You make an important point, actually. In my experience, self-reported drug use always has a little fuzziness to it. Not only do some people lie (either intentionally or through self-delusion)...sometimes they aren't entirely sure what they have taken...especially when it comes to so called "club drugs"! I support skepticism, I just try to avoid becoming cynical and assuming that all scientific inquiry in this area must therefore be wrong.
However, self-reports of drug use, while not 100% accurate, have been found to be useful by a number of studies. The Monitoring the Future study (which is a self-report drug use survey) covers this in one of their occasional papers:
Methodological studies have utilized various methods to determine the validity of
self-report data on illicit drug use and other illegal behaviors: urinalysis for drug
use; polygraph verification; official police, court, medical, and treatment agency
documents; and reports by peers, parents, and teachers. Generally, the findings
from these studies have been encouraging....Gold (1977) reviewed the literature on self-reported
delinquent behavior of adolescents and concluded that "the best single measure of
delinquent behavior available is self-report of delinquency," and "it is accurate
enough for use in rigorous research designs and with sophisticated statistics."
Similarly, methodological studies have investigated the comparability of selfreport
data and public records for the legal drugs. In particular, with respect to
cigarettes and alcohol, aggregate sales data have been correlated with self-report
data, and the results are very supportive of the general validity of self-reports
(under proper survey conditions). (pg. 40)
The one marijuana/emphysema abstract I found (in 2 minutes of looking) says it was based on a random sample of 1500 people in Vancouver, B.C. (I wish I had more than an abstract). Of the 878 respondent over 40, it found that current cigarette smokers were 17% more likely to have COPD symptoms than non-smokers. Respondents who were both current cigarette smokers and current marijuana smokers were 83% more likely to have these symptoms.
However, "Such associations were not found for marijuana smokers alone."
I still think people should not smoke pot...but I think there is some evidence that those who smoke pot should make sure that they ONLY smoke pot!
Your first point is actually a question, but I agree, it is a valid one. How was the study conducted? How did the researchers address potential sampling biases, etc? However, let's not assume a priori that the researchers ignored these factors.
In your second point, you seem to be making the assumption that pot smokers who do not have emphysema will lie more often than those who do. While I am sure that we can imagine reasons why these rates would be different, do we have any evidence that they actually are? I would be interested to see if the researchers addressed this issue.
As a part of my job, I read a lot of drug use studies and, yes, there do appear to be a lot of research biases. But let's not fall into the trap of assuming that all studies are flawed just because they address a controversial topic. There are a lot of good people in the field and the ones I know try very, very hard to produce accurate results.
And I agree with your third point. I wish more marijuana users would do more to avoid potential lung damage by finding alternate means of delivery. Unfortunately, in the US, harm reduction strategies are not emphasized.
Well, I think MS hired Mark because he had earned the trust of the community...He writes good tools and demonstrates a clear understanding of Windows internals. MS hopes that some of his credibility will rub off on them.
But a person doesn't loose my trust just because there is a different name at the top of their paycheck. The explanation makes sense and I'm going to continue to have some faith in Mark until I have a good reason not to.
That being said, I suspect what others have been theorizing is true: the reason MS went to so much trouble to make sure that playback was "glitch-free" was to ensure that one of those glitches didn't defeat their DRM scheme.
My laptop spends most of its time plugged in and in hibernate mode. It lives in the Family Room and is used mainly to look up things on IMDB when my wife and I have the "where do I know that guy from...?" conversation.
Probably, I should shut it down overnight. It might save a bit of electricity (I think the transformer draws a constant trickle). But I'm a slave to convenience...it's nice to be able to grab it and look something up quickly.
That's one of the reasons why I have MS patches auto-update...I would never get around to maintaining the darn thing otherwise. I suppose this is one of the downsides of that approach: I get to beta test all of MS's patches.
Okay, I noticed my laptop thrashing away like crazy last night just before I went to bed. One of the offending processes was MSCORSVW.EXE. Since I was tired, I just shut it down and figured I would look into it later. This saves me some research!
It didn't seem to cause a problem on any of my other PCs, though.
Never ascribe to FUD what can be explained by sheer stupidity.
I think the professional FUDers are a little more subtle than this. They always keep enough truth in their posts to allow for reasonable doubt...as opposed to the parent.
Considering that pharmaceuticals in general are regulated at the federal level, it makes sense to me that this type of enforcement should also be at the federal level. These types of uniform protections are some of the things I think centralized governments do (comparatively) well.
I think you might find that in some places it isn't exactly straightforward that counterfeiting a UL marking would be the same as a homicide/manslaughter/negligent-death case. What this provision does is clear up any question on the matter. That's a good thing because it means folks are less likely to try doing so.
