I can't find any interaction for those two, but I know that psychs in general don't give a fuck about interactions or the patient's health enough to do anything more than check their DSM book or the lit. the pharm companies send them, so it doesn't surprise me.
On second thought, I can see bartenders and liquor store owners being worse drug dealers, in that their product probably kills more people total, but I'm not sure about percentage wise. Only about 2 million USians have been diagnosed with Schizophrenia, but even less use Heroin, and H dealers are villified. No doubt the psychiatric establishment is worse in morals for completely misrepresenting the nature of their very harmful drugs. Also worth noting that pre-Harrison act (non-black market) heroin is likely quite a bit safer than anti-psychotics.
So what's wrong with drugs? Does it harm you in anyway that some of us are able to have these prescribed and make our lives work better? It's not like a doctor is going to diagnose you and then force you or your child to take them. The drugs are there for people who are trying to solve a problem and they are legal and sanctioned by the medical community. That, to me, is a great thing.
This is not always the case. For one thing, many people see these drugs as having (sometimes very) harmful side effects, an addictive nature, and overall being the wrong approach to take for a phenomenon for which we do not even know the cause is biochemical. These traits that constitute a 'disorder' may very well be within the range of legitimate human functioning, and even be adaptive and serve a purpose.
If you want to take these drugs for yourself despite lack of sound scientific evidence that you need them to correct a brain disease, and have evaluated the potential risks and harms, then be my guest. But there are many who do not believe the psychiatric community's assertion that there is something wrong with their brain, that industry-manufactured drugs are the only cure or form of treatment, and that they're harmless. There have been cases of schools and governments forcing parents to have their children put on Ritalin, or face expulsion from school, or lose custody of their children. In addition, many of those in psychiatric treatment are forced to take anti-psychotics and other drugs that can do irreparable harm.
At the least, people should know that science has established no scientific basis for a biochemical root of mental disorders. Ever see an anti-depressant commercial -- "While the cause of depression are unknown, it may be related to a chemical imbalance. Prozac/Zoloft/Paxil works to correct this imbalance." It's the same for schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, ADD, and a myriad of others. The fact is, we should not assume these drugs are safe because they're pitched with a multi-million dollar ad campaign and industry-sanctioned. Research has shown that they can be highly addictive, neurologically debilitating, and even fatal in some cases. If you're going to get into a daily chemical habit for years on end, at least know what you're getting into and do your homework. And it is wrong to pressure or force others onto these drugs, such as children, psychiatric patients, or even any adult who is 'disordered', especially with misleading or incomplete information.
Yeah, and check out some of the detriments of anti-psychotics such as Zyprexa. Neurological disorders, brain inflammation similar to encephilitis, and much more. They appear to work by chemically suppressing activity in the frontal lobe -- sort of like a chemical lobotomy.
Quite dangerous, tho (over)prescribed as a safe, effective life-saver. And there isn't even any solid evidence showing Schizophrenia has biochemical roots.
Nope. Medical 'treatment' for addiction is largely worthless, with some exception for very strong physical addiction. Other forms of help, such as support from family or friends, may be of more value, but bottom line is you make the decision for yourself. You ever go to an AA meeting? There are people who've been going to them numerous times a week, or daily for years, talking about the details of the program, how to do this, this aspect of when you use, why you do it, what is necessary to stop. And they haven't even gotten any good sobriety.
That's not the course to a normal life uninhibited by drugs. The way to do it, is to stop. Regardless off you were trying to use drugs to cope with emotional pain, or to escape, or for pleasure, you realize it's not worth what it's bringing you, and stop. That's the way things get done.
Right here. I've only bought one computer, that was in 1996, a Gateway P-200 system with Win95 for home use. I've upgraded components twice since then, including cpu/mobo. In mid-1998, having heard good things about Linux and wanting to hack with it, I bought a copy of Sams' TY Linux in 21 days, which included Red Hat 5.2. I dual booted that with Win95/IE4 until the end of the year, wiped my Windows partition, and have been running only Linux since, most of the time Slackware. Of course, I run a personal web site on it, and occasionally a tetrinet server, but that's about it. I would say I use desktop functionality far more than server functionality.
