's hard is the US Government's job of exterminating all of these plants. That is MUCH harder than growing it and it puts the US Govt in the "exterminator/lawn care" business - which is futile. Case in point: In SW Kansas, they hire private pilots in Cessnas's to check the pipelines that run all over. The DEA has also requested the pilots report any "cultivated" MJ patches and they get money for reporting them.
If you think I am kidding, just drive down I-70 in West Kansas. Pick any road and go North or South about 3-5 miles. If you don't see MJ growing on the side of the road (or near fences), I will be very very surprised. It really is that common and is easily seen/identified.
(sidenote: I have not smoked the MJ that is out there but I suspect it is more of the hemp variety than the kind that gets you high)
So, I suppose the 56" HDTV I bought (which, nobody aside from myself has seen) is just for 'impressions'? And the hours I spent setting up Meedio was just so I can show off? I think not.
While I understand the point you are trying to make, I don't think your sweeping generalization is accurate.
People buy HDTV's because they DO look better. In addition to that, they are - for the most part - flat and don't take up as much space as previous generations of TV's.
Those two things account for FAR more of the market than "impressing people". Adding an HTPC to an HDTV is trivial even for the newbies. In fact, most HDTV's coming out have a VGA-in connection and if they don't have that, they certainly have a DVI-in. So it seems like a natural conclusion (to me, at least) that I should be able to view my downloaded content on my HDTV via my HTPC. And I am not alone judging by the interest in iPod videos and movies...
That is the draw of the HTPC. Watching downloaded content on your 56" HDTV instead of your 19" LCD monitor in the office.
And the first one to make that seemless, easy, and relatively inexpensive is going to win. Right now, we are nowhere close to that for a variety of reasons: DRM, crappy software (Media Center), pricing, etc so it seems natural that the HTPC is not-yet-ready-for-primetime.
When the content is there, you will see HTPC's taking off.
So, I get to/. and I start to scan the articles. The usual stuff...12 dupes and a few new stories. I get to one called Cell Phone Reception Hack
Cool. I'll check that one out.
I pull up the list of comments and I click on the link to the article. I read the article from start to finish and having consumed the literary words on the page, let me be the first to post...
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Read my lips: Antenna != hack
This is in no way, shape, or form a hack. It is a guy building an antenna. It's only been done by thousands of other ppl over the last 50 years. But yea, let's run the story anyway and call it a 'hack'.
Why is collin farrel [sp?] playing american hero cops? He's FUCKING IRISH!!!!
I hear what you are saying....but you picked a bad example to pile onto.
You do know that the Irish have a stereotype of being police, right? Especially in New York. There are tons and tons of Irish cops. Same for Boston. Same for Chicago. Hell, they even made a big deal out of it in the movie "The Untouchables"...
So, I am down with the spirit of your post, but Colin playing cops is not a big deal.
This has been done before, hasn't it? I distinctly remember a company who offered a free computer and dial-up ISP in exchange for "targeted advertising". I can't recall the company name but it failed miserably.
I remember seeing screen shots of the system and a good 1/3 of the screen was ads -- all the time.
So, yea...ok, let them apply for this patent. I don't care if they apply for it. But I will raise bloody hell if it's granted because there is CLEARLY prior-art for this. And not just in the computer world either.
The article very clearly states that he allegedly used Bittorrent. So...he WAS uploading.
I notice this because I have watched "the scene" for going on 20 years and I have yet to ever see a single case of ANYONE being prosecuted for only downloading. In 100% of the cases, the defendant is accused of distributing copyrighted materials. And distributing = upload. You aren't distributing if you are downloading only. And the (legal) distinction is very very important.
Yes, that is possible. Anything is *possible* and is only limited by your imagination. But, there is currently no evidence to support what you say. You see, science (in this world) relies on evidence. And if there is none - as in, zero - evidence for something, then we say "it probably doesn't exist or work that way". We don't go construct some complex process by which is CAN exist -- we go look and see if it really does exist.
