Yes, and mostly it was out of curiosity and trying to understand what all the fuss is about on the whole war on drugs thing. But I won't lie, I did get an appreciation for certain substances, and I have done stuff I won't touch again, because it doesn't suit me. I really don't know what to make of addiction. I have been doing a little studing of Dr. Thomas Szasz, and I think I agree with him. I still feel I'm more addicted to coca-cola than any other drug I have tried, but at least it is legal (for now).
Oh, And I'm really not trying to be argumentitive, I am just saying that I have seen the opposite, i.e. responsible persons who do drugs. I'm sure there are doctors and pharmacists (and cops) who are addicts and still manage to do their jobs properly, go home and raise their families. There are good people in the world, some of them are considered addicts. There are bad people in the world, some of them are considered addicts. Both groups consume illegal drugs.
There are always "hardcore [insert drug here] addicts". They will be unproductive. Some of the unproductive people will not be on drugs.
I'm not lying to you here: I have tried ^H^H^H^H^H used, cocaine, heroin, oxycontin, meth, benzos, painkillers, etc. Sometimes I have been my most motivated after shooting 20 to 40mg of oxycontin. Believe me, I'm not recommending this to anyone else. I'm not bragging. I was employed the whole time and I did my job well and good. I blew thru a lot of money. I'm not recommending anyone do what I have done (and honestly will do some again). Hell, I prefer meth to cocaine because I only have to take it once and I can do work for hours and then go to sleep. I have to keep redosing every 15-30 minutes on the coke, and then it becomes a binge. And then I can't get to sleep. Some people like staying up for days, some of us just want to stay awake for a while. It is safer than falling asleep sometimes and caffine doesn't always get the job done. Ask the Air Force.
Making generalizations about any group will result in inaccuracies.
Oh, I am currently clean of all the stuff mentioned above. Because I choose to be.
Can you actually show me that it was the crack and meth that make certain people unproductive? You do realize that US military pilots are given amphetamines in the course of their duty? I have seen people "crack out" on playstation, perfectly sober. I have personally worked long shifts with the help of amphetamines. People will find ways of being unproductive just fine without drugs. The actual cost to produce these drugs is an order of magnitude lower than what they sell for. This is why there is a "drug war". And this is why it will never end, unless the government side decides to call truce.
Could some one point out the huge waste of money and effort the whole drug war is? I mean, damn, $60 for a gram of cocaine is ridiculous. $2750 for a lawyer to get off of a possession charge is ridiculous. $1100 for a fine is ridiculous. Getting busted for possession of a single valium which was given to me(and I was stupid enough to get caught with)? Priceless. Spending 36 hours in county until the jail staff which just underwent a shift change and doesn't know you are in the jail(after you have already made bail)? Priceless. Coming to the understanding that there are much poorer and less educated humans stuck in the system for the crime of wanting to adjust one's mood and have a good time? Priceless.
Let me tell you, this whole "war" is a clusterfuck. It is degrading for both sides. I really do have some sympathy for the jail staff. That has got to be one depressing job. And I'm talking about the guys who wear badges and stuff, and get to go home at the end of the day, not the trustees. I don't like law enforcement, because they have been tasked with enforcing some fucked up laws. I really do believe that some enter the profession to do good. Not the job I want.
No. You should be able to get a license to purchase drugs. It should problably involve a doctor and some written tests, and then you can get your pharm license. Same with guns. Sure, those without a license will still get what they want, but isn't that always the case? On second thought, maybe you should just be able to buy the stuff in a special section of the grocery store. You don't want people confusing cocaine with flour or sugar (of course, once you taste it, you'll instantly know the difference). Addiction is a label society puts on those persons who like to engage in behaviors that are considered unacceptable to a majority of society. Drugs aren't any more dangerous than many other legal hazardous activities that humans engage in.
after dead people? I really don't like the trend to name buildings and infrastructure after living persons. I really didn't like it when a building in my town was named the "[town's mayor] art center" (where [town's mayor] was the current actual mayor). Does this sound tacky to you? I thought that one named buildings and such after dead people as a tribute. Now it just seems to be a trendy thing to do. And the nice thing about naming stuff after dead folks is that they can never do something embarassing or stupid once they are dead (I'm thinking: "The Michael Jackson Music Center for Children). That last one was a hypothetical, but I hope you get my drift.
