It's not just a matter of personal taste. When the story is something an angst-ridden pimpled teen could've cooked up in fifteen minutes (goes for all three Matrix movies), it's really bad.
What is this fuel used for? Just for communicating, or does it still need acceleration? If it's just for communication, couldn't they make it last longer by increasing the intervals between each time it communicates?
That's a nice way to dismiss any criticism of the subject at hand (I'm not saying that it deserves any criticism though).
If you don't agree, you're a luddite, and if you claim you're not a luddite, disagreeing will make you a crypto-luddite. It's almost like the unbeatable logic behind "denial is the first symptom of addiction".
There is more to IPv6 than a larger address space. The address space issue is just what is commonly pushed, since it's something that's easily grasped even by non-techies.
The true benefits of IPv6 are things like; improved routing, multicasting scope, greater flexibility in what packets contain, flow labeling, privacy and authentication.
Especially flow labeling will be important if the net is going to be a source of media. Streams could get a higher priority, so low latency and glitch free audio and video can be possible. Makes me wonder if this couldn't be abused though.
Have you ever read any documents released through the Freedom of Information Act that has any actual substance?
The act is supposed to protect us against abuse from the government, yet it gives the government full power to remove whatever parts they see fit. Who does the editing? A neutral party? I don't think so.
Yeah.. drugs and all other things are mutually exclusive. You don't have to tell me that, the government is already doing a great job.
And the only "natural high" is the blinding love for Jesus that resides in your heart, even if you do not know it yourself. For Jesus loves everybody, also losers with an "unnatural" interest in the life of Slashdot editors.
They make you freak out in a way that could be dangerous VERY EASILY dangerous
Know your dosage. Know and understand set and setting.
If you do stupid things, shit might hit the fan. No different than everything else in life. Just because you don't know or understand what you're dealing with doesn't mean that nobody else does and that there should be a blanket ban.
Would you get into a car and drive on the highway without any knowledge of how to operate a car? Would you do the same after drinking a bottle of vodka? People do stupid shit like that all the time. That's still no reason to ban either cars or vodka.
Hello? You do know that it is the zionists who's running things? From Murdoch (Fox News) to Rothschild (The Federal Bank and Diebold). It's not exactly a big secret.
We used the ultra sensitive data about the MS Campus that leaked out to get revenge for the poor guy. I mean, now that we now that MSCopy is in the same building as MS's shipping and receiving, Redmond is ripe for taking!
The NIDA report is on physical addiction. You are talking about psychological addiction which is a very fuzzy subject.
Physical addiction is also somewhat fuzzy, but is still much more scientifically defined (that an amount of the substance taken over some time, will lead to physical withdrawal symptoms). That nicotine is more addictive than heroin only says that it will take a lesser ammount over a shorter time to produce greater withdrawal symptoms (and thus not actually very interesting, it's just a funny fact).
Funny you should say that, since the chemicals I metioned have all those properties.
They give their intended effects at dosages which are very far from the lethal dose (all of their LD50 values in mice are in the range of hundreds of milligrams per kilogram)
They have no known long term side effects, and they have been in use for thousands of years.
They are not physically adictive. And there is a broad consensus that they have no potential for psychological addiction.
They are all very speedily expunged from the body (and myths about psilocybin accumulating in your spinal fluid are just that, myths).
Additionally, all the chemicals I mentioned comes from plants and fungi that grow literally everywhere.
The only reason these drugs are illegal right now, is that they are "psychoactive". The government, for some reason, don't want us to take psychoactive substances. And the second anybody comes up with a new psychoactive substance, it will be declared illegal, without any serious discussion and without considering any of the factors you mentioned.
I like that you're trying to dispel bad drug myths, and it's all pretty good until you reach your second point.
These are often heroin, laced with horse tranquilizers or rat poison
That's just another myth. Even in places where heroin is relatively cheap, it's still economically stupid to sell it as ecstasy. You also have to take into account that heroin isn't very active when it's taken orally. So even if somebody were stupid enough to lace their ecstasy with heroin, you wouldn't even feel the effects of it. Even if the pill was all heroin, and no mdma, it wouldn't make you addicted either.
As for rat posion, killing your customers is no way to run a business. That said, there is one known case of ecstasy that did indeed contain rat poision and which probably is the source for this myth. It was discovered in The Netherlands, where anybody can send in their pills for testing for free. It was later believed that these pills were submitted by anti drug activists as nobody ever got ill from eating pills "in the wild" from the same batch.
