Yeah, because normal users routinely examine the status bar and page source. There are ways to tell which of those pages are legit, it was based largely on inferring it from the text on the page. If you didn't get at least 6/8 (2 questions are invalid, see below), then you MISSED SOMETHING that indicated spyware. It was there, on the image, no outside information whatsoever was needed, sorry if it hurts your pride.
Page 1: The left one was for-pay shareware, with an option to order the non-free software. Easily traceable financials, complete file info, not freeware and ONLY a screensaver. The right one had incomplete file info (size missing), and the programs clearly included functionality beyond their claim to be a screensaver (desktop icons, etc)... Second one is quite clearly more likely to have malware.
Page 2: Left option explicitly states it shows popups in the fine print. Also, rushing EULA acceptance. Open and shut case.
Page 3: The overemphasis of the word "free" on the left page should immediately arouse the suspicions of an experienced user. The left page just exudes cheapness. The right page looks more professional, better games typically are less likely to contain malware, and there's a forums and contact option. Overwhelming odds that the left page is more likely to contain malware, no contest.
Page 4: This question is IMO a bad question with no valid way to tell, and has fatal flaws. The 'bad' site supposedly delivered malware through activex, which firefox (their UA) doesnt support, and the 'good' contained pop-ups... from whats presented you should conclude the opposite of what they did.
Page 5/#1: "FREE Sponsored Version"? If you need technical info to guess if a p2p program saying this contains adware, you're a fool.
#2: Open source, easy avenues for contact and user interaction... generally going to be safe.
#3: Absolutely no way to tell on this one. Clean look and nothing suspicious.
#4: "Unlimited free online calls", "Promote your blog", virus protection... in a P2P program? Dead giveaway even if you've never heard of Kazaa.
So at the end of the day, you're just upset because you suck at identifying spyware. "I can't figure out which is safe from this info, so there MUST be no way to tell!". I'll concede your post applies to two of the questions on the test, but beyond that I see this test as a reasonably good indicator of ability to pick up on the smaller details that indicate spyware long before you waste your time going further towards installing/browsing the site. I suspect you, and others lashing out at this test as completely useless, simply resent being humbled by the idea you might not be as good as you think you are when it comes to *early identification* of problematic sites/software. And yes, I noticed these details immediately my first time through, not retrospectively.
Are you still comparing evolution to spontaneous generation? If so, you're missing the point again and quite ignorant.
The maggots appeared, there was absolutely no doubt about that; but the manner in which they appeared was considered (and please cite overwhelming scientific evidence' among actual scientific thinkers, since a quick google of it seems to say it was a 'common knowledge' with strong religious motivations type thing that the more enlightened wouldn't neccessarily just buy into) evidence of spontaneous generation being what caused them to appear: as the manner in which evolution has happened is strong evidence of natural selection having caused evolution.
So spontaneous generation might (not really, since it wasn't studied very scientifically) be a comparison to natural selection, but NOT evolution.
You don't want the protectors of your freedom to have access to your personal records? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING???
To finally end the production of child pornography, unlicensed private possession of photographic equipment is now to be banned. Requirements for a license to possess photographic equipment will include background checks, fingerprint and DNA collection, as well as locks on all photographic devices that require submitting a copy of every image taken with that device to law enforcement agencies before they may be viewed/developped by anyone. Not only will this prevent perverts from taking pictures of naked children, but it will also stop terrorists from photographing buildings and other illegal photographs to plan their attack on our freedom. Anyone found to be in possession of a photographic device without a license, or bypassing the mechanism to submit copies of all images taken to the government, will be imprisoned with tough mandatory minimum sentences regardless of the content of their photographs. Selling these devices illegally will result in a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence. This new prohibition will be just as effective as our prohibition on drugs; it will solve our nations child pornography problem by keeping cameras and camcorders out of the hands of child molestors.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of. Having all your photographs viewed by law enforcement a small price to pay to protect our children and protect our freedom! If you oppose this new policy, you're either a child pornographer or a terrorist, and will be arrested for treason.
You know what the saddest thing is, I had a conversation with a friend who actually believed that such overt invasions of privacy were completely justified to protect the country. Including warrantless interception of every single phone call, even completely domestic. She even said it would be fine if the government wanted to read her diary for no reason. A device in your car that automatically ticketed you for going 1mph over the limit? You're breaking the law, so you deserve punishment. Preventing people from breaking the law was much more important than privacy. She was dead serious, and of course a fanatical right wing republican. She was otherwise intelligent too, science major at my (tier 1) university. This was the last conversation I ever had with her. People like her show what's wrong with this country that allowed these kind of measures to pass.
200 years ago, scientific consesus was that spontaneous generation happened, too. The evidence seemed overwhelming; you could leave a dead animal in a seemingly sealed container and maggots would spontaneously generate. Or a covered bit of cheese and rats would appear. Observation supported it; but obvervation is sometimes misleading and incomplete.
No, the observed effect was maggots appearing. The proposed mechanism of their appearance was spontaneous generation. Again, you're missing the point of seperating the effect from the theory behind the effect.
Health risk of an opiate NEGLIGIBLE?? Hello, anybody home? I've smoked plenty of opium, let me tell you that you're dead wrong. A few things I've learned from personal experience...
And let me tell you why you're dead wrong, from personal experience and extensive studies of psychopharmacology. The risks of dependence are certainly there, but the health consequences of such dependence are in fact negligible... you'll note the lack of severe health consequences in long-term pain patients. Your interpretation of your personal experience does NOT supercede research on sample sizes far greater than yours.