>Bio Diesel is 100% compatible with any diesel engine on the market today.
Not true wrt fuel systems. You have to use synthetic hoses, o-rings, etc. Biodiesel is a very good solvent. Also, if you use B100 with a former petro-diesel rig, you are likely to have fuel clogging problems.
Ok, I don't have a link to back this up, but I am under the impression that any diesel, new, on the market today, uses all the sythetic hoses and such that it is compatible with biodiesel. This is because the companies are forward thinking, and because is some areas, biodiesel is on the market. Maybe some obscure diesels on the market aren't, but I'm pretty sure that any new manufactured diesel from the US, Europe or Japan will be compatible with ASTM grade Biodiesel (Yes, ASTM has a biodiesel stanadard: D 6751)
It doesn't make sense because before the 1994 FCC regulation, one could receive anything that came through the air, if you had equipment capable of it. Military bands, Air traffic control bands, whatever you were able to receive. To me this makes sense. Those who want privacy, should encrypt their radio traffic. The military understands this, because other countries are not subject to FCC rules. What should have happened in 1994, is that the FCC mandate the cell carriers to encrypt their traffic, not ban receivers capable of receiving them. The reason is simple. It is easy to locate a transmitter, but how does one locate a receiver? This is why, on principle, traffic radar detectors are legal under FCC regulations (there may be state and local laws that outlaw them). This is why I believe the 1994 FCC regulation is a bad precident. You cannot expect privacy if you are sending a radio signal (ok, maybe with line of sight microwave communication). You may have privacy if you encrypt it, but one can still locate the actual signal. On a side note, it is illegal for amateur radio operators (ham radio) to encrypt their traffic.
I have no trouble understanding regulation on transmitting. I don't understand regulations on receiving.
I do run an open access point. If I didn't want to, I would secure it.
I'll assume you have a radio scanner in your pocket. By FCC decree in 1994 ordinary joes (I'll call them citizens) cannot purchase a new manufactured scanner which will receive radio signals in the band used by analog cell phones. This was supposed to prevent eavesdropping by those who own said receivers on callers using cell phones who have an expectation of privacy equivalent to that of a wired land line. This set a bad precident in my opinion. I don't care about receiving cell phone calls on a scanner, but I believe that if you are sending radio signals that come across my person (or property) I should be able to receive them, provided I have the proper equipment. If you don't want me to listen to your signals, you can either: not transmit or encrypt your signal such that it makes no sense to me.
As far as I know, older scanners where grandfathered in, so if you have a scanner from before the FCC regulation went into effect, you can receive said bands. I suppose it is still legal to construct your own receiver which will receive this band. However, unless you are law enforcement or government you cannot buy a radio receiver to listen on this band. However, you can easily get a scanner that covers this band (just look on Ebay), so in a practical sense, the FCC regulation is a load of BS. You can also get one from Canada.
Yes, but if it is strictly a broadcast, you cannot go anywhere on the internet(you can log what you pick up). Sure you can receive the link layer protocol, but this won't get you anywhere by itself. The FCC treats broadcasting as a one way information flow. This is what I meant in my post. To get anywhere, you need two way communications. You have to be able to submit your URL requests.
Yes, but citizens cannot buy a radio scanner that covers the band which cell phones use.
Also, you may be allowed to receive the broadcast, but in this case it isn't broadcasting, it is communication involving transceivers (transmitter and receiver pairs). I don't think it is fair to say that this implies that you can joint an unsecured network, though my personal belief is that it should be ok. If the provider of the unsecured network does not like it, they should secure it. I think that you should have free reign to receive radio signals regardless of their origin if you have a receiver. If you cannot make sense of the signals, that is your problem.
Maybe because you're selling alien insurance?
But seriously, could being in the US Army qualify? You have training which might be considered threatening? Maybe not, might depend on what you did in the Army. Demo expert? Hand to hand combat? Maybe your are considered an asset to the bad guys?