Your first point is valid though. Dehydration can kill you. You've got to watch out though, as drinking too much water will also kill you. The first widely publicized death due to ecstasy in the UK was that of teenager Leah Betts. Her story is believed to be source for the "one pill can kill" myth.
She had been warned about the dehydration dangers, and drank so much water that it led to water intoxication. Initially everyone believed that it was the "killer drug" which did her in though. Promptly two of UK's largest advertising agencies, out of the goodness in their hearts, launched a "free" advertising campaign.
"Sorted. Just one Ecstasy tablet killed Leah Betts"
That each of the agencies largest customers were breweries had nothing to with their sudden concern for the nations youths.
just because one drug might be a candidate for legalization does not mean that all are
Actually, it's the other way around. Just because a few drugs are potentially harmful to society, why ban hundreds of totally unrelated substances?
Most people think "illicit drugs are bad", when in fact "illicit drugs" is just a list undemocraticly compiled by the govnerment from seemingly random rules.
Here are some "drugs" that you may or may not have heard about; psilocybine, dmt, ibogaine, mescaline, salvinorin, muscimol. Can you explain to me why these drugs should be illegal? Do you think the government can explain this?
Are you suggesting that drugwarfacts have altered the NIDA report? It's a well known fact. Deal with it.
Oh, and btw. I've seen people on heroin too. Successful, rich, pilars of their community. Heroin doesn't make you want to live on the street wearing filthy rags, begging for money and breaking and entering to pay for your next hit.
Slashdot Mirror
Gartner isn't exactly unbiased when it comes to Microsoft. Their opinions are less and less interesting.
It's not just a matter of personal taste. When the story is something an angst-ridden pimpled teen could've cooked up in fifteen minutes (goes for all three Matrix movies), it's really bad.
Commit quantum suicide instead.
What is this fuel used for? Just for communicating, or does it still need acceleration? If it's just for communication, couldn't they make it last longer by increasing the intervals between each time it communicates?
That's a nice way to dismiss any criticism of the subject at hand (I'm not saying that it deserves any criticism though).
If you don't agree, you're a luddite, and if you claim you're not a luddite, disagreeing will make you a crypto-luddite. It's almost like the unbeatable logic behind "denial is the first symptom of addiction".
Now you're giving Berkeley too much credit. LSD was synthesized by Albert Hoffman of the Sandoz Chemical Corporation of Basel, Switzerland in 1938.
They might've used a lot of LSD in Berkeley during the 60's, but it wasn't discovered there.
There is more to IPv6 than a larger address space. The address space issue is just what is commonly pushed, since it's something that's easily grasped even by non-techies.
The true benefits of IPv6 are things like; improved routing, multicasting scope, greater flexibility in what packets contain, flow labeling, privacy and authentication.
Especially flow labeling will be important if the net is going to be a source of media. Streams could get a higher priority, so low latency and glitch free audio and video can be possible. Makes me wonder if this couldn't be abused though.
Have you ever read any documents released through the Freedom of Information Act that has any actual substance?
The act is supposed to protect us against abuse from the government, yet it gives the government full power to remove whatever parts they see fit. Who does the editing? A neutral party? I don't think so.
Yeah.. drugs and all other things are mutually exclusive. You don't have to tell me that, the government is already doing a great job.
And the only "natural high" is the blinding love for Jesus that resides in your heart, even if you do not know it yourself. For Jesus loves everybody, also losers with an "unnatural" interest in the life of Slashdot editors.
Guess you problem was the robots.txt issue. Don't understand why you thought otherwise, the content isn't that controversial.
For what it's worth, I found your site interesting.
They make you freak out in a way that could be dangerous VERY EASILY dangerous
Know your dosage. Know and understand set and setting.
If you do stupid things, shit might hit the fan. No different than everything else in life. Just because you don't know or understand what you're dealing with doesn't mean that nobody else does and that there should be a blanket ban.
Would you get into a car and drive on the highway without any knowledge of how to operate a car? Would you do the same after drinking a bottle of vodka? People do stupid shit like that all the time. That's still no reason to ban either cars or vodka.
Join us!
It's fun, and you get to run the world.
I thinks it's pretty commonly accepted by historians that there were about eleven millions killed in total.
So that's 6 million jews and 5 million other. Are you surprised that you never heard of that?