1. Opiates constipate you (Immodium AD, loperamide, is an opiate)
WOW, huge side effect there. Alcohol destroys your liver and tobacco causes cancer. I'll take constipation, thanks.
2. Smoking opium is harsher on the lungs than marijuana.
It may be "harsher", but please point me in the direction of a study showing it's actually more harmful as opposed to simply more uncomfortable. Also, that's why the vast majority of opium is converted to pill or powder extracts.
3. Opium is far, FAR more addictive than alcohol (witness China and Turkey with their opium wars way back in history)
I don't know about the "FAR" with alcohol, but I do know it's FAR LESS addictive than nicotine. While substances derived from the alkaloids of opium do by far exceed alcohol in addictiveness, they are still less addictive than nicotine. That includes heroin. Look it up.
4. Once hooked to strong opiates, the general recourse to getting off of them is an even worse medication (methadone) as opposed to counseling and Antabuse prescriptions for alcohol addiction.
Methadone, while more addictive, is not nearly as reinforcing and does not produce much in the way of euphoria. Therefore it can be effectively used to step off. Other medications are being used that are superior to methadone. Antabuse is less effective for alcohol abuse than medications for opiate abuse are, counseling even more so. Counseling for opiates does exist, and many people can taper off their dose. Furthermore, abruptly stopping drinking while strongly physically dependent can kill a healthy adult, this is not observed with opiate dependence (but the withdrawal is still quite severe).
5. Opium can and will kill you, or get you killed.
Oh what a load of bullshit. So can alcohol, tobacco, marijuana (but not from toxicity), and virtually every drug, including over-the-counter ones. If you're irresponsible about it, there's plenty of ways to get killed with a whole lot of activities. Opiates, from a clinical standpoint, are FAR less likely to be fatal than just about every other psychoactive substance class out there, legal and illegal. Participating in the illegal consumption of a drug presents its own risks, but these are outside of the effects of the drug.
6. Opium screws with your system more than alcohol. The only reasons more die from alcohol than opium are embarassingly simple - Alcohol's far easier to obtain, it's legal, and people get really stupid off of it, and therefore do stupid things.
Again, what a complete and utter load of unresearched bullshit. Toxicity from opium isn't even in the same league as toxicity from alcohol. Especially notable is opiums (and almost all derivatives on the market, licit or illicit) lack of neurotoxicity contrasted to alcohol's repeatedly demonstrated strong neurotoxicity. Not to mention hepatoxicity, which opium again lacks. Alcohol impairs your judgment more than opium, by a huge margin.
Oh Please, the inverse is true; the Drug Companies are some of the largest politically charged industries in current existance, and as a result, a lot of drugs that shouldn't be on the market get there (COX2 Inhibiting NSAIDs are virtually unilaterally linked to heart problems, and yet many are still on the market, and still cost a fortune).
First of all, it has not yet been firmly established as a class effect. And the effect is very small such that it does not occur in people without pre-existing cardiovascular problems. Do you even know why they're on the market? My guess is no. Over-the-counter NSAIDs such as aspirin are non-selective COX1 and COX2 inhibitors, COX1 has little to do with inflammation, but is found in the lining of the stomach. Its inhibition leads to stomach problems in a significant part of the population, which is often severe enough as to stop people from taking it. Selective COX2 inhibitors eliminated this side effect while retaining similar efficacy, providing relief for those who could not tolerate the stomach problems of OTC NSAIDs. IMO, that's a VERY good reason to put a drug on the market, in light of no evidence *at the time* for increased risk of heart problems.
On the other hand, pot is cheap, it's easily home grown, and some studies have shown it does more damage to your lungs than smoking a pack of cigarrettes. And since there really isn't a political lobbying force trying to get this "much needed pharmacutical" on the market legally... Hell, even with some doctors pushing its obvious medical uses, it's still been a tough sell.
And other studies have shown that overall, it does more to protect against cancer than cause it. In any case, weighing the benefits vs. the side effects is a decision for a doctor and patient to make, not for politicians to make. There are lobbying forces pushing for this, including NORML and the Drug Policy Alliance, whose lobbying activities have assisted in medical marijuana legislation in quite a few states, not just California. And it hasn't really been a tough sell to anyone but the politicians... survey after survey has shown the large majority of the population favors allowing it to be prescribed.
Think about Opiods. Then think about how much money has been made using synthetic opiates. The fact remains, the market for synthetic drugs is much greater than the market for naturally occuring drugs due to the corporate and political climates in this country, and because it's easy to convince people with vague symptoms that they have some disease and need a medicine to treat it.
I'll presume you meant semi-synthetic opioids, synthetics are very rarely prescribed. The only one of those that's really easily prescribed is hydrocodone. The political climate of prohibition in this country led to the DEA prosecuting doctors as conventional drug dealers for precribing what the DEA thought to be excessive or unneccessary amounts of opiates. If you require oxycodone, in doses higher than whats mixed with acetaminophen, it suddenly becomes very hard for a patient to obtain, and your suggestion that it's being pushed on people who don't need it is laughable and uninformed. And if you need a fully synthetic opiate such as fentanyl... people are sometimes travelling to a whole different state to find a doctor willing to prescribe it. As a result of this, untreated or undertreated pain is essentially epidemic in this country... and it's not going to get better thanks to prohibition; medical schools actually discourage students from even going into the field of pain management because of the legal risks.