My longish story on MICA
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Warning: somewhat detailed personal experiences with depression and drug abuse below, and hard-line opinions that may run contrary to those of the psychiatric establishment
Drugs are not the only way to get serotonin. Try stimulating activities and socializing. This will get your brain to produce more serotonin, naturally, and improve your mood.
Some background, I guess, followed by my story with depression, anxiety, and drug abuse.
Was a slacker in high school, never did assignments or homework, but aced standardized testing and got by.. would stay home weeks at a time from school creating webpages and programming an OSS mail & news client of mine. Got away with it fine (schools like smart kids), but my parents said my 'truancy' was caused by depression, and have said I've been depressed since 14 or 15 when I got my computer. Bullocks, pardon my proper English. Had a very few friends at high school, but was quite comfortable with them and spent lots of time on Usenet, Slashdot, programming, building my webpages, webring.org, the whole shebang.
Enter junior year of high school -- marijuana. Found out that it wasn't as bad as the folks had said, and I even enjoyed it. It became a more common activity, until it was daily. Was a bit shy around some of my new friends but generally OK. Enter <trying real life events here> coinciding with end of high school and semester off. Drug usage turned to full fledged drug abuse, had severe anxiety and was not dealing well at all with things. By this time, I had dug myself into one hell of a hole.
Few months later, decide I want to quit pot, so I go to my family. My mother suggests a detox for marijuana, so I went along with it (even tho I should have known there was no detox for pot), went to the hospital, long story short, they I was in an acute condition, no pot detox exists, so they put me in the psych ward. Diagnosis: "Depression & marijuana abuse". Well, now, I would say I wasn't depressed, but the anxiety was there. They don't really diagnose social anxiety at this place, and depression is a generic diagnosis. Whatever.. so they got me on Paxil, working up from 20 to 50 mg, which I thought would serve well. Said it'd take 6 weeks to kick in full. Every week I felt it a bit more and hoped for it to be better and my problems will be solved or for life to be be easier. I'll tell you I was going crazy at that place, mostly to get OUT.
Well, my time came, 28 days later I had put on 40 pounds, and was discharged with an outpatient plan and RXes for Paxil (depression & anxiety), Buspar (anxiety), Zyprexa (paranoia -- maybe caused by pot they say). For months after I was just hoping for the medication to kick in harder and do it for me. Real stupid, to trust your life to a drug instead of yourself. I neglected to do anything I really wanted and opted for laziness and not changing my lifestyle -- still endless hours online without much work, and marijuana usage. Went in with one addiction, came out with pot, cigs, and three pharms, at least one of which is addicting, and in worse shape. I'll tell you, I was not depressed until I was committed to a mental hospital. The stigma, the shame, the betrayal. Whatever, it was bad. I basically lost interest in everything and fell into a deep depression. This was early 2002. From March 2002 to June 2003 I have spend my days chain smoking on the Internet in severe depression. Prior to the hospitalization, I had treated my misery with drugs and food. Now, I was treating it with self-destructive behavior and cigarettes.
I've been in a deep depression and had moderate use of illicit drugs and constant use of legal and pharmeceutical drugs for well over the past year, and I was an emotionless, severely depressed, drugged up zombie. I first quit illicit drugs cold turkey, followed quickly by quitting cold turkey my heavy dose of an SSRI, anti-anxiety agents, and an anti-psychotic that was prescribed in haste, using a regime
You neglect to realize that Boies and his legal team are working on a contingency basis. AFAIK, this means SCO doesn't pay a shiny nickel unless and until they see actual damages from IBM -- thus they have virtually zero legal fees for the AIX and Linux suits at this stage of the game. Countersuits (from IBM or any Linux developer or business) however, that could be decided in less time are another issue and could have serious financial impact on SCO.
I don't think it's wise to speculate too far into IBM's strategy as of yet beyond that they aren't terribly phased by SCO's threats and seem to have confidence in their their legal case, counsel and strategy, whatever that might be. That's a good thing, as we don't want SCO to be rewarded in even small amounts by a buyout or settlement. Quite the opposite.
