Perhaps this is a troll, but you make it sound like being a pidgeon to the likes of Kenneth Lay, Dick Cheney and the other fat pigs of the oil industry is any better. Right now the cost of oil energy is highly subsidised in this country (USA), and is therefor held at an artificially low level. If you think that supply and demand is what drives the US economy in any area then you are being IMHO quite naive. A free market is just fine, but that is not what we have. The best alternative in my mind is to be self sufficient . . . not to have to turn to a private utility or a public utility, but to supply my own energy, and live according to what I can generate using solar, wind, micro-hydro, and anything else that comes to mind.
What about mercury poisoning? Is it not true that due to burning coal the murcury content of most domestic freshwater fish, and some saltwater species is at a high enough level that eating fish too often (more than once a week) can lead to troubling accumulation of mercury in the body?
Transmitter: pukes out dopamine, Receptor: sucks dopamine in. You speak of receptors and reuptake valves, and state that blocking a receptor would keep dopamine out of the brain . . . er, did you mean transmitter? My understanding is that the dopamine system has these two pieces, and that your word "reuptake valve" is synonomous with my word "receptor". In the cocain case, the blocking of receptors mean that transmitters die out in response to too much dopamine in the synapse. If there is a misunderstanding on my part then perhaps you will enlighten me:)
I never said that having THC receptors meant that THC might not harm the brain. I merely stated that having them suggests that THC is an expected chemical, for some reason. I also stated that one should not assume that just because it has a mildly intoxicating effect that THC does harm the brain, and that all credible research to date suggests that there is no chronic effect (and by this I mean specifically cognitive) on the brain. There is always the possibility that we will find another neurotransmitter that we produce that looks like THC, and is the reason these canabanoid receptors are there. This would mean that THC is the mimic drug, and would be working similarly to cocain, just on a different neurotransmitter system. Check out the maps site (maps.org i believe, too lazy to dig it up for you cause I have a pilot test in a few minutes) for more information.
Dopamine system: transmitters which put it in the brain, receptors which absorb it. We agree on that:) It is true that just because the brain has receptors doesn't mean it won't damage them, but you can't just assume that there is damage. The fact that there are receptors suggests that the brain is built to handle it, which means that it is an expected condition. To determine at what point damage is done we would need to do a study, which, at present time, is being proposed. The problem with the study is that NIDA controls the pot which would be used, and it is essentially ditch-weed. There is also a proposal currently to allow a UMass Amhearst based group to grow some high quality strains for a MAPS study.
So hopefully one day soon (within the next decade) we will know the truth. But in the meantime all we have is some empiracle evidence which shows that there is no chronic effect on the brain, but there is some negative effect on the liver and kidneys from heavy use of pot.
This thread is full of half truths. It is not possible to test the blood or otherwise and determine if someone is actually "high" on pot. You can only say that they used it in the past 30 days. So these statistics are really hard to believe, and amount only to anti-drug propaganda. It should be illegal to drive while impared, and it is possible to test for imparement (ie, the physical DUI tests).
Why should the government be allowed to restrict what I grow in my garden?
Just because it is perhaps less intoxicating or impairing than alcohol does not mean that it should not be illegal to drive under the influence. Drive straight and sober. Arguments like yours provide fodder to the "see, these dopers think it's okay to use and drive, so we need to keep it illegal" argument.
Smoking marijuana does impair motor ability, and the evidence that it does can be found any number of places. I would suggest that you start with MAPS and then move on to the Lyceum and the Vaults of Erowid.
I doubt that THC in overingestion would cause damage to the brain. Possibly kidneys and liver, because they don't have special receptors to handle it, and must metabolize it anyway. But the human brain has receptors that are specific to canabanoids (like THC), check the MAPS site for the sources on this. This means that the brain has a built in system for processing THC. Unlike a drug like Cocain, which works by blocking the Dopamine receptors, causing a certain amount of damage.
Thanks, I'll do some googling to find more info on this, but it sounds like it might be a good stucco underlayment (like a scratch coat) . . . have you used this, and do you know if it is applicable with hock and trowel?