I read an article in some bike mag (maybe Bicycling) recently that dicussed recumbents. The article stated that with a group of cyclists, some on upright bikes and some on recumbents, that the recumbent riders would trail the upright riders on the uphills, but the upright riders would trail the recumbents on the downhills and the flats. I've never ridden a recumbent. They are pricey and I don't see too many of them. Another point the article made was that a lot more riders on recumbents fall into the FOG group (Fat Old Guy). Apparently recumbents do make cycling more accessable and fun for certain demographics. I always hear that recumbents are much more comfortable, and I'd tend to believe it, even though I have never ridden one.
Excellent point, but Li-Ion batteries are damaged if discharged below a certain point. So even discharged (in normal usage) Li-Ion batteries still have some energy in them.
Or maybe you get someone to hop in the Soyuz and come pick you up? When NASA tested the first "jetpack" in space, they could have always maneuvered the shuttle to pick them back up. I'm sure it is easier said than done, but I would think that using the Soyuz to go get an untethered astronaut would be high on the list of things to do.
When they land tail first, the air(or gasses left over from combustion) gets trapped in the tube and this is what makes the SRB buoyant. I did notice from the rear camera view, that the SRB appears to almost get horizontal right after landing, but it still seems to remained pitched at such an angle that gas should still be contained inside. Then it settles in an upright orientation. Check this out: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/146685main _srb-et.pdf And: http://www.spawar.navy.mil/robots/undersea/srbnp/s rbnp.html
While that is certainly commendable, couldn't the cops have drunk water? Or does water out of a tap constitute a "gift"? I mean, if free sodas can be considered a gift, and it seems to be a hassle to get a manager to make up prices, wouldn't the polite thing to do would be to ask for water? Or do they only have fancy bottled water at the Redmond campus? Any water fountains? Faucets? What, no cups?
To surf for porn^H^H^H^H information while they are sitting in the cruiser at a remote location with the A/C running. Hey boss, I'm just in the neighborhood looking for open access points. Child porn is one of the big "boogeymen" out there. I'm suprized they didn't throw "terrorism" in there somewhere.
How can you consider a bomber to be delivered in 2020 to be "urgent"? This thing has a longer development time than any other bomber which has been put into operation. 14 years? Urgent?
I do have to guard against having "insufficient data on your credit card record" right? I figure, with 4 cards, I mostly pay cash, will I get associated with all 4 cards if I use a CC one time? Maybe the guy who registered the "loyalty card" stole my credit card? You make a good point, but I'm paranoid enough as it is. Can I get some Soma?
I pay cash. I get my "loyalty cards" by finding them in parking lots. I have about 4 differnt cards on my keyring for the same store, none of them were "registered" by me in my name. As long as I don't loose my keys, and the thing gets dumped in a mailbox, I'm fine. (most say "if found, drop in any mailbox, postage guaranteed") Or maybe I'm even better off with all the different cards. The store will not know who's it is.
Like the 19 CIA agents who went to Italy to kidnap a radical Islamic cleric. They stayed in luxury hotels and ran up huge tabs (ok, maybe small tabs, but $100,000 is huge to me). As if they were all motherfucking James Bond or something. I think it is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to "black" operations and "classified" stuff done in the name of "national security". I'm not going to link an article, do a search for CIA +luxury hotels +Italy and come to your own conclusions. Why do CIA agents need to spend time in luxury hotels to case the kidnapping of an Islamic cleric? I could maybe see it if they were kidnapping a rich businessman/industrialist or even a movie/rock/rap star, but a cleric? The dude wasn't spending time in luxury hotels. CIA, bling bling, get the hookers and Courvoisier (yes, I know it is French) got the money and the guns and the cars, gonna kidnap the bad muthafuckers and get medieval on their asses! C. muthafuckin' I.A. In the house!
