Possibly alzheimers, yes. And despite your obnoxiously rude and dismissive attitude, I'll try to explain further.
The mind is the essence of who we are. People who have not gone through these experiences like to think that their personality, their very being is an innate feature of themselves, unchangeable.
It's not. Who you are is merely chemistry. Fuck around with that chemistry, and you become a different person. I've experienced that. Most doctors haven't.
People look at things simplistically, they focus on ONE aspect of the brain's function. Memory. Depression. Hand you a pill that they know raises the levels of mood-enhancing chemicals, and there's your depression cure. Anything that happens that's unrelated to your depression is simply labelled a "side-effect," and unless it seems to be immediately life-threatening, no further attention is paid to it.
But the person experiencing it can come to regret their choice. The immediate effects can be subtle, and the perception of the person can be altered so that they don't realize the change themselves, much the way stroke victims often don't realize the extent of their disability.
You can end up a wholly different person. And even if others around you don't make the connection, you may find some day years later that you've lost yourself as a person.
I don't expect most of you to understand that. But what I'm saying here is that when it comes to the brain, you may like the initial results, and that's all the docs will care about - your memory is better. For some people that will be fine. For others, they may find that with their newly refurbished memory comes severe depression, stress, or a change in personality that years down the road they find intolerable.
In my case, doctors tinkering with my brain caused personality changes that initially seemed exhilarating. It was only years later that I recognized that I was behaving like a sex-crazed manic depressive. The initial problems I had were minor and temporary compared with the results of their "cure."
Speaking as someone with crap memory as a result of a head injury, I wouldn't risk it. Yes, I have had severe amnesia. Ever see the movie Memento? I was like that, but fortunately most of the effects in my case were temporary, but I still have problems.
However, I also have PTSD, which is at least in part an overstimulation of the amygdala. And I've dealt with the unpleasant effects of psych meds which doctors hand out like candy without really seeming to understand their full effects.
When tinkering with the brain, unintended consequences can be severe, and nobody seems to really give a crap about those unintended consequences except for the person who has to deal with them.
Leave well enough alone is usually the best motto when it comes to the noggin, unless your life and disability is too intolerable so you're willing to take any chance.
Will these new, metered accounts be less expensive than their current standard charge, making this a good thing for the budget conscious, or more likely, will their current standard price become the lowest tier and unmetered will be a new higher cost tier, thereby making this simply news of a massive price hike?
"but theres nothing wrong with have a solid method of making sure people are who they say they are"
Really? Why? Why make the assumption that there's nothing wrong with that?
Suppose I am just going along with my life, breaking no laws, but for whatever reason - extreme like of privacy, paranoia, whatever, I DON'T want people to know who I am?
What if I want to call myself Joe Smith, and travel under that name, and not have anyone be able to know that it was actually me who went to Vegas, or who did whatever else.
I'm not against ID, but I'm sick of this black and white, either/or childish viewpoint.
Of COURSE there's something wrong with it. If you require everyone to have ID, then it restricts people's freedoms. There's also something wrong with NOT having ID - it makes it hard to catch drunk drivers, etc.
It does no one any good to pretend life is a case of absolutes. We have to make choices, choose the lessers of evils, make tough management decisions in our lives. It doesn't serve us well to ignore the negative aspects of a given choice even if we ultimately decide that choice is for the best.
"there's nothing wrong with" is a viewpoint emblematic of a mindset that doesn't have the ability to make those measured choices because it is rejecting through prejudice important data.
Its a lie. if you check Ihaveabigprick.com and its available, 2 days later Joe Schmoe from Poughkeepsie can come along and register it, provided he does it at NetSol. It will show up as unavailable elsewhere, but available at NetSol.
So, this does nothing to protect you from having your domain registered out from under you provided the other person uses NetSol. The only one it protects is NetSol from having you decide to register it elsewhere with a registrar who doesn't charge NetSol's ripoff price. It's a "feature" solely to benefit NetSol at the EXPENSE of everyone else. Slimy fuckers that they have always been.
I suppose you're for the prohibition of alcohol then? That has destroyed more lives than any other drug. Now, don't give that crap about Joe Sixpack being able to drink a beer while watching the game, that stuff leads to worse things. Don't tell me he can handle it.