There is a marketplace of ideas. You cannot assure one idea has just as much chance as another -- such is the world. Can you tell me that the Christians of the world must give an hour of their attention every week to Hebrew texts so that my people's beliefs can propogate just as much? We are only a people of 14 million compared to about 2 billion Christians -- surely we must be given extra measures to defend our ideas!
I agree with the original poster. Yeah, Coke and Britney are going to win over lots of converts, maybe even have harmful effects on their society. But we must not forbid them from hearing of other ideas because it might disrupt their current ones. If the vast majority of people leave the strictly Buddhist lifestyle for a more consumeristic existence, so be it. They're not required to follow their forefathers, and maybe it wasn't the idea for them.
Anyhow, I direct your attention to the growing Buddhist population in the United States -- adherents to this belief system have grown more than tenfold the past four decades, to between two and three million. This in the most industrialized, consumeristic nation on earth. People will choose the philosophy that they like or that suits their needs and desires at any point in life -- whether that is spirituality, transcendence, an intimate relationship with god, hedonism, or celebrity culture -- it is unlikely they will subscribe to any belief system for a long period of time just because of various societal pressures. If you want them to be free to choose their own destiny and way of life, you must not forcibly restrict an entire population from outside ideas.
I'm reading that there are about 3.5 * 10^51 atoms on earth, which would mean there's no possible way we'll run out of IPv6 addresses, even if we assign one to each gluon and quark.
Yeah, but can you log into ICQ with LICQ (more ICQ-like features & look & feel), and AIM with GAIM, or for that matter any non-ultra-new version of ICQ for Windows, and any non-ultra-new AOL's AIM client for Windows, and send messages between them?
Nope. This applies if someone is using straight up ICQ and someone else is using straight up AIM. You can't communicate between the two.
Hopefully, the functions that bridge the servers will become well-known so authors of alternate clients can add functionality so users of both protocols can talk with each other seamlessly in the near future.
Does the U.S. Constitution rely on patent and copyright laws as way to advance the arts and sciences? Or, does the Constitution promulgate copyright laws for the sake of profit and entrepreneurialism?
Matt Oppenheim from the Recording Industry Association of America responds:
You are right that the basis for copyright protection is in the Constitution, and that its goals are to further the arts.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that: "The Congress shall have the 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."
As our society has grown and our economy has developed, Congress has extended the term of copyright protection a number of times.
So, in simpler terms, the questioner asks:
"We have recently seen copyright durations and extensions increased a times over. Does this serve the Constitution's stipulation that copyright be instituted to serve the development of arts and sciences for the public interest, or does it serve to increase corporate profits?"
To which the RIAA representative responds:
"You are correct in stating that the Constitution instates copyright law to advance the arts and sciences. As our economy has matured, we have extended the term of copyright protections numerous times."
Very interesting Q&A session overall, I felt Mr. Lessig was quite sympathetic to the cause of limiting copyrights to the terms and purposes of their original creation, while the RIAA representative took the position of defending the industry's interests (though that "AMEN" comment was a bit odd for a senior vice president) as expected. It was a nice contrast and quite refreshing to hear respected members of their respective fields answer questions that haven't been excessively pre-screened.
Whilst checking up on a previous post pointing out SCO's characterizations of the GPL:
The primary purpose of the GNU organization is to create free software based on valuable commercial software. The primary operating system advanced by GNU is Linux....
I came across another page with quotes from select quotes from RMS and Bruce Perens:
Richard Stallman
I consider the law prohibiting the sharing of copies with your friend the moral equivalent of Jim Crow. It does not deserve respect. Richard Stallman, Free as in Freedom, Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software: O'Reilly (2002) at p. 72
The whole GNU project is really one big hack. It's one big act of subversive playful cleverness...
Richard Stallman, Revolution OS (DVD)
Bruce Perens
This is becoming a tradition. I go there and break the law every year in the name of free speech. Bruce Perens, explaining his plan to demonstrate how to modify DVD technology to attendees of an Open Source convention.
We have to remember that Linux is a follow-on to UNIX. It's not just a UNIX clone. It's actually a UNIX successor. Bruce Perens, mpulse magazine, December 2001.