Or maybe they were doing the right thing. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and mostly it was out of curiosity and trying to understand what all the fuss is about on the whole war on drugs thing. But I won't lie, I did get an appreciation for certain substances, and I have done stuff I won't touch again, because it doesn't suit me. I really don't know what to make of addiction. I have been doing a little studing of Dr. Thomas Szasz, and I think I agree with him. I still feel I'm more addicted to coca-cola than any other drug I have tried, but at least it is legal (for now).
Oh, And I'm really not trying to be argumentitive, I am just saying that I have seen the opposite, i.e. responsible persons who do drugs. I'm sure there are doctors and pharmacists (and cops) who are addicts and still manage to do their jobs properly, go home and raise their families. There are good people in the world, some of them are considered addicts. There are bad people in the world, some of them are considered addicts. Both groups consume illegal drugs.
There are always "hardcore [insert drug here] addicts". They will be unproductive. Some of the unproductive people will not be on drugs.
I'm not lying to you here: I have tried ^H^H^H^H^H used, cocaine, heroin, oxycontin, meth, benzos, painkillers, etc. Sometimes I have been my most motivated after shooting 20 to 40mg of oxycontin. Believe me, I'm not recommending this to anyone else. I'm not bragging. I was employed the whole time and I did my job well and good. I blew thru a lot of money. I'm not recommending anyone do what I have done (and honestly will do some again). Hell, I prefer meth to cocaine because I only have to take it once and I can do work for hours and then go to sleep. I have to keep redosing every 15-30 minutes on the coke, and then it becomes a binge. And then I can't get to sleep. Some people like staying up for days, some of us just want to stay awake for a while. It is safer than falling asleep sometimes and caffine doesn't always get the job done. Ask the Air Force.
Making generalizations about any group will result in inaccuracies.
Oh, I am currently clean of all the stuff mentioned above. Because I choose to be.
Can you actually show me that it was the crack and meth that make certain people unproductive? You do realize that US military pilots are given amphetamines in the course of their duty? I have seen people "crack out" on playstation, perfectly sober. I have personally worked long shifts with the help of amphetamines. People will find ways of being unproductive just fine without drugs. The actual cost to produce these drugs is an order of magnitude lower than what they sell for. This is why there is a "drug war". And this is why it will never end, unless the government side decides to call truce.
Could some one point out the huge waste of money and effort the whole drug war is? I mean, damn, $60 for a gram of cocaine is ridiculous. $2750 for a lawyer to get off of a possession charge is ridiculous. $1100 for a fine is ridiculous. Getting busted for possession of a single valium which was given to me(and I was stupid enough to get caught with)? Priceless. Spending 36 hours in county until the jail staff which just underwent a shift change and doesn't know you are in the jail(after you have already made bail)? Priceless. Coming to the understanding that there are much poorer and less educated humans stuck in the system for the crime of wanting to adjust one's mood and have a good time? Priceless.
Let me tell you, this whole "war" is a clusterfuck. It is degrading for both sides. I really do have some sympathy for the jail staff. That has got to be one depressing job. And I'm talking about the guys who wear badges and stuff, and get to go home at the end of the day, not the trustees. I don't like law enforcement, because they have been tasked with enforcing some fucked up laws. I really do believe that some enter the profession to do good. Not the job I want.
No. You should be able to get a license to purchase drugs. It should problably involve a doctor and some written tests, and then you can get your pharm license. Same with guns. Sure, those without a license will still get what they want, but isn't that always the case? On second thought, maybe you should just be able to buy the stuff in a special section of the grocery store. You don't want people confusing cocaine with flour or sugar (of course, once you taste it, you'll instantly know the difference). Addiction is a label society puts on those persons who like to engage in behaviors that are considered unacceptable to a majority of society. Drugs aren't any more dangerous than many other legal hazardous activities that humans engage in.
after dead people? I really don't like the trend to name buildings and infrastructure after living persons. I really didn't like it when a building in my town was named the "[town's mayor] art center" (where [town's mayor] was the current actual mayor). Does this sound tacky to you? I thought that one named buildings and such after dead people as a tribute. Now it just seems to be a trendy thing to do. And the nice thing about naming stuff after dead folks is that they can never do something embarassing or stupid once they are dead (I'm thinking: "The Michael Jackson Music Center for Children). That last one was a hypothetical, but I hope you get my drift.