Many things have the potential for abuse. Are you for the prohibition of all of them? If not, you're a hypocrite for suggesting that potential for abuse is enough to warrant illegalization of marijuana. If so, you're a fucking fascist.
You make an assumption about me with no information. You say I make you sick based on that false assumption. You say I will never convince you otherwise.
Well of course I won't - you're an enraged closed-minded asshole you bases your opinions not on fact but on your own angers, prejudices and fantasies and refuses to hear otherwise.
People complaining about how bad certain things are usually know nothing about them. Like anti-marijuana speakers talkign about having a bad pot "trip."
Back in the 80s I worked at a paper and The last Temptation of Christ came out to great controversy. A local church ran an ad telling people how horrible the movie was and not to go to it. Only thing is, they called it "The Temptation of Jesus."
Stupid fuckers hadn't even seen the movie. We ran the ad uncorrected.
Bob Parsons also did a blog post extolling the virtues of torture, and when called on it apparently edited the blog post to make it less offensive. I personally wouldn't trust a thing he said.
I was telling my sister and brother-in-law about how I was planning on doing a repair to my dad's fridge. They were almost outraged that I wasn't going to just replace it, kept cutting me off, wouldn't even let me speak "just buy a NEW one." Almost disgusted at me.
I personally see it as almost immoral, given the current state of things, to throw out a huge appliance that barely gets used anyway and buy a new one because it needs a simple fix.
The idea of repairing something almost offends them. I was staying at their house and their dishwasher quit, it was 2 years old but out of warranty. They were going to buy a new one and were bitching about it, I hired a guy to replace a faulty switch for $100 and my sister acted like it was a strange novelty. She had to hide the fact it had been repaired from her husband, he'd be pissed.
I have the same attitude as my dad, the sort of environmentalism of the depression era - waste not, want not. Simple as that. I don't keep garbage, but unlike my sister and brother-in-law I don't buy a new PC every six months rather than just keeping it clean of malware, putting in a new HD, memory, etc.
Part of that is because I have to live off of disability... but still, these people who are consumer droids buying a new cell phone for every kid in the household every six months... that's just fucked up.
Promotion is a good thing... but when Toyota wants promotion, they don't have to give the ad agencies 95% of their profits plus sign over all the patents.
Yes. I could argue the wrongness of practically perpetual copyright and how accepting THAT is immoral, etc... but I don't have to.
Hundreds of millions of people have the capability of getting a copy, without taking one from someone else, without spending a cent, without investing any materials, without incurring any risk. With less effort than wiping their ass. Asking them to pay for this nebulous thing they can have without cost to themselves or anyone else is essentially appealing to their sense of charity. Some will give, some won't. It has to be accepted because its inevitable.
You can hate the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. You can refuse to accept it. But its still going to happen without fail and there's not a damned thing you can do about it.
You're better off accepting it and enjoy the ride and save your sanity. Which appears to be what Radiohead has done, since they are ACCEPTING people offering NOTHING and still letting them download it.
...if a lot of people "pirated" it, as long as enough people pay for it. Since they are selling direct, one person who coughs up $5.00 is akin to probably 100 people buying an RIAA CD, as far as money in Radiohead's pocket goes. They could have TONS of unpaid for copies circulating, and still make more than selling CDs through the media cartel.
That's the risk they accept that comes with the job. We accept that cops take risks and can lose their lives protecting the innocent. It is NOT supposed to be the case that we have to accept the innocent being placed at risk and losing their lives to protect the cops.
"I say it's not enough. Do you have any idea the kind of computing resources individuals and companies alike have had to dedicate to spam filtering? How much is that costing the worldwide economy annually, or just the USA since this is where the crime "occurred"? How much productivity is lost yearly due to people having to delete these pestering messages from their inboxes? How much is lost when we're forced to tighten our filters and legitimate mail gets lost?"
As much as I hate spammers, I'm a little nervous about the "we have to imprison them, they cost us productivity" argument.
If it's going to be a crime to cause people inconvenience, we're going to have to start locking up a lot of people. If it's going to be a crime to cost corporations money, we're really fucked. Of course, if we were to make it a crime anytime PEOPLE are negatively impacted by the actions of others, then we'll have to ban corporations. Pollution, the negative effects of advertising, too much TV, additives in food, all of these things would have a negative measurable impact on people's well-being that would likely surpass that of spam.
