It's a BRILLIANT move on their part. Any time you can get people to spend real-world money on imaginary items, then legitimately destroy them within the game system, you make more money. I highly doubt this person will stop playing because of this event. And I highly doubt the group that funded the purchase will not replace the PLEX they lost. Even if only half of them do, that's 50% more sold because they set them up to be able to be destroyed.
Student Loans have the lowest interest of any loan. If you can pay them off, your credit goes sky high. And they have some of the friendliest terms....if you're getting close to not being able to pay them, go to grad school! They (if they are Stafford or a number of other ones) are automatically deferred, and at the worst, you just have to pay interest. As long as you don't sink your entire life by going to a stupidly expensive college, while majoring in something that will never make enough to pay them off, student loans are awesome. (I pulled a 750 credit score by paying my reasonable ones off, and paying off a cheap car a year ahead of time!) Otherwise, they are an awesome example of social darwinism....
I just ground my way through a ridiculously hard first year of graduate school. This is soooo true.... We did homework together (4-8 people) in a room with a chalkboard. Watching someone work through a problem was the most informative thing I've ever witnessed. The second most informative was doing it myself, under the watchful eye of a half dozen people. And the first and second places were only determined because I was a complete novice in the subject, and I was watching some experts. (They had a BA in the area, I had nothing but a good math and physics background)
One of the last homeworks in the spring was "five pretty straightforward questions". That phrase meant they were the spawn of hell, on steroids and PCP, armed with whips and chains. I did problem 2a on the board one afternoon(s). After 3 hours of derivation, we called it quits. The next day, I did another 2 hours of derivation, with 5 other people checking my calc, algebra, units, etc. It took us collectively 5 hours to do "Problem 2a" for that set. If we hadn't done it together, we'd never have even finished. Working through problems as a group was mindblowingly awesome, and taught us all a great deal. It also prevented complete burn-out. And that might have been the most beneficial thing of all...
Or a quick sketch on a board, or a priceless book pulled from a private collection.
I recently asked one professor a question on a really, really specific topic. She went to her shelf, pulled two books from people I'd never heard of, and told me the chapters to read. Then forwarded me a half dozen pdfs of papers, (yeah, probably illegally) and gave me a manila folder of another half dozen papers that were rare and hard to get a hold of.
Over IRC, only the half-dozen PDFs would have been possible to give me. And IRC doesn't do chalkboard sketches too well.
The internet is wonderful. I get all sorts of amazing stuff from it. But to learn, you really, really need to be immersed in a group of similar learners, of all skill levels. Teaching those lower than you reinforces concepts and brings new insights, and learning from those above you opens doors you never knew existed.
Sadly, this is often lost on the high-IQ, but low Social-IQ nerds of the worlds. Like Bill Gates.
What the hell are you talking about? OSX does NOT have a central repository for updating programs. I get spammed only a bit less than windows for updates to the various programs I have installed on OSX. If you're talking iPhone specifically, then you're talking about programs which Apple distributes being updated by Apple. This is not what is being talked about here - these are programs that are distributed by a large number of companies, being updated by those companies specifically. And that's the problem. Is your solution to have Microsoft distribute all the windows programs in the world?
Being able to deny an update adds another layer of security to users' computers...
No, it does not. At least not on the net average. For you or I? Sure. But my mom and dad, my sister and her boyfriend, the kids I used to work with all use Firefox. And their reliability is nonexistant. If it asks them for permission, half the time they say ok. If it pops up when they're trying to type something, they close it and ignore it.
If Firefox never pops anything up, but stays updated, that's a huge step up in security for the majority of users. If they can be trained NOT to just click 'OK' on dialogs and read them, even better. And the first step in doing that is having less dialogs pop up. If dialog boxes are rare, they are much less likely to get ignored. Vista showed us the best way to get them ignored...