As if the lawsuit were not damaging enough -- we have heard of businesses halting further Linux deployments due to these allegations and the lawsuit, we have high levels of FUD around people outside the open source software community in general, and Linux's, and perhaps even OSS's image is being tarnished, at least for now -- we have mischaracterizations of the nature of Linux in numerous ways, all out insults the hard work and ingenuity of the many developers who've contributed to give us a true alternative to proprietary computing by claiming they were incapable of performing such a task without corporate assistance (as if 80 to a few hundred lines of code out of about a million really gave Linux the boost from being "fringe" software to being a competitive alternative to the big boys, as stated in the first link of this post), and they are outright using character assassination on some OSS proponents with no shame whatsoever on their website.
Now, I'm not one to be shocked when businesses show disregard for truth and ethics, but this is quite a campaign they've got going here. I, for one, would hate to see IBM buy out SCO, as it would reward acting in this sort of fashion, not only for SCO, but for companies in similar situations in the future -- I'd much rather see them either get their pants countersued off by IBM and possibly other organizations as well, or have the judge throw out their case and give them a good censuring.
will make possible many new advances in human life. as we saw in tne new york time article last week, it will (and already has) spawn new progress in the medical fields, increase productivity, and, as we are already witnessing, let people tens of thousands of miles away talk with each other, having a worldwide combining effect on culture as television did in the u.s. when it first came out.
perhaps the most important (or significant) advance will be in convenience. think how your daily life would be without electronics. not very fun, eh? and to compare the digital revolution to others isn't right, the industrial revolution took many decades, we're just starting the digital revolution, there is much to come. go back 50 years, and see how far we've come. it is big indeed
So what you're saying is that Georgia-Pacific and Weyerhauser don't clearcut the forest sites to which they have access?
no, they, and other similar companies obviously do. note the keyword could, and read the surrounding text.
Face the facts: the economic imperatives of capitalism require all business owners to exploit every bit of the environment they can to the maximum degree possible.
ridiculous. the economic imperatives of capitalism require them to exploit all resources they have at hand. the difference is, in a capitalistic system wherein government does not own large amount of property, corporations would have finite amounts of resources to deal with.
in today's situation, they do not own the landscape (forests, lakes to dump waste, fish, etc). government does. if they want to make use of these resources, they can (government payoffs or just using them without anyone's consent, since government ownership is usually not enforced). if they do not, someone else will. the incentive is to completely exploit these areas and have no concern. "use it, or lose it"
The only thing that can stop profiteering corporations from devastating the entire globe is government action, that is to say, socialism. I'll say it again: socialism, socialism, socialism!
taking away government ownership would remove the motive to desolate and clearcut the forests. corporations would have a certain amount of land to deal with, and make it in their own self-interest to preserve the land. this is how capitalism works in all other areas, and it is one of the critical factors of how the entire economic system works. a paper company that owns only 2,000 acres of redwood trees will not be nearly as abusive as a paper company in brazil that can tear down the forest as fast as t he bulldozers can move. its business would depend on keeping a constant number of trees alive, and it would make sure new ones were planted to keep the cash flowing. think of the same situation, but replace the forest with a lake, and replace the paper company with a fishing company.
and about the human race: it is probably true that we are doomed, but read the above post, it is the government/industry cooperation -- combining the huge profit drive of industry and the coercive force of government -- that will do us in.
daveo finds it irritating that some of today's major problems that are caused by the "corporate republic" as katz would say (interworkings of government and corporations) are often blamed on capitalism.
in fact, the government owns almost all of the forests, lakes, rivers, and other bodies of water today in the united states, but lets corporations use them for one reason or another (hint, hint)
assigning these resources owners would give us a true capitalistic system, in which none of the things signal 11 mentioned would happen.
corporations could not use every last drop of water or cut down every tree, because they would not have any left. instead, they would be required to plan to keep themselves alive, and we would see some systems that are already in effect become more common (eg growing saplings and planting them as new trees where old trees have been cut down).
corporations, and people, will not try to take care of land if they do not own it and have no incentive to do so. no one will pollute their own property to disgusting levels if they know they will have nothing in the future.