Next time you want to point to drugs being overprescribed when they're not really needed because of politics or sales, etc, pick a different class of drugs. Money has been made on semi-synthetic opiates because alot of people actually live in pain, yet its still severely undertreated, doctors do NOT prescribe CII narcotics to people with "vague symptoms" of "some disease", and drug companies can't advertise them either.
That's really still a misconception of how strongly supported these things are, and a failure to seperate EVOLUTION (not really a theory) and the THEORY of natural selection (which the person without much understanding of biology can't seperate from evolution, and thinks is the same as 'theory of evolution). Because of the massive convergence of evidence from things like fossils and molecular biology, and it's absolutely irresponsible to argue that evolution is on the same level as theories like gravitational waves. It's more like this:
Gravity is overwhelmingly supported by observation and measurements, it exists, we know it exists, the evidence is so obvious no rational educated person can refute it; its mechanism of action being a distortion in spacetime is a theory which has changed many times.
Evolution is similarly overwhelmingly support by observation and measurements, it exists, we know it exists, the evidence is so obvious no rational educated person can refute it; its mechanism of action being natural selection of favorable-to-reproduction genetic mutations is a theory which may be modified as new evidence is discovered.
THAT is what the actual scientific consensus is. No one is disputing evolution, at least no one who actually is aware of and understands the evidence. The evidence is so strong that arguing evolution is like arguing that gravity might not exist. If you want to challenge how those processess proceed, go for it. General relativity is open for revision, natural selection/genetic mutations driving it is open for revision. Gravity happens. Evolution happens.
Well the merits of uptime as a measure of stability are limited, but since you seem to use it as evidence of stability I'll point out that I recently had a 45 day uptime with XP with all the fancy graphics effects turned *on*. In fact the system was still quite stable and responsive after those 45 days and the only reason it ended was me accidently knocking the power plug out of the wall (with no UPS). I can't even remember the last time the system "crashed" like previous versions of windows did fairly often, except when one of my hd's had a head crash.. that definately crashed the os. I will however note I don't do much programming, video editing, or intensive gaming (i.e. I only play older games that don't stress the system like modern games) on this computer, and without those 1GB of memory isn't creating a memory crunch to destabilize things, so those might explain some of the stability I experience.
I've lost count of how many times I have to point out that if they've gotten statistically significant results, it's already taken into account sample size, so comments like the parent are irrelevent. 50 people in each group is NOT a small study anyway, psychology isn't like internet polls where typical samples are in the tens of thousands.
...and you apparently aren't aware that the smaller the sample, the larger the size of the effect has to be to be significant.
I say it's time for a paradigm shift in radio and let's see public radio lead that charge.
I think a dynamic new synergy will need to be developed by thinking outside the box in order to take a proactive approach to redefining the core competencies of the company's mission in order to accomplish this "paradigm shift" and leverage these "internet initiatives" in this "new era".
I'll have those TPS reports for you in a minute, Mr. PHB.
I started listening to NPR because my business law professor was so into it that every week our quiz had a bonus question from whatever was being broadcast on NPR during her drive to campus. The questions were not related to the topics of the class, she just really wanted us to listen to NPR. It worked too, I kept listening to it even after the semester ended.
Jury nullification is very rare since judges instruct jurors to apply the facts of the case to the law to reach their decision whether they agree with the result or not. They are virtually never informed that they even have the option of nullification since lawyers are barred from telling them; and furthermore some states such as California even have a jury instruction requiring the judge to be notified if a juror is deciding their verdict using nullification. Judges have the power to remove jurors by claiming they will not apply the law according to the judges instructions.
And nullifying patent law?? When nullification is used, it's usually for drug cases and becoming increasingly common as more people wake up to the fact that the laws are racist, ineffective, unconstitutional, and actually responsible for the vast majority of drug-related harm to society. Those are some of the elements that provoke deciding that a law is just so bad that it shouldn't be enforced; I just don't see it happening in patent infringement cases, since jurors aren't going to be emotionally involved and deciding major moral dilemmas; especially since lawyers can't even bring the issue up to get them thinking that way.
Well said, I've found the notion to be very true: the oldest component left in my computer (apart from the several hds i just left in for extra storage as i added in newer and larger ones) is my video card, an ATI Radeon 9000 pro with 128mb of ram which I bought in late 2002 as an expensive top of the line card. The card it was replacing was a similar age, but it was a STB Velocity 128 with 8mb of ram; which was unequivocally obsolete. But today, the ATI card is still serving me very well, and I have absolutely no intention of replacing it for at least a few more years. It's by no means obsolete and performs reasonably well even with newer games, Doom3 in medium detail is great, and still playable in high detail (although the AMD64 3000+ and 1GB system memory probably help); not that I do that much gaming in games that demanding of video. While the current list of supported GPUs doesn't include my card, I have to wonder what the problem might be; since it meets Vista's Aero Glass requirements between the memory, 8x AGP, and DirectX 9.0c running. So why wouldn't WDDM work? And I wouldn't upgrade it just for Aero, although it might push the upgrade time to 2 more years instead of 3-4.
The less intense gaming with the latest titles you do (or CAD/3d video work, etc), the longer and longer it's becoming before you have to upgrade.
But Walmarts prices also have the connotation of being poor quality materials poorly assembled. When you're dealing with any item where there's noticeable differences in quality as price changes, "cheap" is not always a good association, especially when its a brand/product name most people have never heard before (e.g. Linspire). The last thing we want is for FOSS to be connected in peoples minds (again, mainstream people, not slashdot types who know better) with "oh that cheap stuff on those walmart crapboxes". I for one prefer looking for the best prices, but when quality matters (electronics, luggage, clothing, etc) I stay far away from Walmarts offerings.