>Bio Diesel is 100% compatible with any diesel engine on the market today.
Not true wrt fuel systems. You have to use synthetic hoses, o-rings, etc. Biodiesel is a very good solvent. Also, if you use B100 with a former petro-diesel rig, you are likely to have fuel clogging problems.
Ok, I don't have a link to back this up, but I am under the impression that any diesel, new, on the market today, uses all the sythetic hoses and such that it is compatible with biodiesel. This is because the companies are forward thinking, and because is some areas, biodiesel is on the market. Maybe some obscure diesels on the market aren't, but I'm pretty sure that any new manufactured diesel from the US, Europe or Japan will be compatible with ASTM grade Biodiesel (Yes, ASTM has a biodiesel stanadard: D 6751)
It doesn't make sense because before the 1994 FCC regulation, one could receive anything that came through the air, if you had equipment capable of it. Military bands, Air traffic control bands, whatever you were able to receive. To me this makes sense. Those who want privacy, should encrypt their radio traffic. The military understands this, because other countries are not subject to FCC rules. What should have happened in 1994, is that the FCC mandate the cell carriers to encrypt their traffic, not ban receivers capable of receiving them. The reason is simple. It is easy to locate a transmitter, but how does one locate a receiver? This is why, on principle, traffic radar detectors are legal under FCC regulations (there may be state and local laws that outlaw them). This is why I believe the 1994 FCC regulation is a bad precident. You cannot expect privacy if you are sending a radio signal (ok, maybe with line of sight microwave communication). You may have privacy if you encrypt it, but one can still locate the actual signal. On a side note, it is illegal for amateur radio operators (ham radio) to encrypt their traffic.
I have no trouble understanding regulation on transmitting. I don't understand regulations on receiving.
I do run an open access point. If I didn't want to, I would secure it.
I'll assume you have a radio scanner in your pocket. By FCC decree in 1994 ordinary joes (I'll call them citizens) cannot purchase a new manufactured scanner which will receive radio signals in the band used by analog cell phones. This was supposed to prevent eavesdropping by those who own said receivers on callers using cell phones who have an expectation of privacy equivalent to that of a wired land line. This set a bad precident in my opinion. I don't care about receiving cell phone calls on a scanner, but I believe that if you are sending radio signals that come across my person (or property) I should be able to receive them, provided I have the proper equipment. If you don't want me to listen to your signals, you can either: not transmit or encrypt your signal such that it makes no sense to me.
As far as I know, older scanners where grandfathered in, so if you have a scanner from before the FCC regulation went into effect, you can receive said bands. I suppose it is still legal to construct your own receiver which will receive this band. However, unless you are law enforcement or government you cannot buy a radio receiver to listen on this band. However, you can easily get a scanner that covers this band (just look on Ebay), so in a practical sense, the FCC regulation is a load of BS. You can also get one from Canada.
Yes, but if it is strictly a broadcast, you cannot go anywhere on the internet(you can log what you pick up). Sure you can receive the link layer protocol, but this won't get you anywhere by itself. The FCC treats broadcasting as a one way information flow. This is what I meant in my post. To get anywhere, you need two way communications. You have to be able to submit your URL requests.
Yes, but citizens cannot buy a radio scanner that covers the band which cell phones use.
Also, you may be allowed to receive the broadcast, but in this case it isn't broadcasting, it is communication involving transceivers (transmitter and receiver pairs). I don't think it is fair to say that this implies that you can joint an unsecured network, though my personal belief is that it should be ok. If the provider of the unsecured network does not like it, they should secure it. I think that you should have free reign to receive radio signals regardless of their origin if you have a receiver. If you cannot make sense of the signals, that is your problem.
Maybe because you're selling alien insurance? But seriously, could being in the US Army qualify? You have training which might be considered threatening? Maybe not, might depend on what you did in the Army. Demo expert? Hand to hand combat? Maybe your are considered an asset to the bad guys?