The transmittal letter seems to make it pretty clear the kinds of hazards they are considering:
"For example, a counterfeit pharmaceutical may be ineffective or harmful, or a substandard electrical cord bearing a counterfeit UL certification mark may pose a fire hazard."
I know the article references a conference call with "the Justice Department" where software was mentioned, but the transmittal spells out a different, more reasonable, purpose.
As I'm sure many people will point out, the "life in prison" part is for situation "where the defendant knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death." That doesn't seem so unreasonable now, does it?
Remember, this act covers more than just software and music. It also causes pharmaceuticals and other things like that. If you sell a counterfeit cancer drug knowing that people probably will die as a result, you will get a very long time out.
The summary, as usual, is going for maximum sensation and minimum accuracy.
I'm waiting for the PS3 version, though. Think of how much better the graphics will be once they start using the Cell processor!
I guess I'm a bit slow today, but it took me a while to figure out that this wasn't a computer game. I guess Alternate Reality games are computer games that you don't use computers for...you know, what we used to call games, but now we have a high tech sounding term for them.
It sounds like this was a game in England where people buy puzzle cards that gave them clues on how to find a real life object. The person who found the real life object won a 100,000 pound prize by doing so (which, is like, really, really heavy).
Vivid memories of the music
on
Quake is 10
·
· Score: 3, Funny
If I remember correctly, it was either Quake or Quake II that played its music from the CD while you were playing. Of course, if you happened to have a different CD in there, it would play that music instead.
I vividly remember playing when my kid had left one of his CDs in there. I'd move into a some section of the map and it would suddenly trigger "Do You Want to Buy a Bunny" or something equally horrifying. It really added flavor to the game.
Even better was that it would repeat the song over and over until you left the section. I'm not really sure why I never took the CD out...I guess it gave me incentive to keep moving.
From the article:
"The inventors filed a patent, which covers the concept of creating structures using a cement-impregnated cloth bonded to an inflatable inner surface."
Yup, got to make sure you lock up the monopoly!
So basically, this is glorified paper mache? I remember they used to do this during the 70's, but they used UFI foam instead of concrete. Made for damn ugly buildings....fit the decade perfectly.
Well, in all seriousness, there is always a gap between what a technology CAN do and what it WILL do. When the Semantic Web is fully implemented and it changes the world, I want to be able to tell my children how I never really saw its true potential.
So, in the future, we will all be able to use the Semantic Web to make pretty pictures out of our data. Spiro-Graph and the Etch-A-Sketch will be things of the past. My kids will now be able to make pretty abstract art from my checkbook.
Technology is wonderful.
I'm one of those people who is waiting for a killer app before I get on the Semantic Web bandwagon. In the meantime, I'm just going to regard it as the source of more computer science acronyms.
What I suspect will happen is the next great thing AFTER the Semantic Web will, perhaps, borrow a concept or two from it. That will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Slashdot Mirror
You make an important point, actually. In my experience, self-reported drug use always has a little fuzziness to it. Not only do some people lie (either intentionally or through self-delusion)...sometimes they aren't entirely sure what they have taken...especially when it comes to so called "club drugs"! I support skepticism, I just try to avoid becoming cynical and assuming that all scientific inquiry in this area must therefore be wrong.
However, self-reports of drug use, while not 100% accurate, have been found to be useful by a number of studies. The Monitoring the Future study (which is a self-report drug use survey) covers this in one of their occasional papers:
Methodological studies have utilized various methods to determine the validity of self-report data on illicit drug use and other illegal behaviors: urinalysis for drug use; polygraph verification; official police, court, medical, and treatment agency documents; and reports by peers, parents, and teachers. Generally, the findings from these studies have been encouraging....Gold (1977) reviewed the literature on self-reported delinquent behavior of adolescents and concluded that "the best single measure of delinquent behavior available is self-report of delinquency," and "it is accurate enough for use in rigorous research designs and with sophisticated statistics." Similarly, methodological studies have investigated the comparability of selfreport data and public records for the legal drugs. In particular, with respect to cigarettes and alcohol, aggregate sales data have been correlated with self-report data, and the results are very supportive of the general validity of self-reports (under proper survey conditions). (pg. 40)The one marijuana/emphysema abstract I found (in 2 minutes of looking) says it was based on a random sample of 1500 people in Vancouver, B.C. (I wish I had more than an abstract). Of the 878 respondent over 40, it found that current cigarette smokers were 17% more likely to have COPD symptoms than non-smokers. Respondents who were both current cigarette smokers and current marijuana smokers were 83% more likely to have these symptoms.
However, "Such associations were not found for marijuana smokers alone."
I still think people should not smoke pot...but I think there is some evidence that those who smoke pot should make sure that they ONLY smoke pot!
Your first point is actually a question, but I agree, it is a valid one. How was the study conducted? How did the researchers address potential sampling biases, etc? However, let's not assume a priori that the researchers ignored these factors.
