Stanton Peele, a Psychologist who studies addiction wrote an article in support of your claims. Heroin is only dangerous in it's illegal form where purity is an unknown. Before it was made illegal, heroin overdose was practically unheard of.
I know how it works. It takes guts to stand up to your own attorney when he is advising you to take a plea or settle a civil case. It's still a choice. Sometimes, it's more important to stand up for a principle than to care about your own temporary well being. Often, in the long term, it turns out well, practically as well as ideologically. The constitution is clearly on the defendant's side in this case.
Sure they were under duress and likely intimidated (as are most fights), but they still made a choice to give in. There is always a choice. There are good attorneys out there willing to take such cases on a pro bono basis.
If you don't fight for your rights, you lose them. It's as simple as that.
Tor is not vulnerable to an attack like that. All traffic going through a tor node is encrypted (among other reasons). There are only theoretical timing based vulnerabilities that aren't really applicable on a large network such as the internet.
No offense taken. I'm not a drug user myself, but I know many and few of them live up to the stereotype (in fact, it's them that convinced me that my pre-existing notions of drug users was incorrect).
The point is that based on a steriotype, you're judging all drug users and completely ignoring the silent majority that do so discreetly and responsibly.
I didn't say racism. I said prejudice based on personal choice (not race), whether that be religion or what one chooses to put in one's own body. How many "hard core" addicts do you know, other than what you hear of on TV. There is such a thing as a functioning addict, and even the word "addict" is an artificial distinction applied to "one who consumes regularly what we disapprove of". Words used to label people as "other" is nothing new.
Ah. Judging people by personal choices. So if a person makes a personal choice to be a Muslim, does that mean they are more likely to blow themselves up and it's just ok to judge them all by that slightly increased tendency. It's prejudice. Nothing more.
I was under the impression that the mac pro also had a proprietary power connection (not a wire... actually part of the slot) so it would not be technically possible to install a regular radeon in a mac pro (it would not be powered).
But in the sense that the english leanings of the word cult would correspond more closely to the french "secte" and vice versa, right, or is my french rusty?
The point is that the crazy beliefs of a religion are up front. You don't find about "body thetans" until OTIII and about 300k is down the drain. People joing scientology because they think it is about one thing, and later find out it's really about another, and so on... Hubbard had to keep inventing bullshit to keep the shell game going. Religions don't do that. Where they are self-contradictory and illogical, it's not something you can't find out by reading their free and "open source" holy book. Scientology, on the ohter hand is closed source with the hood nailed shut. Just because you might know about OTIII doesnt' mean they want you to, and if you host the document, the'll send a DMCA and/or sue you. They might just kill your pets if you piss them off enough (google "woof woof glug glug" or see here). They're worse than the fucking RIAA! They are definitely not open about what they believe and since you don't know, you can't really knowingly consent (you're also flat out lied to).
I would tend to agree as a libertarian. Such regulation opens Pandora's box. I think private campaigns of education is the solution to the cult problem. Many might disagree with me, but sometimes the devil you know... Margaret Singer, FWIW, was against govt regulation too, and felt that education was the solution as well. All that being said, i'm pretty sure the French are judging the Scientology organization on the basis of the law and not on their beliefs.
That's another problem with digital. It makes people "shutter happy". It's "snap snap snap" without thinking about the image or really composing anything. It's for this reason I intentionally carry around a small card in my DLSR when I shoot digital (yeah... i'll admit I carry a spare, but I try not to use it unless I'm having a really good day.).
Indoctrination is not the same as thought reform. See Margaret Singer's Continuum of Influence and Persuasion which explains this (figure 3.2 has a nice chart). Also, only catholics excommunicate, it's very hard to do, adn once you are excommunicated, all it means is that you are not served communon. They don't cut you off from your famil and friends and don't shun you. If you make a confession you can get un-excommunicated also. If you don't like that, you can go to a protestant church (catholics believe they are saved too).
Because Apple would have to write drivers for OSX then. They are so controlling and paranoid about quality they don't even let the card manufacturers write drivers. NVIDIA drivers in OSX are written by apple with apple specific GL extentions, etc...