one need only look at the rivers in england, where they are privately owned (and in much better shape), and compare them to what we see in the states with public ownership (anybody can use, nobody cares)
finding a solution for fish in the ocean would be more difficult, since you cannot assign private ownership of large bodies of water. maybe small sections of water could be given exclusive fishing rights to certain companies? there are already some oyster/clam fishing operations that grow these sea creatures in captivity then release them to keep the counts up.
socialism and capitalism each have their own detriments to the environment. imo, either one would do a better job then the current system (real capitalism being better than socialism) however, today we see the worst effects of both, and it's disgusting),
agreed. if one believes in the intellectual property (a creation, for the most part, to allow the already rich corporations to become even richer), one must think that this type of theft is wrong, and not be opposed to bans that sound wrong but are justified by the concept of intellectual property.
otoh, there are people who believe ideas and information cannot be owned and that the exchange of information if not theft.
sorry to get a little offtopic here, but maybe if you are being given large sums of money you could donate money to a cause which will help people who need help. (e.g. flood victims in zimbabwe, starving children in africa and latin america, etc) these people need your help much more than the eff or any other organization ever could.
with that said, imo, the best way to contribute to open source is to find some time and write some code. while money is nice, remember, money for open source cannot hire more programmers or find bugs, or create applications to fill a large hole.
lsd does *not* embed itself into fat. it is not fat-soluable. when people have extremely emotional trips on lsd, they can get a flashback. however, this is not only with lsd. people get flashbacks to many different types of important or traumatic events in their lives.
marijuana does cause lung damage, but using a water pipe eliminates most carcinogens, and because marijuana contains anti-oxidants, it actually reduces the chances of developing lung cancer (as long as you don't smoke tobacco).
Slashdot Mirror
I can't find any interaction for those two, but I know that psychs in general don't give a fuck about interactions or the patient's health enough to do anything more than check their DSM book or the lit. the pharm companies send them, so it doesn't surprise me.
On second thought, I can see bartenders and liquor store owners being worse drug dealers, in that their product probably kills more people total, but I'm not sure about percentage wise. Only about 2 million USians have been diagnosed with Schizophrenia, but even less use Heroin, and H dealers are villified. No doubt the psychiatric establishment is worse in morals for completely misrepresenting the nature of their very harmful drugs. Also worth noting that pre-Harrison act (non-black market) heroin is likely quite a bit safer than anti-psychotics.
This is not always the case. For one thing, many people see these drugs as having (sometimes very) harmful side effects, an addictive nature, and overall being the wrong approach to take for a phenomenon for which we do not even know the cause is biochemical. These traits that constitute a 'disorder' may very well be within the range of legitimate human functioning, and even be adaptive and serve a purpose.
If you want to take these drugs for yourself despite lack of sound scientific evidence that you need them to correct a brain disease, and have evaluated the potential risks and harms, then be my guest. But there are many who do not believe the psychiatric community's assertion that there is something wrong with their brain, that industry-manufactured drugs are the only cure or form of treatment, and that they're harmless. There have been cases of schools and governments forcing parents to have their children put on Ritalin, or face expulsion from school, or lose custody of their children. In addition, many of those in psychiatric treatment are forced to take anti-psychotics and other drugs that can do irreparable harm.
At the least, people should know that science has established no scientific basis for a biochemical root of mental disorders. Ever see an anti-depressant commercial -- "While the cause of depression are unknown, it may be related to a chemical imbalance. Prozac/Zoloft/Paxil works to correct this imbalance." It's the same for schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, ADD, and a myriad of others. The fact is, we should not assume these drugs are safe because they're pitched with a multi-million dollar ad campaign and industry-sanctioned. Research has shown that they can be highly addictive, neurologically debilitating, and even fatal in some cases. If you're going to get into a daily chemical habit for years on end, at least know what you're getting into and do your homework. And it is wrong to pressure or force others onto these drugs, such as children, psychiatric patients, or even any adult who is 'disordered', especially with misleading or incomplete information.
Quite dangerous, tho (over)prescribed as a safe, effective life-saver. And there isn't even any solid evidence showing Schizophrenia has biochemical roots.
Drug dealers of the worst kind, these people are.