Personally, I'm not happy with this at all. I'm on a pretty wimpy connection, and when 10-20mb comes thumping down the pipe, I notice. I'd also rather read my updates and decide whether or not to install them. But overall, considering all users, this is a HUGE step up in security. If it results in even some small percentage less zombified computers, I'm all for it. And I think it will.
In fact, if he had the only key to the server rooms, and they had to bust out walls and break down doors to get into them, it would have been about the same. If he'd wiped all the systems he had touched when he had left, it would have been the same. Denying your former employer access to their equipment is going to get you into trouble in any job. If it's government mission-critical stuff, even more so.
That's like saying knives should be designed to be dull, because users are idiots, and will cut themselves.
It's not in any way the programmer's responsibility to hold the hands of idiots so they don't hurt themselves. The people who wrote this wrote a solid programs, and IN THE DOCS noted that if you set this up like this, you were an idiot.
Come on... we have far too much nanny-state as it is. My coffee has a warning on it that it's hot, my keyboard has a warning on it about RSI, my girlfriends hair straightener has a warning on it that it can burn you because it's hot....do we really need to extend this to software?
I forget who said it, but some comedian said we should remove the warnings from everything, and let nature sort it out. Same for software. If you're not smart enough to run a website, perhaps you need a painful pointing out of that.
CO2 stays in the air longer, but methane contributes to much more greenhouse warming. (200 years is not a correct number - it's highly variable.) Methane tends to break down to CO2 anyway. So the options are either methane for some time, which is a stronger greenhouse gas, then decomposing to CO2, or burn it, and just have the CO2. Pretty much nobody thinks methane is better in the atmosphere because of that reason. The excess CO2 is not good, but it's better than methane over the same time period.
Exactly. It's not often it happens, but every now and then shit like this goes down. You can't call it "zero fatality" when life has a million in one chance of going horribly wrong. (From what I understand, nobody was in that car - they had just walked away from it after parking.)
It's all people dicking around with other people's money.
No strawmen involved - just an extension of the base topic - you create something, and get money for it. If you just hand that to your kid, or anyone else, they haven't earned it by doing anything useful. At that point, it's more likely they will have a negative impact on society, because they're wielding influence they didn't earn by being a useful member of society. Sorry I didn't completely spell it out for you.
society gets to pay for the care of the author's disabled kid, elderly parents, cancer-stricken spouse, or whatever?
Yep. Because that's what a good society does. What it doesn't do is let some pampered ass fuck up that community because they have the money to do so, without the sense to be a valuable part of it.
If you add it up, the wealthy asses do far more economic harm to society than the needy poor. I'm looking at a messed up Gulf of Mexico, a major depression caused by playing the lottery on the stock market with other people's money, and a tort system which makes downloading a song 100x worse than stealing a CD from a store. That's my point. Let's remove the ability for wealthy douchebags who just got their hands on other people's money to fuck up society. If we have to care for more poor people, fine. Because we'll have more money to do so.
This. I made the same comment in another story just yesterday. When you make something or provide a service to the community, you get paid for it. Society says, "thanks for doing that". That money is your influence within that community. The more good you do for the community, the more money/influence you have.
How the hell do you justify being able to pass on that influence to your kids? That doesn't benefit your community in any way. If you pass on the ability to do what you did - a skill, a trade, etc., then that helps. If you give them nothing beneficial to give back to that community, and the ability to influence it in negative ways, it's a social evil. It doesn't help the community you live in in any shape or form.
I'd like to see copyright last for the author's lifetime. Period. After that, public domain. Why should some author's possibly douchebag kids benefit from what he or she did? You made your stuff, may or may not have made some money on it, now it's time to let everyone else build on that and have a chance to do the same.
There is no good reason for copyright to be able to be passed from the author to some other entity. It in no way benefits society.
While drinking heavily the other weekend, a couple of philosophically minded buddies and I got talking about how money can be seen as influence points. You do something that benefits society, we give you influence points to spend on things. Like houses and food and shoes for your kids. If you're really good at something, you get a lot of influence. If you're bad at everything, you don't have much.