Sure there are christian cults (more commonly referred to as bible based cults). There are political, self help, recovery, new age, and many other cults. The list goes on. A cult does not have to be religious to be a cult. It's just a system to control people. When I say "cult", i'm referring to the system a group uses to control people and it in no way implies any connection to religion at all. Strictly speaking, Scientology is a nonprofessional therapy cult that masquerades as a religion for tax exempt status. There was a time when they didn't even bother masquerading as a church. It was a series of self help courses. Essentially, that's what Scientology remains to this day. The system, however, is cultic because of the origin of the group, the leadership structure, the practice of thought reform, the secret teachings, dual purposes, etc...
I am very well informed about AA. And if somobody doens't get help with AA it doesn't mean they will not get help at all or will not stop drinking at all. AA does oppose naltrexone. See this video at about 7:50 or the article it's sourced from. AA mentiones god in the 12 steps and has been ruled by the courts, including the SC to be religious. You can do your own research on that but it's not an incredibly hard argument to make considering how often the word "God" and spiritual are used in the 12 steps and associated literature. AA gets 70% of it's membership from the health care or justice system. Source: AA's grapevine magazine, November 2001. It's so common, it's nicknamed a "nudge from the judge". AA has a central leadership (AAWS) and has chapters. It's also sued a chapter in Germany. While there are no "rules" in AA, it's implied on countless occasions that if you don't follow the steps exactly *you will DIE*. I could care less what you attribute your sobriety to but you can't prove you wouldn't be sober without AA. You also can't prove that AA works other than through anecdotal evidence. You say it works... provide a double blind peer reviewed study. One study you might be interested in is the 1970s study by Jeffery Brandsma et. al. It found that court ordered AA attendees engaged in 5 TIMES as much binge drinking as the control group with no treatment at all and 9 TIMES as much as a group with RBT. Just because you believe it worked for you doesn't mean it actually did. It's a placebo... but hey. Pat yourself on the back. You quit. It was you. You weren't powerless. You were powerful.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody mod this insightful.
Stanton Peele, a Psychologist who studies addiction wrote an article in support of your claims. Heroin is only dangerous in it's illegal form where purity is an unknown. Before it was made illegal, heroin overdose was practically unheard of.
I know how it works. It takes guts to stand up to your own attorney when he is advising you to take a plea or settle a civil case. It's still a choice. Sometimes, it's more important to stand up for a principle than to care about your own temporary well being. Often, in the long term, it turns out well, practically as well as ideologically. The constitution is clearly on the defendant's side in this case.
Sure they were under duress and likely intimidated (as are most fights), but they still made a choice to give in. There is always a choice. There are good attorneys out there willing to take such cases on a pro bono basis. If you don't fight for your rights, you lose them. It's as simple as that.
Why is this modded "troll"? Mod parent up!
These idiots pled guilty. It's their fault. They should have fought it.
Tor is not vulnerable to an attack like that. All traffic going through a tor node is encrypted (among other reasons). There are only theoretical timing based vulnerabilities that aren't really applicable on a large network such as the internet.
No, but he is influencing the pliable masses, which in turn influences policy.
Drug use? Prostitution? Riding a motorcycle without a helmet? Seatbelts?
No offense taken. I'm not a drug user myself, but I know many and few of them live up to the stereotype (in fact, it's them that convinced me that my pre-existing notions of drug users was incorrect).
The point is that based on a steriotype, you're judging all drug users and completely ignoring the silent majority that do so discreetly and responsibly.
I didn't say racism. I said prejudice based on personal choice (not race), whether that be religion or what one chooses to put in one's own body. How many "hard core" addicts do you know, other than what you hear of on TV. There is such a thing as a functioning addict, and even the word "addict" is an artificial distinction applied to "one who consumes regularly what we disapprove of". Words used to label people as "other" is nothing new.
Ah. Judging people by personal choices. So if a person makes a personal choice to be a Muslim, does that mean they are more likely to blow themselves up and it's just ok to judge them all by that slightly increased tendency. It's prejudice. Nothing more.
I was under the impression that the mac pro also had a proprietary power connection (not a wire... actually part of the slot) so it would not be technically possible to install a regular radeon in a mac pro (it would not be powered).
But in the sense that the english leanings of the word cult would correspond more closely to the french "secte" and vice versa, right, or is my french rusty?