If "proof" only requires that I can imagine something is happening, then science is doomed. Thankfully, science generally goes by the statement, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". And with respect to telepathy, we have ZERO evidence that it exists. We don't have direct evidence. We don't have indirect evidence. We have zero evidence. That hardly suffices for "extraoridnary evidence".
Let me repeat that because it is important: right now, we have ZERO evidence that telepathy is a real, occuring phenomena.
You can construct whatever story you want to about why we aren't seeing the evidence and you can say we are arrogant all you want -- but until we see some evidence, telepathy, like all pseudo-sciences will be nothing more than a misplaced public fascination like UFO's, ESP, etc. Great for science fiction and story telling. Terrible for predicting and explaing the real world around us.
If it existed, had a physical channel, and spent energy - we would see it. Or at least some artifacts of "it".
It's like the flatlander story and what it would be like to see a sphere. (forget the rest, just look at that part) While we may not be able to understand what is going on (3D sphere being inserted into flatland), we most certainly see elements of SOMETHING going on (changing diameter circle appearing out of nowhere). Like the flatlander example of a changing diameter circle just appearing out of nowhere -- if telepathy really exists, then we would see some derivative of it show up in a meaningful pattern of somekind in this world.
Right now, we see none of the above when it comes to telepathy.
I wondered the same thing. As well as the implications on drug users. I know LOTS of ppl who smoke pot on a regular basis but never got into the "heavier" drugs. Not that they didn't experiment a bit. They prolly did. But in the end, they pretty much stopped at pot. I also know lots of ppl who went from pot to shrooms to LSD to coke to meth to heroin, etc. And most of those ppl are fairly fucked up now and what you would certainly call "addicted".
I wonder if this is in any way correlated to the pot-is-a-gateway drug argument? Some folks can drink/smoke pot all they want and be just fine. Others go on to seek bigger and better highs and wind up bouncing from drug to drug trying to find it.
(sidenote: I also know many more people that don't do any drugs)
Slashdot Mirror
Just don't know what to think sometimes.
I can help you with that one. Think: military industrial complex. It's not like this is something new. We were warned about it way back in the 50's...
Disclaimer: I use Nvidia and have since the TNT2 was out. I'm not a fanboy though.
I have never held a grudge against ATI but these driver issues have been a problem for them for a VERY long time. I remember buying my first TNT2 card and back then, the competing product from ATI (can't remember what it was) was riddled with driver problems. So I avoided ATI like the plague and went with Nvidia. Wash, rinse and repeat for each iteration of cards...
It's very interesting to me that here we are - 10 years later - and the EXACT same issues keep cropping up with ATI drivers.
Save yourself some time and hassel and just buy Nvidia. In my 10 years of using their cards, I have had very few problems. I am not shilling or anything -- I am just astounded that ATI's poor QA is still an issue. You'd think they would have acted by now.
And please -- I am open to refutation. Please post if I am incorrect but judging from the thread here and elsewhere, I am not.
I just really hate easy to fix user interface issues with a passion.
Amen to that, brother. They are the bain of my existence.
I LOL about your serial port comment because we deal with that ALL the time. We have to use HART modems (protocol for communicating with PLC's and instruments) and I have bought more than a few laptops that I later found out didn't have serial ports. Yea, I should have checked but jeez.....isn't serial still widely used? Apparently not. haha
...because bleach is already banned from flights. It has been for some time. Not sure about Ammonia though. I would guess anhydrous ammonia is a no-no simply because it can kill you even without the bleach.
Agreed. In an ideal world, everything gets fixed that SHOULD be fixed. And nothing is impossible to fix. But fixes cost time and money and my choice is not quite as clear cut as you make it out to be. Believe me, if I thought I could push and make this software "perfect", then we would be pushing for that. Hell, I would LOVE to have an SEI/CMM level 5 operation. But there are only a few operations that can spend the money to acheive that level of quality -- NASA and Motorola being two of them that I know. I am certain that the software vendor we are using is not that tight.