Its interesting to me that DoD is targeted in this way (ie, we can't trust DoD, DoD = Big Brother, etc). This is a little OT, but this is just wrong headedness. Replace DoD with perhaps CIA, or the administration, or the military industrial complex (which is the industry that feads of the DoD teat) and I'd agree. But DoD, and the services especially are the last place youd find the neo facist attitudes that lead to a big brother world. This is of course my opinion, but having worked in many areas of DoD, and with many high ranking soldiers, I was always pleased at how enlightened and compassionate these people are.
Yeah, Ive done a bit of this, and seen it done. For stick houses this is the cheapest way. For concrete I'm not so sure. Concrete block can also go up pretty fast (though I've not seen it done as fast as stick), but poured concrete takes a long time. This is why no residential buildings use concrete (ok, replace no with few). But poured concrete is a really nice material for a house. It will generally be more efficient (ie, will tend to stay cooler in summer and warmer in winter, like adobe) than wood/metal construction.
However, while the slash summary mentions concrete, a quick survey of the CC site did not mention it, rather it mentioned metals, polystyrene, and polyester (Disco Stu loves his new polyester house.)
Perhaps a troll . . . but so wrong.
If you allow language to evolve through ignorance of actual meaning, you allow it to devolve. That is, you slowly lose the ability to express certain ideas easily. We see this in the US quite often, and I believe it to be principle in our accelerating downward spiral. De-evlolution is not a good thing, as it reduces richness and complexity.
You add a level of complexity to my equation by bringing into it stock benefits. Ok, I can deal with that. The equation was for base salary only. If you consider stock benefits then I would say that you have to give stock to all imployees based in part on time of service, and in part on a performance incentive. The performance incentive for any position has to be in ratio the same as for base salary (ie, no more than 5 times the performance based stock shares between the top and bottom). This is similar to how I structured my S-Corp a while ago (has since sold, and was definitely an education in Orwellian socialist philosophy).
You raise good questions like shouldn't a person (doctor) get paid enough to pay off student loans vs a receptionist who did not go to school. I don't think I would like a system that limited or punished financially those who go to school, so the number 5 may not be the right factor. But certainly the current system which allows a few (in spite of the MS millionaires, which is a success story) to hoard money at over 1000 times what the lowest paid guy makes (total compensation). I admit that idealism cannot always be implemented, and would also agree with letting the market decide. But this also is an idealistic view.
Is this a troll? If so I guess I'm biting.
Socialism can work along side capitalism. What drives the economy is the worker. Business can assist that or derail it. In many cases these days American corporations to the latter, by funnelling money out of the economy.
Our economy would be much better off if the depth of saturation of capital were allowed to increase (ie, more people get a share of the money). Think in terms of what would happen if corporations were not allowed to have a pay differential factor of greater than 5 (ie, the highest paid person in a corp can only make 5 times the lowest paid person). It would be much more robust because it would have a greater number of people feeding it. People attack this as being a socialist idea. While in reality it is not. It is a conservative idea, one that should really have it's time. Capitalism is a great economic system. But when it is unchecked and allows for just a few people to hoard all of the money it breaks down.
Trying to find a source for you, but I most definitely recall reading British accounts early on that referred to the freedom fighters as terrorists. My point was in response to the parent posters sweeping generalization, and to note that usually the dominant society is the one labelling dissidents in particularly harsh ways.
By your definitions I suppose I could better have used Viet-Nam as an example . . .
Sorry to pick but I think the problem is that we don't live in a democracy. We all want to though. Case in point, Gore got 500,000 more votes than President Bush did in the last election. We live in a representative republic, that is starting to ape facism because it is now representative not of people (citizens not consumers) but of money.
Good for you for seeing Africa . . . all Americans should go live in a 3rd world country for a while. But the fact that we are doing better does not mean we are on the right path. The republican party was at some point conservative. They no longer are. Conservatives are cautious, want to have small government, look to use resources wisely. Bush and co. have grown the government, and seem to think that resources are there for the taking. The rich get richer, and screw the rest.
And so it is . . . I suppose then I do not understand what about due process is being subverted here . . . perhaps by being required to appear in court?