Re:Posession of a controlled substance
on
Cocaine Biosensor
·
· Score: 1
Methadone is a fully synthetic opioid synthesized starting from diphenylacetonitrile, which is not an alkaloid present in opium. And if by "stronger" opioids you mean the phenylpiperidines, all of those are fully synthetic as well.
Re:Posession of a controlled substance
on
Cocaine Biosensor
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Researchers can obtain a license from the DEA to acquire (from a company possessing a DEA license to manufacture/distribute, which every major chemical company like Mallinkrodt or Sigma Aldrich has) and possess controlled substances. It's not easy to get, they obsessively track what you purchase and you have to file paperwork accouting for every last bit of it, but many such licenses exist. For more information on obtaining such licenses, see: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugreg/index.ht ml
Re:Posession of a controlled substance
on
Cocaine Biosensor
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Cocaine is a Schedule II controlled substance, it's illegal in ANY quantity with a license. Its uses are confined to a very limited number of surgeries since it's both a local anaesthetic and vasoconstrictor; that's it. It's not prescribed to patients for any reason. Your post would be true about 100 years ago, however.
While there's no doubt it's extremely frequently misdiagnosed, I'll go ahead and call your post Bullshit. I sincerely doubt you conducted a thorough evaluation using DSM-IV-TR guidelines for the several subtypes of ADHD (predominantly hyperactive, predominantly inattentive, combination) on all 100 of those people. ADHD does exist, it's caused by primarily a D2 (dopamine) receptor polymorphism that causes reduced binding affinity and leading to understimulation of certain areas of the brain. Ritalin and other stimulant ADHD drugs boost levels of dopamine to counteract the lowered binding affinity; if stimulants are not helping it's because it's a different problem and now the dopamine levels are above where they should be. I don't know what experts you've been talking to, but I assure you the real experts in this area are well aware that it's a very real problem relating to several other problems. Stimulant drugs work wonders for the *few* people who truly have ADHD, as tons of research has shown, and I can attest to this myself.
You're just as bad as the doctors misdiagnosing so many people. Do some damn research before posting asnine shit like that again. When you're not so lazy try googling for unbiased facts, not ones to support your drug-industry-conspiracy-theory, it's a slap in the face to people really suffering from this problem.
"No, actually it's a very honest look at things." -- This is absurd; the ads claimed low level drug use funded religious extremist terrorism and that is unequivocally false, please review the facts, as even the government distanced itself from this claim after it was shown to basically be an outright lie.
To call drug trade itself terrorism represents a complete lack of understanding of the entire situation.Terrorism is a very specific concept, and everything involving violence is NOT terrorism by default.
You need to review the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violence, especially against civilians, to create wide spread fear for the purpose of furthering political/social objectives. It's designed to create fear in the general population. The fact that the drug trade is violent does not automatically make it terrorism, especially since the overwhelming majority of violent crimes are perpetrated between dealers (not end users, and not people not involved with drugs at all), which cannot be considered equivalent to civilian targets for terrorism. And since that violence is primarily dealer disputes, its purpose is not to create wide spread fear, only fear in competing dealers. The goal of the drug trade is to make money, and the primary way they accomplish that goal is meeting demand for an illegal product; the fact that disputes are resolved with violence doesn't make the entire operation terrorism. They're not out there killing people to scare people into buying drugs.
However, an argument can more logically be made for drug prohibition as terrorism. It significantly attacks the rights of non-drug users in addition to current users and has the objective of using fear (of jail time and of greatly exaggerated self-harm) as the primary means of promoting its objectives.
Re:Am I the only one feeling old?
on
Flashback NES
·
· Score: 1
I downloaded Zelda Classic (http://www.zeldaclassic.com/ after reading this article and the 20 years of nintendo article. After not having played for some 15 years, I still remembered which parts of walls to bomb, which bushes to burn, where most things were, how to beat the bosses, etc. I was surprised, and then disappointed when I beat the first quest in 12 hours and how it took me weeks (if not months) the first time I played; and then really depressed because having such a good memory of the game (which I was completely obsessed with as a kid) made the time seem like it flew by and it was just yesterday I was blowing into that gold cartridge and throwing fits about lost saved games.
It really made me feel old and seriously depressed about aging, and I'm only 22 now. But I was never the kid who wanted to grow up.
Sometimes you want to communicate with people when you can't conveniently talk. Such as a movie theater, lecture, or other environment when talking would bother other people. Or when it's too loud to carry on a conversation, such as a club or a concert. Or if you're busy, but not really busy, and want to reply at your convenience. Plus all the reasons people use IM on the computer instead of calling.
I use AIM on my phone quite a bit. Fortunately, T-Mobile has an option for unlimited SMS/MMS for an extra $15/month, which saves a fortune over the limited options if you send hundreds of messages every month. It's really not that absurd considering industry standard rates for text messaging. There's really great AIM integration with my phone (Razr); my previous phones made it so awkward to use AIM I never really bothered.
There's absolutely no reason a sample size of 15 can't produce statistically significant results. When computing whether a result is significant, sample size is taken into account with the other factors to produce the result, and 15 is sufficiently large to pick up major effects. I'm getting tired of having to explain how basic statistics works on a computer/technology site.