And you don't have to pay for the poor implementation -- I do. You see, I don't design or implement software for a living. I used to. But those days are behind me and now I have a business to run that is dependent on other people's software. When you get your business up and running on a vendor's software and that software doesn't do exactly what you want it to do, then you have two choices:
a) Switch (with HUGE costs in both IT, training, business operations, etc)
b) Deal with it as best you can and hope that you can get it fixed at some point (and it IS a negotiation with the vendor).
The point of my previous post was that it's very easy to say "well, if your vendor isn't doing things right, then switch or push harder" -- but the reality is far different. Just look at any SAP implementation and you will see what I am talking about. The IT world is riddled with failed implementations. Some are due to technology. Many more are due to poor requirements, poor training, poor documentaiton, and an overall poor understanding of what it was supposed to do.
In sum, you have to pick your battles. And the caps-lock key is NOT a battle I am going to pick with my vendors. There are other, larger issues to worry about.
You said it yourself that you can re-map the caps-lock. So just go do that. And let the rest of us keep using the caps-lock since it's been there, well, since we started using keyboards.
(note: We certainly agree on detesting badly written software but my comments were more about -- what do you do when you already HAVE badly written software)
Your question, Okay... If the task requires a field to be in all caps why didn't the programmer just convert what every was entered in that field in all caps??? is a very legitimate question.
Now, let me give you a legitimate answer.
We would have loved to do that. But due to time, resources, and budget, this feature is NOT IN THE SOFTWARE.
You now have 3 choices:
a) don't use the software
b) use the software as-is (ie: use the caps lock key)
c) Spend $xxxx, that you don't have, to implement this feature and convince your software vendor to actually do it.
This is the difference between the real world and the theoretical world. In theory, we'd all love to have perfectly engineered software. In the real world, that very rarely, if ever, happens. And sorry to pick on you....its just that your post summed up a pet-peeve of mine. Sometimes it's not possible nor cost-effective to fix these things. So we deal with them the best way we can.
Yes, I am sure that stat is right. But there is one fundamental difference here: The alien believers of the world aren't passing laws equating their alien-beliefs with non-believers.
/. so much, and rightly so.
The same can not be said for evolution. Just look at what Kansas did. That's why it's on
There it is. Right there in black and white. Here is one of the core issues that continues to be a problem for many of us railing against Boards not doing their jobs and holding executives accountable. Bad numbers. Poor operations. FANTASTIC pay package for the CxO's and directors. We all know it goes on. We have all seen it. And yet, nobody ever admits to it.
Quote: "He said "I'm just tired of being a CFO," and he's as pure as the driven snow. He said, "I'm tired of going to conferences and speaking with investors and always feeling like I'm guilty of something." He said all the fun was gone. So I put him on the board. He used to work for me. Now I work for him."
Cronyism at it's finest. Fan-f'ing-tastic. I just can't believe he put it on paper. How can anyone seriously read this and think that the board is doing it's job here?
But I don't know who the injured party is here
Is this a serious question? Not only does the difference between strike price and grant price come from company profits but the options also increase the number of shares outstanding -- which further dilutes the profits per share. The SEC has addressed the disclosure of options but yet, companies still dole them out left and right. At the expense of the OTHER shareholders (ie: you and me)
I am astounded that this 'executive' asks such a stupid question. And yes, it is a STUPID question for anyone who has taken more than 1 finance class. Methinks there is more to this story than his 'innocent' question.
...When I have kids, I'm enrolling them in a martial arts class...
Pu-leeeze. Where I went to high school, saying you had martial arts training was the surest way to get your ass kicked. It's not that people hate martial arts. It's just that mentioning it sort-of challenges others to "test" you. And we did. I can safely say that 99.9% of the martial-arts people I saw fight, lost. And usually lost badly. Don't forget you are going up against other people who "street fight" and don't fight to choreographed moves. It is my belief that martial arts unfairly makes people believe they are better fighters than they really are**.