That's not the course to a normal life uninhibited by drugs. The way to do it, is to stop. Regardless off you were trying to use drugs to cope with emotional pain, or to escape, or for pleasure, you realize it's not worth what it's bringing you, and stop. That's the way things get done.
Right here. I've only bought one computer, that was in 1996, a Gateway P-200 system with Win95 for home use. I've upgraded components twice since then, including cpu/mobo. In mid-1998, having heard good things about Linux and wanting to hack with it, I bought a copy of Sams' TY Linux in 21 days, which included Red Hat 5.2. I dual booted that with Win95/IE4 until the end of the year, wiped my Windows partition, and have been running only Linux since, most of the time Slackware. Of course, I run a personal web site on it, and occasionally a tetrinet server, but that's about it. I would say I use desktop functionality far more than server functionality.
We won't. You're not funny.
Drugs are not the only way to get serotonin. Try stimulating activities and socializing.
This will get your brain to produce more serotonin, naturally, and improve your mood.
Some background, I guess, followed by my story with depression, anxiety, and drug abuse.
Was a slacker in high school, never did assignments or homework, but aced standardized testing and got by.. would stay home weeks at a time from school creating webpages and programming an OSS mail & news client of mine. Got away with it fine (schools like smart kids), but my parents said my 'truancy' was caused by depression, and have said I've been depressed since 14 or 15 when I got my computer. Bullocks, pardon my proper English. Had a very few friends at high school, but was quite comfortable with them and spent lots of time on Usenet, Slashdot, programming, building my webpages, webring.org, the whole shebang.
Enter junior year of high school -- marijuana. Found out that it wasn't as bad as the folks had said, and I even enjoyed it. It became a more common activity, until it was daily. Was a bit shy around some of my new friends but generally OK. Enter <trying real life events here> coinciding with end of high school and semester off. Drug usage turned to full fledged drug abuse, had severe anxiety and was not dealing well at all with things. By this time, I had dug myself into one hell of a hole.
Few months later, decide I want to quit pot, so I go to my family. My mother suggests a detox for marijuana, so I went along with it (even tho I should have known there was no detox for pot), went to the hospital, long story short, they I was in an acute condition, no pot detox exists, so they put me in the psych ward. Diagnosis: "Depression & marijuana abuse". Well, now, I would say I wasn't depressed, but the anxiety was there. They don't really diagnose social anxiety at this place, and depression is a generic diagnosis. Whatever.. so they got me on Paxil, working up from 20 to 50 mg, which I thought would serve well. Said it'd take 6 weeks to kick in full. Every week I felt it a bit more and hoped for it to be better and my problems will be solved or for life to be be easier. I'll tell you I was going crazy at that place, mostly to get OUT.
Well, my time came, 28 days later I had put on 40 pounds, and was discharged with an outpatient plan and RXes for Paxil (depression & anxiety), Buspar (anxiety), Zyprexa (paranoia -- maybe caused by pot they say). For months after I was just hoping for the medication to kick in harder and do it for me. Real stupid, to trust your life to a drug instead of yourself. I neglected to do anything I really wanted and opted for laziness and not changing my lifestyle -- still endless hours online without much work, and marijuana usage. Went in with one addiction, came out with pot, cigs, and three pharms, at least one of which is addicting, and in worse shape. I'll tell you, I was not depressed until I was committed to a mental hospital. The stigma, the shame, the betrayal. Whatever, it was bad. I basically lost interest in everything and fell into a deep depression. This was early 2002. From March 2002 to June 2003 I have spend my days chain smoking on the Internet in severe depression. Prior to the hospitalization, I had treated my misery with drugs and food. Now, I was treating it with self-destructive behavior and cigarettes.
I've been in a deep depression and had moderate use of illicit drugs and constant use of legal and pharmeceutical drugs for well over the past year, and I was an emotionless, severely depressed, drugged up zombie. I first quit illicit drugs cold turkey, followed quickly by quitting cold turkey my heavy dose of an SSRI, anti-anxiety agents, and an anti-psychotic that was prescribed in haste, using a regime
I don't think it's wise to speculate too far into IBM's strategy as of yet beyond that they aren't terribly phased by SCO's threats and seem to have confidence in their their legal case, counsel and strategy, whatever that might be. That's a good thing, as we don't want SCO to be rewarded in even small amounts by a buyout or settlement. Quite the opposite.