The point is that the crazy beliefs of a religion are up front. You don't find about "body thetans" until OTIII and about 300k is down the drain. People joing scientology because they think it is about one thing, and later find out it's really about another, and so on... Hubbard had to keep inventing bullshit to keep the shell game going. Religions don't do that. Where they are self-contradictory and illogical, it's not something you can't find out by reading their free and "open source" holy book. Scientology, on the ohter hand is closed source with the hood nailed shut. Just because you might know about OTIII doesnt' mean they want you to, and if you host the document, the'll send a DMCA and/or sue you. They might just kill your pets if you piss them off enough (google "woof woof glug glug" or see here). They're worse than the fucking RIAA! They are definitely not open about what they believe and since you don't know, you can't really knowingly consent (you're also flat out lied to).
I would tend to agree as a libertarian. Such regulation opens Pandora's box. I think private campaigns of education is the solution to the cult problem. Many might disagree with me, but sometimes the devil you know... Margaret Singer, FWIW, was against govt regulation too, and felt that education was the solution as well. All that being said, i'm pretty sure the French are judging the Scientology organization on the basis of the law and not on their beliefs.
That's another problem with digital. It makes people "shutter happy". It's "snap snap snap" without thinking about the image or really composing anything. It's for this reason I intentionally carry around a small card in my DLSR when I shoot digital (yeah... i'll admit I carry a spare, but I try not to use it unless I'm having a really good day.).
See this post.
i'd mod you informative if I had any modpoints left.
Indoctrination is not the same as thought reform. See Margaret Singer's Continuum of Influence and Persuasion which explains this (figure 3.2 has a nice chart). Also, only catholics excommunicate, it's very hard to do, adn once you are excommunicated, all it means is that you are not served communon. They don't cut you off from your famil and friends and don't shun you. If you make a confession you can get un-excommunicated also. If you don't like that, you can go to a protestant church (catholics believe they are saved too).
Because Apple would have to write drivers for OSX then. They are so controlling and paranoid about quality they don't even let the card manufacturers write drivers. NVIDIA drivers in OSX are written by apple with apple specific GL extentions, etc...
Sure there are christian cults (more commonly referred to as bible based cults). There are political, self help, recovery, new age, and many other cults. The list goes on. A cult does not have to be religious to be a cult. It's just a system to control people. When I say "cult", i'm referring to the system a group uses to control people and it in no way implies any connection to religion at all. Strictly speaking, Scientology is a nonprofessional therapy cult that masquerades as a religion for tax exempt status. There was a time when they didn't even bother masquerading as a church. It was a series of self help courses. Essentially, that's what Scientology remains to this day. The system, however, is cultic because of the origin of the group, the leadership structure, the practice of thought reform, the secret teachings, dual purposes, etc...
They also have two different words. "secte" and "culte", each with slightly different meanings.
I am very well informed about AA. And if somobody doens't get help with AA it doesn't mean they will not get help at all or will not stop drinking at all. AA does oppose naltrexone. See this video at about 7:50 or the article it's sourced from. AA mentiones god in the 12 steps and has been ruled by the courts, including the SC to be religious. You can do your own research on that but it's not an incredibly hard argument to make considering how often the word "God" and spiritual are used in the 12 steps and associated literature. AA gets 70% of it's membership from the health care or justice system. Source: AA's grapevine magazine, November 2001. It's so common, it's nicknamed a "nudge from the judge". AA has a central leadership (AAWS) and has chapters. It's also sued a chapter in Germany. While there are no "rules" in AA, it's implied on countless occasions that if you don't follow the steps exactly *you will DIE*. I could care less what you attribute your sobriety to but you can't prove you wouldn't be sober without AA. You also can't prove that AA works other than through anecdotal evidence. You say it works... provide a double blind peer reviewed study. One study you might be interested in is the 1970s study by Jeffery Brandsma et. al. It found that court ordered AA attendees engaged in 5 TIMES as much binge drinking as the control group with no treatment at all and 9 TIMES as much as a group with RBT. Just because you believe it worked for you doesn't mean it actually did. It's a placebo... but hey. Pat yourself on the back. You quit. It was you. You weren't powerless. You were powerful.