I thought it was just a simplifcation of E^2 = (pc)^2 + m^2c^4, with the first part dropping out for objects at rest and then taking the roots. But that's just the first of many many problems with that post...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because normal users routinely examine the status bar and page source. There are ways to tell which of those pages are legit, it was based largely on inferring it from the text on the page. If you didn't get at least 6/8 (2 questions are invalid, see below), then you MISSED SOMETHING that indicated spyware. It was there, on the image, no outside information whatsoever was needed, sorry if it hurts your pride.
Page 1: The left one was for-pay shareware, with an option to order the non-free software. Easily traceable financials, complete file info, not freeware and ONLY a screensaver. The right one had incomplete file info (size missing), and the programs clearly included functionality beyond their claim to be a screensaver (desktop icons, etc)... Second one is quite clearly more likely to have malware.
Page 2: Left option explicitly states it shows popups in the fine print. Also, rushing EULA acceptance. Open and shut case.
Page 3: The overemphasis of the word "free" on the left page should immediately arouse the suspicions of an experienced user. The left page just exudes cheapness. The right page looks more professional, better games typically are less likely to contain malware, and there's a forums and contact option. Overwhelming odds that the left page is more likely to contain malware, no contest.
Page 4: This question is IMO a bad question with no valid way to tell, and has fatal flaws. The 'bad' site supposedly delivered malware through activex, which firefox (their UA) doesnt support, and the 'good' contained pop-ups... from whats presented you should conclude the opposite of what they did.
Page 5/#1: "FREE Sponsored Version"? If you need technical info to guess if a p2p program saying this contains adware, you're a fool.
#2: Open source, easy avenues for contact and user interaction... generally going to be safe.
#3: Absolutely no way to tell on this one. Clean look and nothing suspicious.
#4: "Unlimited free online calls", "Promote your blog", virus protection... in a P2P program? Dead giveaway even if you've never heard of Kazaa.
So at the end of the day, you're just upset because you suck at identifying spyware. "I can't figure out which is safe from this info, so there MUST be no way to tell!". I'll concede your post applies to two of the questions on the test, but beyond that I see this test as a reasonably good indicator of ability to pick up on the smaller details that indicate spyware long before you waste your time going further towards installing/browsing the site. I suspect you, and others lashing out at this test as completely useless, simply resent being humbled by the idea you might not be as good as you think you are when it comes to *early identification* of problematic sites/software. And yes, I noticed these details immediately my first time through, not retrospectively.
Are you still comparing evolution to spontaneous generation? If so, you're missing the point again and quite ignorant.
The maggots appeared, there was absolutely no doubt about that; but the manner in which they appeared was considered (and please cite overwhelming scientific evidence' among actual scientific thinkers, since a quick google of it seems to say it was a 'common knowledge' with strong religious motivations type thing that the more enlightened wouldn't neccessarily just buy into) evidence of spontaneous generation being what caused them to appear: as the manner in which evolution has happened is strong evidence of natural selection having caused evolution.
So spontaneous generation might (not really, since it wasn't studied very scientifically) be a comparison to natural selection, but NOT evolution.
You don't want the protectors of your freedom to have access to your personal records? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING???
To finally end the production of child pornography, unlicensed private possession of photographic equipment is now to be banned. Requirements for a license to possess photographic equipment will include background checks, fingerprint and DNA collection, as well as locks on all photographic devices that require submitting a copy of every image taken with that device to law enforcement agencies before they may be viewed/developped by anyone. Not only will this prevent perverts from taking pictures of naked children, but it will also stop terrorists from photographing buildings and other illegal photographs to plan their attack on our freedom. Anyone found to be in possession of a photographic device without a license, or bypassing the mechanism to submit copies of all images taken to the government, will be imprisoned with tough mandatory minimum sentences regardless of the content of their photographs. Selling these devices illegally will result in a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence. This new prohibition will be just as effective as our prohibition on drugs; it will solve our nations child pornography problem by keeping cameras and camcorders out of the hands of child molestors.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of. Having all your photographs viewed by law enforcement a small price to pay to protect our children and protect our freedom! If you oppose this new policy, you're either a child pornographer or a terrorist, and will be arrested for treason.
You know what the saddest thing is, I had a conversation with a friend who actually believed that such overt invasions of privacy were completely justified to protect the country. Including warrantless interception of every single phone call, even completely domestic. She even said it would be fine if the government wanted to read her diary for no reason. A device in your car that automatically ticketed you for going 1mph over the limit? You're breaking the law, so you deserve punishment. Preventing people from breaking the law was much more important than privacy. She was dead serious, and of course a fanatical right wing republican. She was otherwise intelligent too, science major at my (tier 1) university. This was the last conversation I ever had with her. People like her show what's wrong with this country that allowed these kind of measures to pass.
200 years ago, scientific consesus was that spontaneous generation happened, too. The evidence seemed overwhelming; you could leave a dead animal in a seemingly sealed container and maggots would spontaneously generate. Or a covered bit of cheese and rats would appear. Observation supported it; but obvervation is sometimes misleading and incomplete.
No, the observed effect was maggots appearing. The proposed mechanism of their appearance was spontaneous generation. Again, you're missing the point of seperating the effect from the theory behind the effect.
Health risk of an opiate NEGLIGIBLE?? Hello, anybody home? I've smoked plenty of opium, let me tell you that you're dead wrong. A few things I've learned from personal experience...
And let me tell you why you're dead wrong, from personal experience and extensive studies of psychopharmacology. The risks of dependence are certainly there, but the health consequences of such dependence are in fact negligible... you'll note the lack of severe health consequences in long-term pain patients. Your interpretation of your personal experience does NOT supercede research on sample sizes far greater than yours.