Heheh..
Index of ftp://ftp.sco.com/
[...]
welcome.msg 1 KB 05/16/03 19:45:00
Looks like it was put there the night before the court motion was filed. Real slick.
I agree with the original poster. Yeah, Coke and Britney are going to win over lots of converts, maybe even have harmful effects on their society. But we must not forbid them from hearing of other ideas because it might disrupt their current ones. If the vast majority of people leave the strictly Buddhist lifestyle for a more consumeristic existence, so be it. They're not required to follow their forefathers, and maybe it wasn't the idea for them.
Anyhow, I direct your attention to the growing Buddhist population in the United States -- adherents to this belief system have grown more than tenfold the past four decades, to between two and three million. This in the most industrialized, consumeristic nation on earth. People will choose the philosophy that they like or that suits their needs and desires at any point in life -- whether that is spirituality, transcendence, an intimate relationship with god, hedonism, or celebrity culture -- it is unlikely they will subscribe to any belief system for a long period of time just because of various societal pressures. If you want them to be free to choose their own destiny and way of life, you must not forcibly restrict an entire population from outside ideas.
I'm reading that there are about 3.5 * 10^51 atoms on earth, which would mean there's no possible way we'll run out of IPv6 addresses, even if we assign one to each gluon and quark.
Nope. This applies if someone is using straight up ICQ and someone else is using straight up AIM. You can't communicate between the two.
Hopefully, the functions that bridge the servers will become well-known so authors of alternate clients can add functionality so users of both protocols can talk with each other seamlessly in the near future.
Or the lawsuits through WIPO, unless you agree to unequivocally hand over rights to the domain upon notification from the MS legal department!
Casey Muratori from Kirkland, Wash. asks:
Matt Oppenheim from the Recording Industry Association of America responds:
So, in simpler terms, the questioner asks:
To which the RIAA representative responds:
Very interesting Q&A session overall, I felt Mr. Lessig was quite sympathetic to the cause of limiting copyrights to the terms and purposes of their original creation, while the RIAA representative took the position of defending the industry's interests (though that "AMEN" comment was a bit odd for a senior vice president) as expected. It was a nice contrast and quite refreshing to hear respected members of their respective fields answer questions that haven't been excessively pre-screened.
The primary purpose of the GNU organization is to create free software based on valuable commercial software. The primary operating system advanced by GNU is Linux....
I came across another page with quotes from select quotes from RMS and Bruce Perens:
Richard Stallman
I consider the law prohibiting the sharing of copies with your friend the moral equivalent of Jim Crow. It does not deserve respect.
Richard Stallman, Free as in Freedom, Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software: O'Reilly (2002) at p. 72
The whole GNU project is really one big hack. It's one big act of subversive playful cleverness...
Richard Stallman, Revolution OS (DVD)
Bruce Perens
This is becoming a tradition. I go there and break the law every year in the name of free speech.
Bruce Perens, explaining his plan to demonstrate how to modify DVD technology to attendees of an Open Source convention.
We have to remember that Linux is a follow-on to UNIX. It's not just a UNIX clone. It's actually a UNIX successor.
Bruce Perens, mpulse magazine, December 2001.
As if the lawsuit were not damaging enough -- we have heard of businesses halting further Linux deployments due to these allegations and the lawsuit, we have high levels of FUD around people outside the open source software community in general, and Linux's, and perhaps even OSS's image is being tarnished, at least for now -- we have mischaracterizations of the nature of Linux in numerous ways, all out insults the hard work and ingenuity of the many developers who've contributed to give us a true alternative to proprietary computing by claiming they were incapable of performing such a task without corporate assistance (as if 80 to a few hundred lines of code out of about a million really gave Linux the boost from being "fringe" software to being a competitive alternative to the big boys, as stated in the first link of this post), and they are outright using character assassination on some OSS proponents with no shame whatsoever on their website.