From reading the posts, I'd say I was on the other side of things. I never got picked on much but I picked on a few people and I regret doing so. But, the GP was dead-on.....fighting back is really the only way to get out of it. Even if you only get in one good punch (make it count!). Almost always, a mutual respect will be earned and you will at least get them off YOUR back.
But martial arts is not the way to do this. Perhaps consider boxing or wrestling instead.
(**note: I realize there are SOME martial artists that are bad-asses. But the vast vast majority of high-schoolers are not in this category and unless you are, martial-arts won't help you.)
Growing weed is a lot more work, it needs light and you need to take care of the water levels all the time
Nonsense. Marijuana grows ALL OVER THE US. It grows in the wild very very easily. The tipoff is in the nickname: weed.
Weeds grow well in adverse conditions. And marijuana is NO exception. In fact, in certain parts of the US, it literally grows on the roads. In fact, I hunt in SW Kansas every year and one of the popular Dove spots is right in the middle of a giant marijuana patch. And there are many of them all along the countryside.
No, growing marijuana is not hard. What's hard is the US Government's job of exterminating all of these plants. That is MUCH harder than growing it and it puts the US Govt in the "exterminator/lawn care" business - which is futile. Case in point: In SW Kansas, they hire private pilots in Cessnas's to check the pipelines that run all over. The DEA has also requested the pilots report any "cultivated" MJ patches and they get money for reporting them.
If you think I am kidding, just drive down I-70 in West Kansas. Pick any road and go North or South about 3-5 miles. If you don't see MJ growing on the side of the road (or near fences), I will be very very surprised. It really is that common and is easily seen/identified.
(sidenote: I have not smoked the MJ that is out there but I suspect it is more of the hemp variety than the kind that gets you high)
So, I suppose the 56" HDTV I bought (which, nobody aside from myself has seen) is just for 'impressions'? And the hours I spent setting up Meedio was just so I can show off? I think not.
While I understand the point you are trying to make, I don't think your sweeping generalization is accurate.
People buy HDTV's because they DO look better. In addition to that, they are - for the most part - flat and don't take up as much space as previous generations of TV's.
Those two things account for FAR more of the market than "impressing people". Adding an HTPC to an HDTV is trivial even for the newbies. In fact, most HDTV's coming out have a VGA-in connection and if they don't have that, they certainly have a DVI-in. So it seems like a natural conclusion (to me, at least) that I should be able to view my downloaded content on my HDTV via my HTPC. And I am not alone judging by the interest in iPod videos and movies...
That is the draw of the HTPC. Watching downloaded content on your 56" HDTV instead of your 19" LCD monitor in the office.
And the first one to make that seemless, easy, and relatively inexpensive is going to win. Right now, we are nowhere close to that for a variety of reasons: DRM, crappy software (Media Center), pricing, etc so it seems natural that the HTPC is not-yet-ready-for-primetime.
When the content is there, you will see HTPC's taking off.
Thanks for the references you all. Greatly appreciated!!!!
Bah, by using developers and letting them in on the platform, you cede control. Who needs that?
Sincerely-
The UN
That's pretty serious. I mean that. If that's true, that's quite a weapon.
I did a quick Google search but I can't find anything even close. Do you have a source?
So, I get to /. and I start to scan the articles. The usual stuff...12 dupes and a few new stories. I get to one called Cell Phone Reception Hack
Cool. I'll check that one out.
I pull up the list of comments and I click on the link to the article. I read the article from start to finish and having consumed the literary words on the page, let me be the first to post...
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
Read my lips: Antenna != hack
This is in no way, shape, or form a hack. It is a guy building an antenna. It's only been done by thousands of other ppl over the last 50 years. But yea, let's run the story anyway and call it a 'hack'.
Well, it's not.