We'll have to EXECUTE cigarette company CEOs. Not for killing people, but for the incredible productivity losses and medical expenses.
Slashdot Mirror
The mind is the essence of who we are. People who have not gone through these experiences like to think that their personality, their very being is an innate feature of themselves, unchangeable.
It's not. Who you are is merely chemistry. Fuck around with that chemistry, and you become a different person. I've experienced that. Most doctors haven't.
People look at things simplistically, they focus on ONE aspect of the brain's function. Memory. Depression. Hand you a pill that they know raises the levels of mood-enhancing chemicals, and there's your depression cure. Anything that happens that's unrelated to your depression is simply labelled a "side-effect," and unless it seems to be immediately life-threatening, no further attention is paid to it.
But the person experiencing it can come to regret their choice. The immediate effects can be subtle, and the perception of the person can be altered so that they don't realize the change themselves, much the way stroke victims often don't realize the extent of their disability.
You can end up a wholly different person. And even if others around you don't make the connection, you may find some day years later that you've lost yourself as a person.
I don't expect most of you to understand that. But what I'm saying here is that when it comes to the brain, you may like the initial results, and that's all the docs will care about - your memory is better. For some people that will be fine. For others, they may find that with their newly refurbished memory comes severe depression, stress, or a change in personality that years down the road they find intolerable.
In my case, doctors tinkering with my brain caused personality changes that initially seemed exhilarating. It was only years later that I recognized that I was behaving like a sex-crazed manic depressive. The initial problems I had were minor and temporary compared with the results of their "cure."
However, I also have PTSD, which is at least in part an overstimulation of the amygdala. And I've dealt with the unpleasant effects of psych meds which doctors hand out like candy without really seeming to understand their full effects.
When tinkering with the brain, unintended consequences can be severe, and nobody seems to really give a crap about those unintended consequences except for the person who has to deal with them.
Leave well enough alone is usually the best motto when it comes to the noggin, unless your life and disability is too intolerable so you're willing to take any chance.
They sure don;t seem to be trying too hard to find out who mailed the anthrax around... to mostly democrats. Gosh, I wonder why that is?
Will these new, metered accounts be less expensive than their current standard charge, making this a good thing for the budget conscious, or more likely, will their current standard price become the lowest tier and unmetered will be a new higher cost tier, thereby making this simply news of a massive price hike?
Really? Why? Why make the assumption that there's nothing wrong with that?
Suppose I am just going along with my life, breaking no laws, but for whatever reason - extreme like of privacy, paranoia, whatever, I DON'T want people to know who I am?
What if I want to call myself Joe Smith, and travel under that name, and not have anyone be able to know that it was actually me who went to Vegas, or who did whatever else.
I'm not against ID, but I'm sick of this black and white, either/or childish viewpoint.
Of COURSE there's something wrong with it. If you require everyone to have ID, then it restricts people's freedoms. There's also something wrong with NOT having ID - it makes it hard to catch drunk drivers, etc.
It does no one any good to pretend life is a case of absolutes. We have to make choices, choose the lessers of evils, make tough management decisions in our lives. It doesn't serve us well to ignore the negative aspects of a given choice even if we ultimately decide that choice is for the best.
"there's nothing wrong with" is a viewpoint emblematic of a mindset that doesn't have the ability to make those measured choices because it is rejecting through prejudice important data.
So, this does nothing to protect you from having your domain registered out from under you provided the other person uses NetSol. The only one it protects is NetSol from having you decide to register it elsewhere with a registrar who doesn't charge NetSol's ripoff price. It's a "feature" solely to benefit NetSol at the EXPENSE of everyone else. Slimy fuckers that they have always been.
Is it impossible to run a corporation these days without being a slimy dishonest fuck?
I suppose you're for the prohibition of alcohol then? That has destroyed more lives than any other drug. Now, don't give that crap about Joe Sixpack being able to drink a beer while watching the game, that stuff leads to worse things. Don't tell me he can handle it.
