Bob Marley had a melanoma on his big toe that metastatized and later spread, since his beliefs interfered with seeking treatment for it. How could a cancer on his toe possibly have anything to do with the spliffs he smoked?
But the 8086 would be 16-bit using that criterion. Also, XMS was not available on a 8088, nor was EMS emulation in the typical sense (using paging ala EMM386) - although a memory board implementing EMS would work.
OK, so what's the causal mechanism? Without one, the cause and effect can be reversed - correlation != causation. And these sample sizes are absurdly low to draw any general conclusions from.
Just because cannabis use precedes a schizophrenia diagnosis means nothing. The diagnosis of schizophrenia does not tell us whether or not it was previously present or not. And furthermore, people with schizotypal symptoms (that precede schizophrenia) smoke cannabis at approximately a 60% rate. So the real question here is whether cannabis smoking sends schizotypal individuals over the edge into full schizophrenia, not whether it makes normal people into Reefer-Madness head cases.
Are the results statistically significant? That sample size is TINY. Did the study pass a T-test for statistical significance? Worldwide, more people use marijuana than ever today. Yet the incidence of mental illness has remained constant in the last 50 years. If marijuana use truly did cause mental illness, rather than the other way around, the incidence of mental illness should also have risen.
Something like 80-85% of schizophrenics smoke cigarettes. Does nicotine cause schizophrenia? Or is it more likely that the intoxicating effects of nicotine help schizophrenics to manage their state? What makes us think cannabis is a causal factor?
There is an article here that outlines most of the problems with the existing cannabis research. And it brings to light one of the only useful conclusions that has come out of all of the hysterics - that young people with a certain gene (that is present in 20-25% of people) are at risk for future mental illness if they use cannabis when they are under 18 - and this risk ONLY exists when they are under 18 and use it. Since nobody is reasonably suggesting cannabis use, or any intoxicant use, be generally legalized for minors, this is interesting trivia but of little relevance to cannabis policy for adults.
It does underscore one of the problems with the black market though - illegal sellers do not check ID. More minors report access to cannabis than they do alcohol and cigarettes. Clearly prohibition has failed at keeping cannabis from being available to minors.
Unfortunately the article is subscription only. But if you have a subscription, I hope you find it useful.
I think you've confused "psychedelics" with "MDMA". The natural psychedelics (cannabis, mushrooms, peyote/mescaline, salvia, DMT) and even LSD do not have such serotonin rebound effects. And the happiness does not come from the intoxicated state itself. Psychedelic use is a gateway to learning about oneself, breaking down the barriers that we put up in our own minds.
You do not have to trip that often to clear out the congestion in your mind and dig yourself out of a rut. In fact, tripping too often is detrimental to one's connection with reality. But it is a legitimate form of soul searching, as legitimate as any other.
Re:Talking out both sides of out mouths.
on
Pepping Up Windows
·
· Score: 1
You know, if they did that, everyone would hate Microsoft for cashing in on the voluntary work of OSS guys..
Not really. Unless they decide to close up the source for some reason.
I don't see any overriding moral arguments that a publisher should ever have to put thier work into the public domain.
Without copyright, there is no public domain. There is 'published' and 'unpublished'. So yes, there is no overriding moral argument that a publisher should ever have to put their work into the 'public domain'. Without copyright, that means they simply must never publish it. If they wish to obtain the protections of copyright (at a cost to every citizen of enforcing that copyright), then they must agree to the bargain offered by copyright. It's very simple.
The real benefit of Firefox for the masses, is the adoption of it's strengths (tabbed browsing, etc.) into IE.
Well, or simply having a choice in the matter, which in turn forces Microsoft to make IE a competitive browser to avoid losing users. And having browsers out there that actually implement the W3C standards gives developers a reference platform (if they care about that sort of thing), which was sorely missing in the old days of IE4 and NS4. I think a better WWW is one that is designed and coded to standards first and only hacked to appease broken browsers as an afterthought, so having non-broken browsers around helps in that regard quite a bit.
Ok, I really don't see how your quoting of the GPL refutes my statement. That clause says nothing about keeping offers for the source code intact, only notices that the software is licensed under the GPL and carries no warranty. I guess you're reading something I am (and RMS and Moglen are) not.
And if you read my post, I did address the fact that it is only binding when you copy it. So for a single administrator of a typical thin-client app, they can hack out that offer all they want. But for a VAR or ASP type business, they will have to leave it intact on their own installations if they plan on distributing copies of the code to customers.