Like you said, we discussed how nonsensical it is to be able to spend your influence points for more influence. You haven't earned any more by doing anything - you somehow gamed the system to get more influence when you didn't deserve it. If you used your influence to help someone else start a successful business, why then you should be entitled to more. But being able to get more money/influence by trading your influence faster than someone else is, from a societal standpoint, damaging to all involved.
A second discussion we had was on how badly we've mangled the basic goal of every living thing: passing on your genes. It used to be that you'd pop out some kids, and to make sure your genes got passed along, you'd have to teach them stuff to survive. How to be a valuable member of society, how to find food, do a job, etc. Now, we have this bizarre system where you can just give them your influence when you die, and they don't have to do jack shit for society. We had a lot of back-and-forth about how fair it would be to put a 100% death tax on people. Either use your influence before you die, or lose it. After you die, just giving it to your kids is bullshit, because they could be worthless pieces of trash. Giving them influence in a society doesn't help it at all - it hurts it significantly. If you're going to give anything to your kids, give them the ability to be as prosperous as you were, by being that good of a member of society.
Of course, drinking and philosophy never produce anything useful, but it was an interesting discussion on how we're destroying our society.
If you haven't discovered it yet, try Brinley Gold rum. Hands down the best rum I can find easily in the US for a reasonable price. Their Vanilla rum is outstanding - Double Gold at the International Rum Festival. Their spiced rum is pretty damn good as well.
You lack some serious imagination. If you're not familiar with gifts in Farmville and all the new, trashy versions of The Sims, you don't know what gamer women will do for their fix. L4D? Maybe not quite as much. But I'd bet there will still be a fair number who would.
It's the best thing in the world for us if Google gets all these obnoxious and dangerous patents. Why? Because when we all leave, nobody else will be able to do these things without paying Google.
Once Google gets terribly, obnoxiously evil, we will all move to some poor email/search company who can't afford to license mouse tracking from Google. I'd like to see Google patent everything that's not "give users a service they want".
That a very insightful point. I detest most rap/hip-hop/spoken word, being a heavy/progressive metal fan. Yet I ran into Scroobius Pip some time ago, and was struck by something very different than what I normally listened to. However, for the moment, we're both safe. There are places like slashdot where people will post links to things that you've never heard of, or haven't been exposed to. But the most important part is this:
This is for Ads. Not for anything else. When was the last time an add introduced you to something new and different? If you're anything like me, you tune almost all of them out. I, for one, would welcome ads targeted to things in my life. It'd be far less irritating than the 99% of ads currently that I'm not interested in.
I'm not a normal consumer. I've got a 5 year old car that I'll probably keep for another 5 years. Car ads are useless to me. All the ads for female hygiene produces are useless for me. I drink quality, local beers. All the mass-market beer ads are useless to me. I don't buy much in the way of processed foods - all those ads are useless to me. I don't know that I've had more than about 3 hot pockets in my life. Ads for them aren't going to change that. I don't drink much soda, so you can throw out all the Coke and Pepsi ads. I've been using the same deodorant for years now. The woman loves the smell, so I'm not changing that either. Toss out all the deodorant and body spray ads.
Seriously - I'm ok with better targeted ads. Of course, if that comes to pass, I'll bitch and complain about seeing the same 5 ads over and over and over for years.
If all they can do during a party is fuck around on their cell phone and take pictures of shit they shouldn't be taking pictures of, why are you inviting them?
The last major party I threw (about a year ago) we had about 40 people show up. There was grilling, a ton of beer and booze (it was a "beer tasting" party, which meant microbrews from 400 miles in all directions.) People got wasted. Things were smoked. Everyone had a good time.
And there were only a half-dozen pictures taken, mostly of the beer table so people could remember what was there. Nothing incriminating was captured, nobody was tagged in a photo.