Now, I'm not one to be shocked when businesses show disregard for truth and ethics, but this is quite a campaign they've got going here. I, for one, would hate to see IBM buy out SCO, as it would reward acting in this sort of fashion, not only for SCO, but for companies in similar situations in the future -- I'd much rather see them either get their pants countersued off by IBM and possibly other organizations as well, or have the judge throw out their case and give them a good censuring.
two words: jona & kano
perhaps the most important (or significant) advance will be in convenience. think how your daily life would be without electronics. not very fun, eh? and to compare the digital revolution to others isn't right, the industrial revolution took many decades, we're just starting the digital revolution, there is much to come. go back 50 years, and see how far we've come. it is big indeed
no, they, and other similar companies obviously do. note the keyword could, and read the surrounding text.
Face the facts: the economic imperatives of capitalism require all business owners to exploit every bit of the environment they can to the maximum degree possible.
ridiculous. the economic imperatives of capitalism require them to exploit all resources they have at hand. the difference is, in a capitalistic system wherein government does not own large amount of property, corporations would have finite amounts of resources to deal with.
in today's situation, they do not own the landscape (forests, lakes to dump waste, fish, etc). government does. if they want to make use of these resources, they can (government payoffs or just using them without anyone's consent, since government ownership is usually not enforced). if they do not, someone else will. the incentive is to completely exploit these areas and have no concern. "use it, or lose it"
The only thing that can stop profiteering corporations from devastating the entire globe is government action, that is to say, socialism. I'll say it again: socialism, socialism, socialism!
taking away government ownership would remove the motive to desolate and clearcut the forests. corporations would have a certain amount of land to deal with, and make it in their own self-interest to preserve the land. this is how capitalism works in all other areas, and it is one of the critical factors of how the entire economic system works. a paper company that owns only 2,000 acres of redwood trees will not be nearly as abusive as a paper company in brazil that can tear down the forest as fast as t he bulldozers can move. its business would depend on keeping a constant number of trees alive, and it would make sure new ones were planted to keep the cash flowing. think of the same situation, but replace the forest with a lake, and replace the paper company with a fishing company.
and about the human race: it is probably true that we are doomed, but read the above post, it is the government/industry cooperation -- combining the huge profit drive of industry and the coercive force of government -- that will do us in.
in fact, the government owns almost all of the forests, lakes, rivers, and other bodies of water today in the united states, but lets corporations use them for one reason or another (hint, hint)
assigning these resources owners would give us a true capitalistic system, in which none of the things signal 11 mentioned would happen.
corporations could not use every last drop of water or cut down every tree, because they would not have any left. instead, they would be required to plan to keep themselves alive, and we would see some systems that are already in effect become more common (eg growing saplings and planting them as new trees where old trees have been cut down).
corporations, and people, will not try to take care of land if they do not own it and have no incentive to do so. no one will pollute their own property to disgusting levels if they know they will have nothing in the future.
one need only look at the rivers in england, where they are privately owned (and in much better shape), and compare them to what we see in the states with public ownership (anybody can use, nobody cares)
finding a solution for fish in the ocean would be more difficult, since you cannot assign private ownership of large bodies of water. maybe small sections of water could be given exclusive fishing rights to certain companies? there are already some oyster/clam fishing operations that grow these sea creatures in captivity then release them to keep the counts up.
socialism and capitalism each have their own detriments to the environment. imo, either one would do a better job then the current system (real capitalism being better than socialism) however, today we see the worst effects of both, and it's disgusting),
- just daveo's 2 cents
otoh, there are people who believe ideas and information cannot be owned and that the exchange of information if not theft.
with that said, imo, the best way to contribute to open source is to find some time and write some code. while money is nice, remember, money for open source cannot hire more programmers or find bugs, or create applications to fill a large hole.
just daveo's $0.02 ;0)
marijuana does cause lung damage, but using a water pipe eliminates most carcinogens, and because marijuana contains anti-oxidants, it actually reduces the chances of developing lung cancer (as long as you don't smoke tobacco).
for those of you who couldn't make it to linuxworld, there are some pictures of ceren and the other bsd girls here, as well as one of the bsd poster.
actually, it just had to be a quick post because others were trying to get the laptop :-/
greetings from linuxworld, where daveo is live now! ;0) roblimo is hogging the mic ;0(