We're just going to have to disagree on the security issue. If I know most systems running my software will have a Linux 2.6 kernel and that a vulnerability exists that has only been patched recently, I am going to be able to get root on most of them no matter who runs the script. This scenario has been constant throughout the history of Linux. Just at the time a previous exploit was finally becoming ancient history, a new vulnerability is found, so the window of opportunity for privilege escalation exploits never closes. All that changes is the exact mechanism. The author and the distribution source of the software MUST be trusted in order for security to work in any case.
Disassemble it and check the assembler. Yes, it's a bit harder,
Auditing a script and auditing a deadlist are not even on the same order of magnitude of difficulty.
By what mechanism would you compel authors to release their source code if it weren't for the combination of copyright and the GPL? They're going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts? No, more likely the binaries would become even more "black box" than before to protect them from prying eyes. You can copy all you want, but you're still dependent on the company to add features and support their software.
Look around the software market today. It is comparatively rare that companies can make money off GPL software, and even more rare that they can make money off software that has no strings attached. In a world without copyright, all software has no strings attached. The profit stream has got to come from somewhere, so it will tend towards the only remaining options: patents and secrecy.
It presents no imminent danger to a RATIONAL individual. Minors are by legal definition not capable of exercising reason. I can't help but think you are deliberately ignoring this while you pick my logic to pieces, since you have no argument by which to refute it.
And no, not being harmful to individuals does not imply lack of harm to society, but it is certainly a prerequisite.
The article is a troll. What is actually happening is that GPL3 will protect server packages that already have an offer for the source code embedded in the output to the client. With previous versions of the GPL, these offers could be removed with impunity since nothing in the license required that they remain.
Yes, obviously this can be circumvented by not distributing the modified software, such as keeping it on an in-house web server only, and then simply rejecting the GPL terms. But if you wish to distribute copies of it, you will have to leave the offer for the source code intact on any copies you make.
This new development IN NO WAY requires anyone to release source code for a server application that they are not distributing binaries for.
The difference with Snap-On tools is that they only ever break if you're doing something wrong. That is a marked difference from run-of-the-mill tools and a potential justification for the price depending on your perspective. In the case of the Cisco power cord, there is no possible justification for that price.
[1] You can't use the conclusion of your argument as a basis for your argument; this is circular reasoning.
I thought it was fairly obvious that I was using the fact that looking at porn and/or wanking is harmless to the consenting adult individual to support my argument that it is harmless to that group of individuals from a sociological perspective. And yes, without demonstration of harm, it is assumed to be harmless. Just as without demonstration of God, we assume that God simply does not exist, or that the question is irrelevant because it is not testable.
We prohibit certain forms of expression all the time, the question is where to draw the line. I am prohibited from inciting a riot, for example.
No, we do not prohibit expression "all the time", only when it presents imminent danger to others. Porn does nothing of the sort.
You are assuming that people use porn to control themselves -- I don't think that is very accurate.
SOME people do, therefore 'people do'. I can't remember where to find the study, but it showed that most of the subjects used porn as an outlet, as opposed to building up courage or whatnot to act out in public or harm someone else. Of course if it was based on a survey, there is a heavy bias potential.
Why should advertisement be regulated, if there is no harm in porn?
No harm to consenting adults. Unfortunately, the world is full of people who are not consenting adults with respect to each other. The idea is for someone to have to seek it out rather than be bombarded with messages about it that may reach people who a) are offended by the message enough to seek to curtail freedoms because of that offense, or b) are not adults. Children are going to be exposed to adult things now and again, but parents should be able to keep that exposure minimized until they have developed the rationality to moderate themselves. (And like being exposed to a virus now and again, a minimal exposure helps build up resistance to those ideas, as opposed to keeping them naive and unleashing them into the world at 21.)
Legalization of drugs should adopt the same approach I think. And that includes banning alcohol, cigarette and other direct-to-consumer drug advertising except in venues where it is clear that only adults will be present.
Do you have any references to back up that assertion?
Uh yeah, go look at the Constitution and read the opinions of the founders in the Federalist papers.
Congress shall have Power: To Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing, for limited Times, to Authors and Inventors, the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
The exclusive right is supposed to be a means to an end, not the end itself. Today, it is the end.
Personally I'm opposed to all copyright laws, so of course my answer is "no".
If you can find a way to make patronage work in the modern world, I'm certain many people would be interested. Until then, I am of the opinion that we should fix what is broken with copyright, not throw it out.