I really don't think that's the answer. The Interstate Commerce clause is pretty damn important, and makes a good deal of sense.
The issue is that somehow it's being used for shit that's not interstate, or not commerce. If it's not BOTH, the Interstate Commerce rules can't apply. I'd be happy if judges just started tossing stuff out due to that obvious fact alone.
You need to do NONE of those things to produce and consume alcohol.
Can you give me any decent research that shows that pot is so much more dangerous than alcohol that it should have those restrictions? It's a pretty facetious question, because you can't. You can't OD on pot. You'd need to smoke like 3000 joints to do that. Or you'd need to eat like 30kg. When researchers looked at pot, they found that it would "moderately impair driving performance alone, but with alcohol, it would "significantly impair driving performance". You know, like alcohol does.
You are either very, very naive, or nicely brainwashed in the best Puritanic traditions. Before you post paranoid stuff about drugs, at least learn about them. If not try some. It might help you a great deal.
And crazily enough, I smoked pot 2-3 times in the late 90s. Haven't touched an illegal drug since. What I have done is learn about stuff, before rambling off like a Puritan who's been in deep-freeze for 400 years.
Which will end up as a pretty interesting legal battle...
Most of the drug laws are based on interstate commerce laws. That clause has been abused like no other, to the point that it doesn't make a lick of sense. When you bust people under interstate commerce for growing and consuming something in their own state, without being near a state line, you're treading on thin ice. So far, the courts have turned a bit of a blind eye to this abuse. I don't know how well that'd go if it was a state sponsored activity.
If the federal courts/Supreme Court can't see that Interstate commerce requires Commerce between States to be regulated, I can see a number of states being a bit uppity. That's the stuff of revolutions.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a BRILLIANT move on their part. Any time you can get people to spend real-world money on imaginary items, then legitimately destroy them within the game system, you make more money. I highly doubt this person will stop playing because of this event. And I highly doubt the group that funded the purchase will not replace the PLEX they lost. Even if only half of them do, that's 50% more sold because they set them up to be able to be destroyed.
Brilliant!
As Sir_Lewk said, but additionally:
Student Loans have the lowest interest of any loan. If you can pay them off, your credit goes sky high. And they have some of the friendliest terms....if you're getting close to not being able to pay them, go to grad school! They (if they are Stafford or a number of other ones) are automatically deferred, and at the worst, you just have to pay interest. As long as you don't sink your entire life by going to a stupidly expensive college, while majoring in something that will never make enough to pay them off, student loans are awesome. (I pulled a 750 credit score by paying my reasonable ones off, and paying off a cheap car a year ahead of time!) Otherwise, they are an awesome example of social darwinism....
I just ground my way through a ridiculously hard first year of graduate school. This is soooo true.... We did homework together (4-8 people) in a room with a chalkboard. Watching someone work through a problem was the most informative thing I've ever witnessed. The second most informative was doing it myself, under the watchful eye of a half dozen people. And the first and second places were only determined because I was a complete novice in the subject, and I was watching some experts. (They had a BA in the area, I had nothing but a good math and physics background)
One of the last homeworks in the spring was "five pretty straightforward questions". That phrase meant they were the spawn of hell, on steroids and PCP, armed with whips and chains. I did problem 2a on the board one afternoon(s). After 3 hours of derivation, we called it quits. The next day, I did another 2 hours of derivation, with 5 other people checking my calc, algebra, units, etc. It took us collectively 5 hours to do "Problem 2a" for that set. If we hadn't done it together, we'd never have even finished. Working through problems as a group was mindblowingly awesome, and taught us all a great deal. It also prevented complete burn-out. And that might have been the most beneficial thing of all...
Or a quick sketch on a board, or a priceless book pulled from a private collection.
I recently asked one professor a question on a really, really specific topic. She went to her shelf, pulled two books from people I'd never heard of, and told me the chapters to read. Then forwarded me a half dozen pdfs of papers, (yeah, probably illegally) and gave me a manila folder of another half dozen papers that were rare and hard to get a hold of.