1. Opiates constipate you (Immodium AD, loperamide, is an opiate)
WOW, huge side effect there. Alcohol destroys your liver and tobacco causes cancer. I'll take constipation, thanks.
2. Smoking opium is harsher on the lungs than marijuana.
It may be "harsher", but please point me in the direction of a study showing it's actually more harmful as opposed to simply more uncomfortable. Also, that's why the vast majority of opium is converted to pill or powder extracts.
3. Opium is far, FAR more addictive than alcohol (witness China and Turkey with their opium wars way back in history)
I don't know about the "FAR" with alcohol, but I do know it's FAR LESS addictive than nicotine. While substances derived from the alkaloids of opium do by far exceed alcohol in addictiveness, they are still less addictive than nicotine. That includes heroin. Look it up.
4. Once hooked to strong opiates, the general recourse to getting off of them is an even worse medication (methadone) as opposed to counseling and Antabuse prescriptions for alcohol addiction.
Methadone, while more addictive, is not nearly as reinforcing and does not produce much in the way of euphoria. Therefore it can be effectively used to step off. Other medications are being used that are superior to methadone. Antabuse is less effective for alcohol abuse than medications for opiate abuse are, counseling even more so. Counseling for opiates does exist, and many people can taper off their dose. Furthermore, abruptly stopping drinking while strongly physically dependent can kill a healthy adult, this is not observed with opiate dependence (but the withdrawal is still quite severe).
5. Opium can and will kill you, or get you killed.
Oh what a load of bullshit. So can alcohol, tobacco, marijuana (but not from toxicity), and virtually every drug, including over-the-counter ones. If you're irresponsible about it, there's plenty of ways to get killed with a whole lot of activities. Opiates, from a clinical standpoint, are FAR less likely to be fatal than just about every other psychoactive substance class out there, legal and illegal. Participating in the illegal consumption of a drug presents its own risks, but these are outside of the effects of the drug.
6. Opium screws with your system more than alcohol. The only reasons more die from alcohol than opium are embarassingly simple - Alcohol's far easier to obtain, it's legal, and people get really stupid off of it, and therefore do stupid things.
Again, what a complete and utter load of unresearched bullshit. Toxicity from opium isn't even in the same league as toxicity from alcohol. Especially notable is opiums (and almost all derivatives on the market, licit or illicit) lack of neurotoxicity contrasted to alcohol's repeatedly demonstrated strong neurotoxicity. Not to mention hepatoxicity, which opium again lacks. Alcohol impairs your judgment more than opium, by a huge margin.
Oh Please, the inverse is true; the Drug Companies are some of the largest politically charged industries in current existance, and as a result, a lot of drugs that shouldn't be on the market get there (COX2 Inhibiting NSAIDs are virtually unilaterally linked to heart problems, and yet many are still on the market, and still cost a fortune).
First of all, it has not yet been firmly established as a class effect. And the effect is very small such that it does not occur in people without pre-existing cardiovascular problems. Do you even know why they're on the market? My guess is no. Over-the-counter NSAIDs such as aspirin are non-selective COX1 and COX2 inhibitors, COX1 has little to do with inflammation, but is found in the lining of the stomach. Its inhibition leads to stomach problems in a significant part of the population, which is often severe enough as to stop people from taking it. Selective COX2 inhibitors eliminated this side effect while retaining similar efficacy, providing relief for those who could not tolerate the stomach problems of OTC NSAIDs. IMO, that's a VERY good reason to put a drug on the market, in light of no evidence *at the time* for increased risk of heart problems.
On the other hand, pot is cheap, it's easily home grown, and some studies have shown it does more damage to your lungs than smoking a pack of cigarrettes. And since there really isn't a political lobbying force trying to get this "much needed pharmacutical" on the market legally... Hell, even with some doctors pushing its obvious medical uses, it's still been a tough sell.
And other studies have shown that overall, it does more to protect against cancer than cause it. In any case, weighing the benefits vs. the side effects is a decision for a doctor and patient to make, not for politicians to make. There are lobbying forces pushing for this, including NORML and the Drug Policy Alliance, whose lobbying activities have assisted in medical marijuana legislation in quite a few states, not just California. And it hasn't really been a tough sell to anyone but the politicians... survey after survey has shown the large majority of the population favors allowing it to be prescribed.
Think about Opiods. Then think about how much money has been made using synthetic opiates. The fact remains, the market for synthetic drugs is much greater than the market for naturally occuring drugs due to the corporate and political climates in this country, and because it's easy to convince people with vague symptoms that they have some disease and need a medicine to treat it.
I'll presume you meant semi-synthetic opioids, synthetics are very rarely prescribed. The only one of those that's really easily prescribed is hydrocodone. The political climate of prohibition in this country led to the DEA prosecuting doctors as conventional drug dealers for precribing what the DEA thought to be excessive or unneccessary amounts of opiates. If you require oxycodone, in doses higher than whats mixed with acetaminophen, it suddenly becomes very hard for a patient to obtain, and your suggestion that it's being pushed on people who don't need it is laughable and uninformed. And if you need a fully synthetic opiate such as fentanyl... people are sometimes travelling to a whole different state to find a doctor willing to prescribe it. As a result of this, untreated or undertreated pain is essentially epidemic in this country... and it's not going to get better thanks to prohibition; medical schools actually discourage students from even going into the field of pain management because of the legal risks.