I love the quote from a telecom industry rep saying that the Government should not be allowed to do this. This being to build a public infrastructure. This type of action is in the best interest of Capitalism in its pure form. A public alternative that is lower cost will force the private commercial enterprizes to improve their business model and stop raping consumers. I would support this in this industry as well as power generation and other utilities and infrastructures. I know of some municipalities who have their own power generation capabilities to great economic benefit of the municipality and its residents.
I hope we see more of this kind of thing in the future.
A point in your ticket mechanics that I disagree with: In DC, VA, and NM (my only experience with speeding tickets) you sign the ticket to agree that you received it. It has nothing to do with guilt, is is acknowledging a summons to court. That way, if you do not mail in payment or appear in court, you get a bench warrent issued against you and this can lead to some trouble. I have gone to traffic court in all three of the above places and find that my due process rights were upheld nicely. In fact, I got out of every one, even though I was guilty of speeding in every incident.
Rather than think about catching people who speed, how about looking at it from a different angle. On the highway there are lots of driver behaviours that cause traffic to slow: rubbernecking (idiots), driving in the left lane, weaving (which of course would decrease when people stop doing the first two), and I'm sure countless other examples.
This system, and it's evolution will lead to better driver education, assisted decision making, and better traffic flow with less stress. As a previous poster said, driving is a privledge and not a right.
Speeding is hardly a victimless crime, with one exception: if there are no other vehicles (motorized or other) or pedestrians on or near the road. But, it is hard to be aware of cyclists and pedestrians in particular from a moving car. The faster you go, the harder it is. I would love to see this kind of system at work in residential areas in particular. I am only 35, but feel like a cantakerous old coot for saying this, but it is way too dangerous for cars to be cruising around residential neighborhoods at more than 25 mph. Even at 25 any momentary distraction (a sunbathing beauty perhpas) can lead to disaster for the small kid chasing a ball.
Interstate traffic is a different story, and this system could be put to great use to fine all of those who drive in the left lane. Pass and get over, or pay a huge fine. Old guy rant over. Flame retardant suit zipped up.
Indeed. The Gov't has (in the US) been developing many types of software for decades and relies heavily on the open source model. The caveat is that only parties with the need to use the software get the source. This works very well, and esp within DoD meets the stringent security standards. It protects the system against the single commercial vendor fraud waste and abuse (although there are support contractors who still find ways to rob the taxpayer blind), and has the benefits of sharing source that are well documented and known within the OSS community.
I didn't rtfa, but the kind of FUD against OSS that it apparently implies is at best misleading, and at worst . . . well I don't like to think in the "at worst" terms . . .
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps this is a troll, but you make it sound like being a pidgeon to the likes of Kenneth Lay, Dick Cheney and the other fat pigs of the oil industry is any better. Right now the cost of oil energy is highly subsidised in this country (USA), and is therefor held at an artificially low level. If you think that supply and demand is what drives the US economy in any area then you are being IMHO quite naive. A free market is just fine, but that is not what we have. The best alternative in my mind is to be self sufficient . . . not to have to turn to a private utility or a public utility, but to supply my own energy, and live according to what I can generate using solar, wind, micro-hydro, and anything else that comes to mind.
Thanks for this excellent treatment.
What about mercury poisoning? Is it not true that due to burning coal the murcury content of most domestic freshwater fish, and some saltwater species is at a high enough level that eating fish too often (more than once a week) can lead to troubling accumulation of mercury in the body?
Interesting idea.
Enk . . . you are a marketing genius.
I never said that having THC receptors meant that THC might not harm the brain. I merely stated that having them suggests that THC is an expected chemical, for some reason. I also stated that one should not assume that just because it has a mildly intoxicating effect that THC does harm the brain, and that all credible research to date suggests that there is no chronic effect (and by this I mean specifically cognitive) on the brain. There is always the possibility that we will find another neurotransmitter that we produce that looks like THC, and is the reason these canabanoid receptors are there. This would mean that THC is the mimic drug, and would be working similarly to cocain, just on a different neurotransmitter system. Check out the maps site (maps.org i believe, too lazy to dig it up for you cause I have a pilot test in a few minutes) for more information.