Over IRC, only the half-dozen PDFs would have been possible to give me. And IRC doesn't do chalkboard sketches too well.
The internet is wonderful. I get all sorts of amazing stuff from it. But to learn, you really, really need to be immersed in a group of similar learners, of all skill levels. Teaching those lower than you reinforces concepts and brings new insights, and learning from those above you opens doors you never knew existed.
Sadly, this is often lost on the high-IQ, but low Social-IQ nerds of the worlds. Like Bill Gates.
Adobe has created a fix for this...just install flash...
What the hell are you talking about? OSX does NOT have a central repository for updating programs. I get spammed only a bit less than windows for updates to the various programs I have installed on OSX. If you're talking iPhone specifically, then you're talking about programs which Apple distributes being updated by Apple. This is not what is being talked about here - these are programs that are distributed by a large number of companies, being updated by those companies specifically. And that's the problem. Is your solution to have Microsoft distribute all the windows programs in the world?
Being able to deny an update adds another layer of security to users' computers...
No, it does not. At least not on the net average. For you or I? Sure. But my mom and dad, my sister and her boyfriend, the kids I used to work with all use Firefox. And their reliability is nonexistant. If it asks them for permission, half the time they say ok. If it pops up when they're trying to type something, they close it and ignore it.
If Firefox never pops anything up, but stays updated, that's a huge step up in security for the majority of users. If they can be trained NOT to just click 'OK' on dialogs and read them, even better. And the first step in doing that is having less dialogs pop up. If dialog boxes are rare, they are much less likely to get ignored. Vista showed us the best way to get them ignored...
Personally, I'm not happy with this at all. I'm on a pretty wimpy connection, and when 10-20mb comes thumping down the pipe, I notice. I'd also rather read my updates and decide whether or not to install them. But overall, considering all users, this is a HUGE step up in security. If it results in even some small percentage less zombified computers, I'm all for it. And I think it will.
In fact, if he had the only key to the server rooms, and they had to bust out walls and break down doors to get into them, it would have been about the same. If he'd wiped all the systems he had touched when he had left, it would have been the same. Denying your former employer access to their equipment is going to get you into trouble in any job. If it's government mission-critical stuff, even more so.
That's like saying knives should be designed to be dull, because users are idiots, and will cut themselves.
It's not in any way the programmer's responsibility to hold the hands of idiots so they don't hurt themselves. The people who wrote this wrote a solid programs, and IN THE DOCS noted that if you set this up like this, you were an idiot.
Come on... we have far too much nanny-state as it is. My coffee has a warning on it that it's hot, my keyboard has a warning on it about RSI, my girlfriends hair straightener has a warning on it that it can burn you because it's hot....do we really need to extend this to software?
I forget who said it, but some comedian said we should remove the warnings from everything, and let nature sort it out. Same for software. If you're not smart enough to run a website, perhaps you need a painful pointing out of that.
CO2 stays in the air longer, but methane contributes to much more greenhouse warming. (200 years is not a correct number - it's highly variable.) Methane tends to break down to CO2 anyway. So the options are either methane for some time, which is a stronger greenhouse gas, then decomposing to CO2, or burn it, and just have the CO2. Pretty much nobody thinks methane is better in the atmosphere because of that reason. The excess CO2 is not good, but it's better than methane over the same time period.
Exactly. It's not often it happens, but every now and then shit like this goes down. You can't call it "zero fatality" when life has a million in one chance of going horribly wrong. (From what I understand, nobody was in that car - they had just walked away from it after parking.)
It's all people dicking around with other people's money.
No strawmen involved - just an extension of the base topic - you create something, and get money for it. If you just hand that to your kid, or anyone else, they haven't earned it by doing anything useful. At that point, it's more likely they will have a negative impact on society, because they're wielding influence they didn't earn by being a useful member of society. Sorry I didn't completely spell it out for you.
society gets to pay for the care of the author's disabled kid, elderly parents, cancer-stricken spouse, or whatever?