Why is collin farrel [sp?] playing american hero cops? He's FUCKING IRISH!!!!
I hear what you are saying....but you picked a bad example to pile onto.
You do know that the Irish have a stereotype of being police, right? Especially in New York. There are tons and tons of Irish cops. Same for Boston. Same for Chicago. Hell, they even made a big deal out of it in the movie "The Untouchables"...
So, I am down with the spirit of your post, but Colin playing cops is not a big deal.
This has been done before, hasn't it? I distinctly remember a company who offered a free computer and dial-up ISP in exchange for "targeted advertising". I can't recall the company name but it failed miserably.
I remember seeing screen shots of the system and a good 1/3 of the screen was ads -- all the time.
So, yea...ok, let them apply for this patent. I don't care if they apply for it. But I will raise bloody hell if it's granted because there is CLEARLY prior-art for this. And not just in the computer world either.
The article very clearly states that he allegedly used Bittorrent. So...he WAS uploading.
I notice this because I have watched "the scene" for going on 20 years and I have yet to ever see a single case of ANYONE being prosecuted for only downloading. In 100% of the cases, the defendant is accused of distributing copyrighted materials. And distributing = upload. You aren't distributing if you are downloading only. And the (legal) distinction is very very important.
Are you guys paying attention? There is a lesson to be learned here.
You are saying that this looks like a CRJ-700?
You lost me. Well, I mean - they both have wings, I guess. But I don't think the CRJ-700 can bend it's wings.
Go back and re-read the summary. Then add "...and he's a very rich man." at the end of it. Sounds kinda sweet, doesn't it.
Oh and also, because that's what he is.
Yes, that is possible. Anything is *possible* and is only limited by your imagination. But, there is currently no evidence to support what you say. You see, science (in this world) relies on evidence. And if there is none - as in, zero - evidence for something, then we say "it probably doesn't exist or work that way". We don't go construct some complex process by which is CAN exist -- we go look and see if it really does exist.
If "proof" only requires that I can imagine something is happening, then science is doomed. Thankfully, science generally goes by the statement, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". And with respect to telepathy, we have ZERO evidence that it exists. We don't have direct evidence. We don't have indirect evidence. We have zero evidence. That hardly suffices for "extraoridnary evidence".
Let me repeat that because it is important: right now, we have ZERO evidence that telepathy is a real, occuring phenomena.
You can construct whatever story you want to about why we aren't seeing the evidence and you can say we are arrogant all you want -- but until we see some evidence, telepathy, like all pseudo-sciences will be nothing more than a misplaced public fascination like UFO's, ESP, etc. Great for science fiction and story telling. Terrible for predicting and explaing the real world around us.
Have you seen the people? It makes sense once you do...
If it existed, had a physical channel, and spent energy - we would see it. Or at least some artifacts of "it".
It's like the flatlander story and what it would be like to see a sphere. (forget the rest, just look at that part) While we may not be able to understand what is going on (3D sphere being inserted into flatland), we most certainly see elements of SOMETHING going on (changing diameter circle appearing out of nowhere). Like the flatlander example of a changing diameter circle just appearing out of nowhere -- if telepathy really exists, then we would see some derivative of it show up in a meaningful pattern of somekind in this world.
Right now, we see none of the above when it comes to telepathy.
I wondered the same thing. As well as the implications on drug users. I know LOTS of ppl who smoke pot on a regular basis but never got into the "heavier" drugs. Not that they didn't experiment a bit. They prolly did. But in the end, they pretty much stopped at pot. I also know lots of ppl who went from pot to shrooms to LSD to coke to meth to heroin, etc. And most of those ppl are fairly fucked up now and what you would certainly call "addicted".
I wonder if this is in any way correlated to the pot-is-a-gateway drug argument? Some folks can drink/smoke pot all they want and be just fine. Others go on to seek bigger and better highs and wind up bouncing from drug to drug trying to find it.
(sidenote: I also know many more people that don't do any drugs)