I read an article in some bike mag (maybe Bicycling) recently that dicussed recumbents. The article stated that with a group of cyclists, some on upright bikes and some on recumbents, that the recumbent riders would trail the upright riders on the uphills, but the upright riders would trail the recumbents on the downhills and the flats. I've never ridden a recumbent. They are pricey and I don't see too many of them. Another point the article made was that a lot more riders on recumbents fall into the FOG group (Fat Old Guy). Apparently recumbents do make cycling more accessable and fun for certain demographics. I always hear that recumbents are much more comfortable, and I'd tend to believe it, even though I have never ridden one.
Excellent point, but Li-Ion batteries are damaged if discharged below a certain point. So even discharged (in normal usage) Li-Ion batteries still have some energy in them.
their own stem cells harvested using a simple testicular biopsy
Sounds like that statement was made by someone who doesn't have any testicles. Testicular biopsy!!! Ouch!
Or maybe you get someone to hop in the Soyuz and come pick you up? When NASA tested the first "jetpack" in space, they could have always maneuvered the shuttle to pick them back up. I'm sure it is easier said than done, but I would think that using the Soyuz to go get an untethered astronaut would be high on the list of things to do.
When they land tail first, the air(or gasses left over from combustion) gets trapped in the tube and this is what makes the SRB buoyant. I did notice from the rear camera view, that the SRB appears to almost get horizontal right after landing, but it still seems to remained pitched at such an angle that gas should still be contained inside. Then it settles in an upright orientation. Check this out: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/146685main _srb-et.pdf And: http://www.spawar.navy.mil/robots/undersea/srbnp/s rbnp.html
While that is certainly commendable, couldn't the cops have drunk water? Or does water out of a tap constitute a "gift"? I mean, if free sodas can be considered a gift, and it seems to be a hassle to get a manager to make up prices, wouldn't the polite thing to do would be to ask for water? Or do they only have fancy bottled water at the Redmond campus? Any water fountains? Faucets? What, no cups?
To surf for porn^H^H^H^H information while they are sitting in the cruiser at a remote location with the A/C running. Hey boss, I'm just in the neighborhood looking for open access points. Child porn is one of the big "boogeymen" out there. I'm suprized they didn't throw "terrorism" in there somewhere.
Up next on ESPN:
Private U's "Fighting Ethicists" vs. State U's "Bad Behaviorists" Hmmm, who do I bet on?
How can you consider a bomber to be delivered in 2020 to be "urgent"? This thing has a longer development time than any other bomber which has been put into operation. 14 years? Urgent?
I do have to guard against having "insufficient data on your credit card record" right? I figure, with 4 cards, I mostly pay cash, will I get associated with all 4 cards if I use a CC one time? Maybe the guy who registered the "loyalty card" stole my credit card? You make a good point, but I'm paranoid enough as it is. Can I get some Soma?
I pay cash. I get my "loyalty cards" by finding them in parking lots. I have about 4 differnt cards on my keyring for the same store, none of them were "registered" by me in my name. As long as I don't loose my keys, and the thing gets dumped in a mailbox, I'm fine. (most say "if found, drop in any mailbox, postage guaranteed") Or maybe I'm even better off with all the different cards. The store will not know who's it is.
Like the 19 CIA agents who went to Italy to kidnap a radical Islamic cleric. They stayed in luxury hotels and ran up huge tabs (ok, maybe small tabs, but $100,000 is huge to me). As if they were all motherfucking James Bond or something. I think it is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to "black" operations and "classified" stuff done in the name of "national security". I'm not going to link an article, do a search for CIA +luxury hotels +Italy and come to your own conclusions. Why do CIA agents need to spend time in luxury hotels to case the kidnapping of an Islamic cleric? I could maybe see it if they were kidnapping a rich businessman/industrialist or even a movie/rock/rap star, but a cleric? The dude wasn't spending time in luxury hotels. CIA, bling bling, get the hookers and Courvoisier (yes, I know it is French) got the money and the guns and the cars, gonna kidnap the bad muthafuckers and get medieval on their asses! C. muthafuckin' I.A. In the house!
Or maybe they were doing the right thing. Yeah, that's the ticket.