Well, besides the fact that the purpose of copyright is not to enlarge the public domain, but to give incentives to authors to create works
The purpose of copyright WAS to do both, back when copyright terms were 14 years. Now, the public domain and copyright are orthogonal, at least in the scope of our lifetimes - leaving only the half of the deal that provides incentive to creators at public expense (freedom and enforcement costs).
Is eternal copyright and special police powers for creators worth what we get in return? Especially considering the demonstrated chilling effects on both commercial and hobbyist innovation. That is a question we will only be able to answer in retrospect, because the current trend shows no signs of slowing.
Porn does have effects on society -- but it is opinion that determines whether that effect is harmful or not.
Okay, how about this: Porn is a harmless outlet for naturally-occurring urges (the urge to mate with subjectively attractive mates) that are incompatible with modern society and with others' freedom not to be raped by horny males. Since you haven't demonstrated that porn created with consenting actors is in fact harmful in any way, the benefit as a discharge of sexual energy should automatically tilt the debate in porn's favor.
There are also many people who have deviant sexualities that they may not be able to find a consenting partner for. Aside from mandating that anyone with a deviant sexuality self-castrate, how exactly should they relieve those urges? Again, since porn as defined above is not harmful in and of itself, there is no reason to deny a potential outlet to these sort of folks that may very well help them keep their urges in check with respect to other citizens.
Of course, this is not to mention that porn (and the resultant wanking) is a form of expression, the prohibition of which would be both absurdly authoritation and impossible to enforce. No, you may not like porn and wish that people didn't need it to control themselves or whatever, but from a sociological perspective, we are a better society for having ethically produced porn available. Just regulate overt advertisement and such, and everyone should be happy. Everyone aside from those attempting to impose a subjective morality on everyone else, that is.
I agree with you regarding the likelihood of such an exploit, but my thesis still stands: the source of the software must be trusted to ensure security. So far, a Linux system secure against hostile user code does not exist because it hasn't been proven to exist, and because there is a sufficient body of evidence to show that no amount of claiming Linux is secure will make it secure. In the realm of installing software, this means you are forced to trust the program itself due to privilege escalation, just as you would have to trust maintainer scripts that are executed as root.
Maintainer scripts are extremely useful to keeping a package in a working state, and throwing them out as a precaution when there are plenty of holes to be found elsewhere is a bad idea. Note that I do not believe maintainer scripts should be run without requiring the administrator to manually trust the signed source of the package if the source has not been trusted before. Also, there should be a way to revoke trust if the packager has had their key compromised. And hey, if you're really paranoid, extract the scripts and check them out before installing the package. Can't really do that with the binary - how do you know what the source *really* was?
And that's why the LSB standardises on which shared libraries are available and where they will be located, as well as what changes can occur to them.
What? Maybe for core libraries like libc (see section II and III), but it most certainly does not help you with anything further than core libraries. Example: one system has a c102 version of QT3 and another has a version compiled with an older C++ compiler. Yes, the vendor does have to worry about this and ship a separate application for the two distributions.
Applications that are coded to the LSB Written Specification have taken the first step to becoming binary compatible among the set of LSB-branded systems. By coding to the specification, the application is limited to using only the following system libraries: libc, libdl, libm, libutil, libcrypt, libz, libpthread, libncurses, libX11, libXext, LibXt, libICE, libSM, and libGL. If an application cannot limit itself to the interfaces of the libraries previously listed, thento minimize runtime errorsthe application must either bundle the nonspecified library as part of the application, or it must statically link the library to the application. However, the libraries themselves must be LSB-compliant by using only the interfaces of the libraries listed in the previous paragraph.
As for your last question, what exactly does autopackage have to "handle" regarding shared libraries (unless you are building a shared library package)?
Slashdot Mirror
Bob Marley had a melanoma on his big toe that metastatized and later spread, since his beliefs interfered with seeking treatment for it. How could a cancer on his toe possibly have anything to do with the spliffs he smoked?
But the 8086 would be 16-bit using that criterion. Also, XMS was not available on a 8088, nor was EMS emulation in the typical sense (using paging ala EMM386) - although a memory board implementing EMS would work.
Just because cannabis use precedes a schizophrenia diagnosis means nothing. The diagnosis of schizophrenia does not tell us whether or not it was previously present or not. And furthermore, people with schizotypal symptoms (that precede schizophrenia) smoke cannabis at approximately a 60% rate. So the real question here is whether cannabis smoking sends schizotypal individuals over the edge into full schizophrenia, not whether it makes normal people into Reefer-Madness head cases.