Next time you want to point to drugs being overprescribed when they're not really needed because of politics or sales, etc, pick a different class of drugs. Money has been made on semi-synthetic opiates because alot of people actually live in pain, yet its still severely undertreated, doctors do NOT prescribe CII narcotics to people with "vague symptoms" of "some disease", and drug companies can't advertise them either.
You sir, are grossly uninformed.
That's really still a misconception of how strongly supported these things are, and a failure to seperate EVOLUTION (not really a theory) and the THEORY of natural selection (which the person without much understanding of biology can't seperate from evolution, and thinks is the same as 'theory of evolution). Because of the massive convergence of evidence from things like fossils and molecular biology, and it's absolutely irresponsible to argue that evolution is on the same level as theories like gravitational waves. It's more like this:
Gravity is overwhelmingly supported by observation and measurements, it exists, we know it exists, the evidence is so obvious no rational educated person can refute it; its mechanism of action being a distortion in spacetime is a theory which has changed many times.
Evolution is similarly overwhelmingly support by observation and measurements, it exists, we know it exists, the evidence is so obvious no rational educated person can refute it; its mechanism of action being natural selection of favorable-to-reproduction genetic mutations is a theory which may be modified as new evidence is discovered.
THAT is what the actual scientific consensus is. No one is disputing evolution, at least no one who actually is aware of and understands the evidence. The evidence is so strong that arguing evolution is like arguing that gravity might not exist. If you want to challenge how those processess proceed, go for it. General relativity is open for revision, natural selection/genetic mutations driving it is open for revision. Gravity happens. Evolution happens.
Well the merits of uptime as a measure of stability are limited, but since you seem to use it as evidence of stability I'll point out that I recently had a 45 day uptime with XP with all the fancy graphics effects turned *on*. In fact the system was still quite stable and responsive after those 45 days and the only reason it ended was me accidently knocking the power plug out of the wall (with no UPS). I can't even remember the last time the system "crashed" like previous versions of windows did fairly often, except when one of my hd's had a head crash.. that definately crashed the os. I will however note I don't do much programming, video editing, or intensive gaming (i.e. I only play older games that don't stress the system like modern games) on this computer, and without those 1GB of memory isn't creating a memory crunch to destabilize things, so those might explain some of the stability I experience.
I've lost count of how many times I have to point out that if they've gotten statistically significant results, it's already taken into account sample size, so comments like the parent are irrelevent. 50 people in each group is NOT a small study anyway, psychology isn't like internet polls where typical samples are in the tens of thousands.
...and you apparently aren't aware that the smaller the sample, the larger the size of the effect has to be to be significant.
I say it's time for a paradigm shift in radio and let's see public radio lead that charge.
I think a dynamic new synergy will need to be developed by thinking outside the box in order to take a proactive approach to redefining the core competencies of the company's mission in order to accomplish this "paradigm shift" and leverage these "internet initiatives" in this "new era".
I'll have those TPS reports for you in a minute, Mr. PHB.
I started listening to NPR because my business law professor was so into it that every week our quiz had a bonus question from whatever was being broadcast on NPR during her drive to campus. The questions were not related to the topics of the class, she just really wanted us to listen to NPR. It worked too, I kept listening to it even after the semester ended.
Jury nullification is very rare since judges instruct jurors to apply the facts of the case to the law to reach their decision whether they agree with the result or not. They are virtually never informed that they even have the option of nullification since lawyers are barred from telling them; and furthermore some states such as California even have a jury instruction requiring the judge to be notified if a juror is deciding their verdict using nullification. Judges have the power to remove jurors by claiming they will not apply the law according to the judges instructions.
And nullifying patent law?? When nullification is used, it's usually for drug cases and becoming increasingly common as more people wake up to the fact that the laws are racist, ineffective, unconstitutional, and actually responsible for the vast majority of drug-related harm to society. Those are some of the elements that provoke deciding that a law is just so bad that it shouldn't be enforced; I just don't see it happening in patent infringement cases, since jurors aren't going to be emotionally involved and deciding major moral dilemmas; especially since lawyers can't even bring the issue up to get them thinking that way.
Well said, I've found the notion to be very true: the oldest component left in my computer (apart from the several hds i just left in for extra storage as i added in newer and larger ones) is my video card, an ATI Radeon 9000 pro with 128mb of ram which I bought in late 2002 as an expensive top of the line card. The card it was replacing was a similar age, but it was a STB Velocity 128 with 8mb of ram; which was unequivocally obsolete. But today, the ATI card is still serving me very well, and I have absolutely no intention of replacing it for at least a few more years. It's by no means obsolete and performs reasonably well even with newer games, Doom3 in medium detail is great, and still playable in high detail (although the AMD64 3000+ and 1GB system memory probably help); not that I do that much gaming in games that demanding of video. While the current list of supported GPUs doesn't include my card, I have to wonder what the problem might be; since it meets Vista's Aero Glass requirements between the memory, 8x AGP, and DirectX 9.0c running. So why wouldn't WDDM work? And I wouldn't upgrade it just for Aero, although it might push the upgrade time to 2 more years instead of 3-4.
The less intense gaming with the latest titles you do (or CAD/3d video work, etc), the longer and longer it's becoming before you have to upgrade.
But Walmarts prices also have the connotation of being poor quality materials poorly assembled. When you're dealing with any item where there's noticeable differences in quality as price changes, "cheap" is not always a good association, especially when its a brand/product name most people have never heard before (e.g. Linspire). The last thing we want is for FOSS to be connected in peoples minds (again, mainstream people, not slashdot types who know better) with "oh that cheap stuff on those walmart crapboxes". I for one prefer looking for the best prices, but when quality matters (electronics, luggage, clothing, etc) I stay far away from Walmarts offerings.