Yep. Because that's what a good society does. What it doesn't do is let some pampered ass fuck up that community because they have the money to do so, without the sense to be a valuable part of it.
If you add it up, the wealthy asses do far more economic harm to society than the needy poor. I'm looking at a messed up Gulf of Mexico, a major depression caused by playing the lottery on the stock market with other people's money, and a tort system which makes downloading a song 100x worse than stealing a CD from a store. That's my point. Let's remove the ability for wealthy douchebags who just got their hands on other people's money to fuck up society. If we have to care for more poor people, fine. Because we'll have more money to do so.
This. I made the same comment in another story just yesterday. When you make something or provide a service to the community, you get paid for it. Society says, "thanks for doing that". That money is your influence within that community. The more good you do for the community, the more money/influence you have.
How the hell do you justify being able to pass on that influence to your kids? That doesn't benefit your community in any way. If you pass on the ability to do what you did - a skill, a trade, etc., then that helps. If you give them nothing beneficial to give back to that community, and the ability to influence it in negative ways, it's a social evil. It doesn't help the community you live in in any shape or form.
I'd like to see copyright last for the author's lifetime. Period. After that, public domain. Why should some author's possibly douchebag kids benefit from what he or she did? You made your stuff, may or may not have made some money on it, now it's time to let everyone else build on that and have a chance to do the same.
There is no good reason for copyright to be able to be passed from the author to some other entity. It in no way benefits society.
While drinking heavily the other weekend, a couple of philosophically minded buddies and I got talking about how money can be seen as influence points. You do something that benefits society, we give you influence points to spend on things. Like houses and food and shoes for your kids. If you're really good at something, you get a lot of influence. If you're bad at everything, you don't have much.
Like you said, we discussed how nonsensical it is to be able to spend your influence points for more influence. You haven't earned any more by doing anything - you somehow gamed the system to get more influence when you didn't deserve it. If you used your influence to help someone else start a successful business, why then you should be entitled to more. But being able to get more money/influence by trading your influence faster than someone else is, from a societal standpoint, damaging to all involved.
A second discussion we had was on how badly we've mangled the basic goal of every living thing: passing on your genes. It used to be that you'd pop out some kids, and to make sure your genes got passed along, you'd have to teach them stuff to survive. How to be a valuable member of society, how to find food, do a job, etc. Now, we have this bizarre system where you can just give them your influence when you die, and they don't have to do jack shit for society. We had a lot of back-and-forth about how fair it would be to put a 100% death tax on people. Either use your influence before you die, or lose it. After you die, just giving it to your kids is bullshit, because they could be worthless pieces of trash. Giving them influence in a society doesn't help it at all - it hurts it significantly. If you're going to give anything to your kids, give them the ability to be as prosperous as you were, by being that good of a member of society.
Of course, drinking and philosophy never produce anything useful, but it was an interesting discussion on how we're destroying our society.
If you haven't discovered it yet, try Brinley Gold rum. Hands down the best rum I can find easily in the US for a reasonable price. Their Vanilla rum is outstanding - Double Gold at the International Rum Festival. Their spiced rum is pretty damn good as well.
You lack some serious imagination. If you're not familiar with gifts in Farmville and all the new, trashy versions of The Sims, you don't know what gamer women will do for their fix. L4D? Maybe not quite as much. But I'd bet there will still be a fair number who would.
A bit late, but you know what, GOOD!!!!
It's the best thing in the world for us if Google gets all these obnoxious and dangerous patents. Why? Because when we all leave, nobody else will be able to do these things without paying Google.
Once Google gets terribly, obnoxiously evil, we will all move to some poor email/search company who can't afford to license mouse tracking from Google. I'd like to see Google patent everything that's not "give users a service they want".
Or dog food ads next to your girlfriend's picture.....