Hello? You do know that it is the zionists who's running things? From Murdoch (Fox News) to Rothschild (The Federal Bank and Diebold). It's not exactly a big secret.
We used the ultra sensitive data about the MS Campus that leaked out to get revenge for the poor guy. I mean, now that we now that MSCopy is in the same building as MS's shipping and receiving, Redmond is ripe for taking!
It could've been appropriate if the original poster had just written "Legalize drugs!".
The NIDA report is on physical addiction. You are talking about psychological addiction which is a very fuzzy subject.
Physical addiction is also somewhat fuzzy, but is still much more scientifically defined (that an amount of the substance taken over some time, will lead to physical withdrawal symptoms). That nicotine is more addictive than heroin only says that it will take a lesser ammount over a shorter time to produce greater withdrawal symptoms (and thus not actually very interesting, it's just a funny fact).
Funny you should say that, since the chemicals I metioned have all those properties.
They give their intended effects at dosages which are very far from the lethal dose (all of their LD50 values in mice are in the range of hundreds of milligrams per kilogram)
They have no known long term side effects, and they have been in use for thousands of years.
They are not physically adictive. And there is a broad consensus that they have no potential for psychological addiction.
They are all very speedily expunged from the body (and myths about psilocybin accumulating in your spinal fluid are just that, myths).
Additionally, all the chemicals I mentioned comes from plants and fungi that grow literally everywhere.
The only reason these drugs are illegal right now, is that they are "psychoactive". The government, for some reason, don't want us to take psychoactive substances. And the second anybody comes up with a new psychoactive substance, it will be declared illegal, without any serious discussion and without considering any of the factors you mentioned.
Ok, but it's still not something worth quoting.
That's not a good response. That's a bad response. Certainly from someone which is supposed to be a politician.
Please? No! Why? Because!
I like that you're trying to dispel bad drug myths, and it's all pretty good until you reach your second point.
These are often heroin, laced with horse tranquilizers or rat poison
That's just another myth. Even in places where heroin is relatively cheap, it's still economically stupid to sell it as ecstasy. You also have to take into account that heroin isn't very active when it's taken orally. So even if somebody were stupid enough to lace their ecstasy with heroin, you wouldn't even feel the effects of it. Even if the pill was all heroin, and no mdma, it wouldn't make you addicted either.
As for rat posion, killing your customers is no way to run a business. That said, there is one known case of ecstasy that did indeed contain rat poision and which probably is the source for this myth. It was discovered in The Netherlands, where anybody can send in their pills for testing for free. It was later believed that these pills were submitted by anti drug activists as nobody ever got ill from eating pills "in the wild" from the same batch.
Your first point is valid though. Dehydration can kill you. You've got to watch out though, as drinking too much water will also kill you. The first widely publicized death due to ecstasy in the UK was that of teenager Leah Betts. Her story is believed to be source for the "one pill can kill" myth.
She had been warned about the dehydration dangers, and drank so much water that it led to water intoxication. Initially everyone believed that it was the "killer drug" which did her in though. Promptly two of UK's largest advertising agencies, out of the goodness in their hearts, launched a "free" advertising campaign.
"Sorted. Just one Ecstasy tablet killed Leah Betts"
That each of the agencies largest customers were breweries had nothing to with their sudden concern for the nations youths.
just because one drug might be a candidate for legalization does not mean that all are
Actually, it's the other way around. Just because a few drugs are potentially harmful to society, why ban hundreds of totally unrelated substances?
Most people think "illicit drugs are bad", when in fact "illicit drugs" is just a list undemocraticly compiled by the govnerment from seemingly random rules.
Here are some "drugs" that you may or may not have heard about; psilocybine, dmt, ibogaine, mescaline, salvinorin, muscimol. Can you explain to me why these drugs should be illegal? Do you think the government can explain this?
The article says that it can detect concentrations of 2 milligrams per square centimeter. In other words, it's useless for detecting LSD.
Btw, I don't think narc dogs are cheap.
Danish law doesn't exclude "hallucinating" drugs. They've even outlawed Salvia Divinorum.
Just because they sell somtehing on pusherstreet in Christiania doesn't mean it's legal.
Are you suggesting that drugwarfacts have altered the NIDA report? It's a well known fact. Deal with it.
Oh, and btw. I've seen people on heroin too. Successful, rich, pilars of their community. Heroin doesn't make you want to live on the street wearing filthy rags, begging for money and breaking and entering to pay for your next hit.