Methadone is a fully synthetic opioid synthesized starting from diphenylacetonitrile, which is not an alkaloid present in opium. And if by "stronger" opioids you mean the phenylpiperidines, all of those are fully synthetic as well.
Researchers can obtain a license from the DEA to acquire (from a company possessing a DEA license to manufacture/distribute, which every major chemical company like Mallinkrodt or Sigma Aldrich has) and possess controlled substances. It's not easy to get, they obsessively track what you purchase and you have to file paperwork accouting for every last bit of it, but many such licenses exist. For more information on obtaining such licenses, see: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugreg/index.ht ml
Cocaine is a Schedule II controlled substance, it's illegal in ANY quantity with a license. Its uses are confined to a very limited number of surgeries since it's both a local anaesthetic and vasoconstrictor; that's it. It's not prescribed to patients for any reason. Your post would be true about 100 years ago, however.
While there's no doubt it's extremely frequently misdiagnosed, I'll go ahead and call your post Bullshit. I sincerely doubt you conducted a thorough evaluation using DSM-IV-TR guidelines for the several subtypes of ADHD (predominantly hyperactive, predominantly inattentive, combination) on all 100 of those people. ADHD does exist, it's caused by primarily a D2 (dopamine) receptor polymorphism that causes reduced binding affinity and leading to understimulation of certain areas of the brain. Ritalin and other stimulant ADHD drugs boost levels of dopamine to counteract the lowered binding affinity; if stimulants are not helping it's because it's a different problem and now the dopamine levels are above where they should be. I don't know what experts you've been talking to, but I assure you the real experts in this area are well aware that it's a very real problem relating to several other problems. Stimulant drugs work wonders for the *few* people who truly have ADHD, as tons of research has shown, and I can attest to this myself.
You're just as bad as the doctors misdiagnosing so many people. Do some damn research before posting asnine shit like that again. When you're not so lazy try googling for unbiased facts, not ones to support your drug-industry-conspiracy-theory, it's a slap in the face to people really suffering from this problem.
"No, actually it's a very honest look at things." -- This is absurd; the ads claimed low level drug use funded religious extremist terrorism and that is unequivocally false, please review the facts, as even the government distanced itself from this claim after it was shown to basically be an outright lie.
To call drug trade itself terrorism represents a complete lack of understanding of the entire situation.Terrorism is a very specific concept, and everything involving violence is NOT terrorism by default.
You need to review the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violence, especially against civilians, to create wide spread fear for the purpose of furthering political/social objectives. It's designed to create fear in the general population. The fact that the drug trade is violent does not automatically make it terrorism, especially since the overwhelming majority of violent crimes are perpetrated between dealers (not end users, and not people not involved with drugs at all), which cannot be considered equivalent to civilian targets for terrorism. And since that violence is primarily dealer disputes, its purpose is not to create wide spread fear, only fear in competing dealers. The goal of the drug trade is to make money, and the primary way they accomplish that goal is meeting demand for an illegal product; the fact that disputes are resolved with violence doesn't make the entire operation terrorism. They're not out there killing people to scare people into buying drugs.
However, an argument can more logically be made for drug prohibition as terrorism. It significantly attacks the rights of non-drug users in addition to current users and has the objective of using fear (of jail time and of greatly exaggerated self-harm) as the primary means of promoting its objectives.
I downloaded Zelda Classic (http://www.zeldaclassic.com/ after reading this article and the 20 years of nintendo article. After not having played for some 15 years, I still remembered which parts of walls to bomb, which bushes to burn, where most things were, how to beat the bosses, etc. I was surprised, and then disappointed when I beat the first quest in 12 hours and how it took me weeks (if not months) the first time I played; and then really depressed because having such a good memory of the game (which I was completely obsessed with as a kid) made the time seem like it flew by and it was just yesterday I was blowing into that gold cartridge and throwing fits about lost saved games. It really made me feel old and seriously depressed about aging, and I'm only 22 now. But I was never the kid who wanted to grow up.
Sometimes you want to communicate with people when you can't conveniently talk. Such as a movie theater, lecture, or other environment when talking would bother other people. Or when it's too loud to carry on a conversation, such as a club or a concert. Or if you're busy, but not really busy, and want to reply at your convenience. Plus all the reasons people use IM on the computer instead of calling.
I use AIM on my phone quite a bit. Fortunately, T-Mobile has an option for unlimited SMS/MMS for an extra $15/month, which saves a fortune over the limited options if you send hundreds of messages every month. It's really not that absurd considering industry standard rates for text messaging. There's really great AIM integration with my phone (Razr); my previous phones made it so awkward to use AIM I never really bothered.
There's absolutely no reason a sample size of 15 can't produce statistically significant results. When computing whether a result is significant, sample size is taken into account with the other factors to produce the result, and 15 is sufficiently large to pick up major effects. I'm getting tired of having to explain how basic statistics works on a computer/technology site.
I thought it was just a simplifcation of E^2 = (pc)^2 + m^2c^4, with the first part dropping out for objects at rest and then taking the roots. But that's just the first of many many problems with that post...
I'm approaching two dozen RFID chips in my biceps, and let me tell you -- the chicks dig it!
I always wondered what happens when you cross a nerd and a heroin junkie.