Many things have the potential for abuse. Are you for the prohibition of all of them? If not, you're a hypocrite for suggesting that potential for abuse is enough to warrant illegalization of marijuana. If so, you're a fucking fascist.
You make an assumption about me with no information. You say I make you sick based on that false assumption. You say I will never convince you otherwise.
Well of course I won't - you're an enraged closed-minded asshole you bases your opinions not on fact but on your own angers, prejudices and fantasies and refuses to hear otherwise.
Back in the 80s I worked at a paper and The last Temptation of Christ came out to great controversy. A local church ran an ad telling people how horrible the movie was and not to go to it. Only thing is, they called it "The Temptation of Jesus."
Stupid fuckers hadn't even seen the movie. We ran the ad uncorrected.
Bob Parsons also did a blog post extolling the virtues of torture, and when called on it apparently edited the blog post to make it less offensive. I personally wouldn't trust a thing he said.
...and I'll say it again. Quantum dots aren't going to be able to store information until we discover quantum dashes to go along with them.
I just created the new city of Fuckerton, USA.
I personally see it as almost immoral, given the current state of things, to throw out a huge appliance that barely gets used anyway and buy a new one because it needs a simple fix.
The idea of repairing something almost offends them. I was staying at their house and their dishwasher quit, it was 2 years old but out of warranty. They were going to buy a new one and were bitching about it, I hired a guy to replace a faulty switch for $100 and my sister acted like it was a strange novelty. She had to hide the fact it had been repaired from her husband, he'd be pissed.
I have the same attitude as my dad, the sort of environmentalism of the depression era - waste not, want not. Simple as that. I don't keep garbage, but unlike my sister and brother-in-law I don't buy a new PC every six months rather than just keeping it clean of malware, putting in a new HD, memory, etc.
Part of that is because I have to live off of disability... but still, these people who are consumer droids buying a new cell phone for every kid in the household every six months... that's just fucked up.
Promotion is a good thing... but when Toyota wants promotion, they don't have to give the ad agencies 95% of their profits plus sign over all the patents.
Thom Yorke of radiohead produced much of his recent solo album on his laptop while riding around in a bus.
We don't need more fuel efficient vehicles, we just need billions of gallons of sunscreen!
tigerdirect? Youve got to be kidding. They make bestbuy look like the most reputable dealer in comparison.
Paid $800 for a 60 MEG external hard drive for my Mac Plus. That's MEG, son.
there's either an atom there to etch away for the groove, or there ain't.
Hundreds of millions of people have the capability of getting a copy, without taking one from someone else, without spending a cent, without investing any materials, without incurring any risk. With less effort than wiping their ass. Asking them to pay for this nebulous thing they can have without cost to themselves or anyone else is essentially appealing to their sense of charity. Some will give, some won't. It has to be accepted because its inevitable.
You can hate the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. You can refuse to accept it. But its still going to happen without fail and there's not a damned thing you can do about it.
You're better off accepting it and enjoy the ride and save your sanity. Which appears to be what Radiohead has done, since they are ACCEPTING people offering NOTHING and still letting them download it.
...if a lot of people "pirated" it, as long as enough people pay for it. Since they are selling direct, one person who coughs up $5.00 is akin to probably 100 people buying an RIAA CD, as far as money in Radiohead's pocket goes. They could have TONS of unpaid for copies circulating, and still make more than selling CDs through the media cartel.
That's the risk they accept that comes with the job. We accept that cops take risks and can lose their lives protecting the innocent. It is NOT supposed to be the case that we have to accept the innocent being placed at risk and losing their lives to protect the cops.
,,,somebody invents electronic rocks and electronic scissors.
As much as I hate spammers, I'm a little nervous about the "we have to imprison them, they cost us productivity" argument.
If it's going to be a crime to cause people inconvenience, we're going to have to start locking up a lot of people. If it's going to be a crime to cost corporations money, we're really fucked. Of course, if we were to make it a crime anytime PEOPLE are negatively impacted by the actions of others, then we'll have to ban corporations. Pollution, the negative effects of advertising, too much TV, additives in food, all of these things would have a negative measurable impact on people's well-being that would likely surpass that of spam.
We'll have to EXECUTE cigarette company CEOs. Not for killing people, but for the incredible productivity losses and medical expenses.
does "as solid as steel" mean?