So hopefully one day soon (within the next decade) we will know the truth. But in the meantime all we have is some empiracle evidence which shows that there is no chronic effect on the brain, but there is some negative effect on the liver and kidneys from heavy use of pot.
Why should the government be allowed to restrict what I grow in my garden?
Smoking marijuana does impair motor ability, and the evidence that it does can be found any number of places. I would suggest that you start with MAPS and then move on to the Lyceum and the Vaults of Erowid.
Thanks, I'll do some googling to find more info on this, but it sounds like it might be a good stucco underlayment (like a scratch coat) . . . have you used this, and do you know if it is applicable with hock and trowel?
Its interesting to me that DoD is targeted in this way (ie, we can't trust DoD, DoD = Big Brother, etc). This is a little OT, but this is just wrong headedness. Replace DoD with perhaps CIA, or the administration, or the military industrial complex (which is the industry that feads of the DoD teat) and I'd agree. But DoD, and the services especially are the last place youd find the neo facist attitudes that lead to a big brother world. This is of course my opinion, but having worked in many areas of DoD, and with many high ranking soldiers, I was always pleased at how enlightened and compassionate these people are.
However, while the slash summary mentions concrete, a quick survey of the CC site did not mention it, rather it mentioned metals, polystyrene, and polyester (Disco Stu loves his new polyester house.)
Perhaps a troll . . . but so wrong. If you allow language to evolve through ignorance of actual meaning, you allow it to devolve. That is, you slowly lose the ability to express certain ideas easily. We see this in the US quite often, and I believe it to be principle in our accelerating downward spiral. De-evlolution is not a good thing, as it reduces richness and complexity.
You raise good questions like shouldn't a person (doctor) get paid enough to pay off student loans vs a receptionist who did not go to school. I don't think I would like a system that limited or punished financially those who go to school, so the number 5 may not be the right factor. But certainly the current system which allows a few (in spite of the MS millionaires, which is a success story) to hoard money at over 1000 times what the lowest paid guy makes (total compensation). I admit that idealism cannot always be implemented, and would also agree with letting the market decide. But this also is an idealistic view.
Our economy would be much better off if the depth of saturation of capital were allowed to increase (ie, more people get a share of the money). Think in terms of what would happen if corporations were not allowed to have a pay differential factor of greater than 5 (ie, the highest paid person in a corp can only make 5 times the lowest paid person). It would be much more robust because it would have a greater number of people feeding it. People attack this as being a socialist idea. While in reality it is not. It is a conservative idea, one that should really have it's time. Capitalism is a great economic system. But when it is unchecked and allows for just a few people to hoard all of the money it breaks down.
5 min of Google got me this, but I can't find a company or email address yet. I'd like to learn more about this thing.
By your definitions I suppose I could better have used Viet-Nam as an example . . .
Good for you for seeing Africa . . . all Americans should go live in a 3rd world country for a while. But the fact that we are doing better does not mean we are on the right path. The republican party was at some point conservative. They no longer are. Conservatives are cautious, want to have small government, look to use resources wisely. Bush and co. have grown the government, and seem to think that resources are there for the taking. The rich get richer, and screw the rest.
And so it is . . . I suppose then I do not understand what about due process is being subverted here . . . perhaps by being required to appear in court?
I hope we see more of this kind of thing in the future.
Back in the 1700s there was a group of terrorists in this country. They won their independance. Insane and murderous? I think not.
Rather than think about catching people who speed, how about looking at it from a different angle. On the highway there are lots of driver behaviours that cause traffic to slow: rubbernecking (idiots), driving in the left lane, weaving (which of course would decrease when people stop doing the first two), and I'm sure countless other examples.
This system, and it's evolution will lead to better driver education, assisted decision making, and better traffic flow with less stress. As a previous poster said, driving is a privledge and not a right.
Interstate traffic is a different story, and this system could be put to great use to fine all of those who drive in the left lane. Pass and get over, or pay a huge fine. Old guy rant over. Flame retardant suit zipped up.
I didn't rtfa, but the kind of FUD against OSS that it apparently implies is at best misleading, and at worst . . . well I don't like to think in the "at worst" terms . . .