Are the results statistically significant? That sample size is TINY. Did the study pass a T-test for statistical significance? Worldwide, more people use marijuana than ever today. Yet the incidence of mental illness has remained constant in the last 50 years. If marijuana use truly did cause mental illness, rather than the other way around, the incidence of mental illness should also have risen.
Something like 80-85% of schizophrenics smoke cigarettes. Does nicotine cause schizophrenia? Or is it more likely that the intoxicating effects of nicotine help schizophrenics to manage their state? What makes us think cannabis is a causal factor?
There is an article here that outlines most of the problems with the existing cannabis research. And it brings to light one of the only useful conclusions that has come out of all of the hysterics - that young people with a certain gene (that is present in 20-25% of people) are at risk for future mental illness if they use cannabis when they are under 18 - and this risk ONLY exists when they are under 18 and use it. Since nobody is reasonably suggesting cannabis use, or any intoxicant use, be generally legalized for minors, this is interesting trivia but of little relevance to cannabis policy for adults.
It does underscore one of the problems with the black market though - illegal sellers do not check ID. More minors report access to cannabis than they do alcohol and cigarettes. Clearly prohibition has failed at keeping cannabis from being available to minors.
Unfortunately the article is subscription only. But if you have a subscription, I hope you find it useful.
You do not have to trip that often to clear out the congestion in your mind and dig yourself out of a rut. In fact, tripping too often is detrimental to one's connection with reality. But it is a legitimate form of soul searching, as legitimate as any other.
Look into the 'badram' patch. It has not been integrated into the mainline kernel for some reason I'm not aware of.
And if you read my post, I did address the fact that it is only binding when you copy it. So for a single administrator of a typical thin-client app, they can hack out that offer all they want. But for a VAR or ASP type business, they will have to leave it intact on their own installations if they plan on distributing copies of the code to customers.
Look around the software market today. It is comparatively rare that companies can make money off GPL software, and even more rare that they can make money off software that has no strings attached. In a world without copyright, all software has no strings attached. The profit stream has got to come from somewhere, so it will tend towards the only remaining options: patents and secrecy.
And no, not being harmful to individuals does not imply lack of harm to society, but it is certainly a prerequisite.
Yes, obviously this can be circumvented by not distributing the modified software, such as keeping it on an in-house web server only, and then simply rejecting the GPL terms. But if you wish to distribute copies of it, you will have to leave the offer for the source code intact on any copies you make.
This new development IN NO WAY requires anyone to release source code for a server application that they are not distributing binaries for.
The difference with Snap-On tools is that they only ever break if you're doing something wrong. That is a marked difference from run-of-the-mill tools and a potential justification for the price depending on your perspective. In the case of the Cisco power cord, there is no possible justification for that price.
UPS (even so-called "line-interactive" types) won't help you with dirty power. You need an on-line power supply for that.
OK, that is just cool. Thanks for the link!
Legalization of drugs should adopt the same approach I think. And that includes banning alcohol, cigarette and other direct-to-consumer drug advertising except in venues where it is clear that only adults will be present.
Is eternal copyright and special police powers for creators worth what we get in return? Especially considering the demonstrated chilling effects on both commercial and hobbyist innovation. That is a question we will only be able to answer in retrospect, because the current trend shows no signs of slowing.
There are also many people who have deviant sexualities that they may not be able to find a consenting partner for. Aside from mandating that anyone with a deviant sexuality self-castrate, how exactly should they relieve those urges? Again, since porn as defined above is not harmful in and of itself, there is no reason to deny a potential outlet to these sort of folks that may very well help them keep their urges in check with respect to other citizens.
Of course, this is not to mention that porn (and the resultant wanking) is a form of expression, the prohibition of which would be both absurdly authoritation and impossible to enforce. No, you may not like porn and wish that people didn't need it to control themselves or whatever, but from a sociological perspective, we are a better society for having ethically produced porn available. Just regulate overt advertisement and such, and everyone should be happy. Everyone aside from those attempting to impose a subjective morality on everyone else, that is.
Maintainer scripts are extremely useful to keeping a package in a working state, and throwing them out as a precaution when there are plenty of holes to be found elsewhere is a bad idea. Note that I do not believe maintainer scripts should be run without requiring the administrator to manually trust the signed source of the package if the source has not been trusted before. Also, there should be a way to revoke trust if the packager has had their key compromised. And hey, if you're really paranoid, extract the scripts and check them out before installing the package. Can't really do that with the binary - how do you know what the source *really* was?