That a very insightful point. I detest most rap/hip-hop/spoken word, being a heavy/progressive metal fan. Yet I ran into Scroobius Pip some time ago, and was struck by something very different than what I normally listened to. However, for the moment, we're both safe. There are places like slashdot where people will post links to things that you've never heard of, or haven't been exposed to. But the most important part is this:
This is for Ads. Not for anything else. When was the last time an add introduced you to something new and different? If you're anything like me, you tune almost all of them out. I, for one, would welcome ads targeted to things in my life. It'd be far less irritating than the 99% of ads currently that I'm not interested in.
I'm not a normal consumer. I've got a 5 year old car that I'll probably keep for another 5 years. Car ads are useless to me. All the ads for female hygiene produces are useless for me. I drink quality, local beers. All the mass-market beer ads are useless to me. I don't buy much in the way of processed foods - all those ads are useless to me. I don't know that I've had more than about 3 hot pockets in my life. Ads for them aren't going to change that. I don't drink much soda, so you can throw out all the Coke and Pepsi ads. I've been using the same deodorant for years now. The woman loves the smell, so I'm not changing that either. Toss out all the deodorant and body spray ads.
Seriously - I'm ok with better targeted ads. Of course, if that comes to pass, I'll bitch and complain about seeing the same 5 ads over and over and over for years.
Then get better friends.
If all they can do during a party is fuck around on their cell phone and take pictures of shit they shouldn't be taking pictures of, why are you inviting them?
The last major party I threw (about a year ago) we had about 40 people show up. There was grilling, a ton of beer and booze (it was a "beer tasting" party, which meant microbrews from 400 miles in all directions.) People got wasted. Things were smoked. Everyone had a good time.
And there were only a half-dozen pictures taken, mostly of the beer table so people could remember what was there. Nothing incriminating was captured, nobody was tagged in a photo.
Seriously. Get better friends.
I really don't think that's the answer. The Interstate Commerce clause is pretty damn important, and makes a good deal of sense.
The issue is that somehow it's being used for shit that's not interstate, or not commerce. If it's not BOTH, the Interstate Commerce rules can't apply. I'd be happy if judges just started tossing stuff out due to that obvious fact alone.
Are you kidding?
You need to do NONE of those things to produce and consume alcohol.
Can you give me any decent research that shows that pot is so much more dangerous than alcohol that it should have those restrictions? It's a pretty facetious question, because you can't. You can't OD on pot. You'd need to smoke like 3000 joints to do that. Or you'd need to eat like 30kg. When researchers looked at pot, they found that it would "moderately impair driving performance alone, but with alcohol, it would "significantly impair driving performance". You know, like alcohol does.
Hang around with an addict? Really? Because "About one in ten of those who ever use cannabis become dependent on it at some time during their 4 or 5 years of heaviest use. This risk is more like the equivalent risk for alcohol (15%) than for nicotine (32%) or opioids (23%)." Yea, it's 1/3 less addicting than alcohol, and 3x less addicting than cigarettes.
You are either very, very naive, or nicely brainwashed in the best Puritanic traditions. Before you post paranoid stuff about drugs, at least learn about them. If not try some. It might help you a great deal.
And crazily enough, I smoked pot 2-3 times in the late 90s. Haven't touched an illegal drug since. What I have done is learn about stuff, before rambling off like a Puritan who's been in deep-freeze for 400 years.
Which will end up as a pretty interesting legal battle...
Most of the drug laws are based on interstate commerce laws. That clause has been abused like no other, to the point that it doesn't make a lick of sense. When you bust people under interstate commerce for growing and consuming something in their own state, without being near a state line, you're treading on thin ice. So far, the courts have turned a bit of a blind eye to this abuse. I don't know how well that'd go if it was a state sponsored activity.
If the federal courts/Supreme Court can't see that Interstate commerce requires Commerce between States to be regulated, I can see a number of states being a bit uppity. That's the stuff of revolutions.