In your second point, you seem to be making the assumption that pot smokers who do not have emphysema will lie more often than those who do. While I am sure that we can imagine reasons why these rates would be different, do we have any evidence that they actually are? I would be interested to see if the researchers addressed this issue.
As a part of my job, I read a lot of drug use studies and, yes, there do appear to be a lot of research biases. But let's not fall into the trap of assuming that all studies are flawed just because they address a controversial topic. There are a lot of good people in the field and the ones I know try very, very hard to produce accurate results.
And I agree with your third point. I wish more marijuana users would do more to avoid potential lung damage by finding alternate means of delivery. Unfortunately, in the US, harm reduction strategies are not emphasized.
Well, I think MS hired Mark because he had earned the trust of the community...He writes good tools and demonstrates a clear understanding of Windows internals. MS hopes that some of his credibility will rub off on them.
But a person doesn't loose my trust just because there is a different name at the top of their paycheck. The explanation makes sense and I'm going to continue to have some faith in Mark until I have a good reason not to.
That being said, I suspect what others have been theorizing is true: the reason MS went to so much trouble to make sure that playback was "glitch-free" was to ensure that one of those glitches didn't defeat their DRM scheme.
My laptop spends most of its time plugged in and in hibernate mode. It lives in the Family Room and is used mainly to look up things on IMDB when my wife and I have the "where do I know that guy from...?" conversation.
Probably, I should shut it down overnight. It might save a bit of electricity (I think the transformer draws a constant trickle). But I'm a slave to convenience...it's nice to be able to grab it and look something up quickly.
That's one of the reasons why I have MS patches auto-update...I would never get around to maintaining the darn thing otherwise. I suppose this is one of the downsides of that approach: I get to beta test all of MS's patches.
Okay, I noticed my laptop thrashing away like crazy last night just before I went to bed. One of the offending processes was MSCORSVW.EXE. Since I was tired, I just shut it down and figured I would look into it later. This saves me some research!
It didn't seem to cause a problem on any of my other PCs, though.
Never ascribe to FUD what can be explained by sheer stupidity.
I think the professional FUDers are a little more subtle than this. They always keep enough truth in their posts to allow for reasonable doubt...as opposed to the parent.
Considering that pharmaceuticals in general are regulated at the federal level, it makes sense to me that this type of enforcement should also be at the federal level. These types of uniform protections are some of the things I think centralized governments do (comparatively) well.
I think you might find that in some places it isn't exactly straightforward that counterfeiting a UL marking would be the same as a homicide/manslaughter/negligent-death case. What this provision does is clear up any question on the matter. That's a good thing because it means folks are less likely to try doing so.
The transmittal letter seems to make it pretty clear the kinds of hazards they are considering:
"For example, a counterfeit pharmaceutical may be ineffective or harmful, or a substandard electrical cord bearing a counterfeit UL certification mark may pose a fire hazard."I know the article references a conference call with "the Justice Department" where software was mentioned, but the transmittal spells out a different, more reasonable, purpose.
As I'm sure many people will point out, the "life in prison" part is for situation "where the defendant knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death." That doesn't seem so unreasonable now, does it?
Remember, this act covers more than just software and music. It also causes pharmaceuticals and other things like that. If you sell a counterfeit cancer drug knowing that people probably will die as a result, you will get a very long time out.
The summary, as usual, is going for maximum sensation and minimum accuracy.
No, when I said "really, really heavy" I meant "deeply profound," because I personally can't think of anything more personally meaningful than money.
Wait, I thought that depended on the exchange rate.
I'm waiting for the PS3 version, though. Think of how much better the graphics will be once they start using the Cell processor!
I guess I'm a bit slow today, but it took me a while to figure out that this wasn't a computer game. I guess Alternate Reality games are computer games that you don't use computers for...you know, what we used to call games, but now we have a high tech sounding term for them.
It sounds like this was a game in England where people buy puzzle cards that gave them clues on how to find a real life object. The person who found the real life object won a 100,000 pound prize by doing so (which, is like, really, really heavy).
If I remember correctly, it was either Quake or Quake II that played its music from the CD while you were playing. Of course, if you happened to have a different CD in there, it would play that music instead.
I vividly remember playing when my kid had left one of his CDs in there. I'd move into a some section of the map and it would suddenly trigger "Do You Want to Buy a Bunny" or something equally horrifying. It really added flavor to the game.
Even better was that it would repeat the song over and over until you left the section. I'm not really sure why I never took the CD out...I guess it gave me incentive to keep moving.
From the article: "The inventors filed a patent, which covers the concept of creating structures using a cement-impregnated cloth bonded to an inflatable inner surface." Yup, got to make sure you lock up the monopoly! So basically, this is glorified paper mache? I remember they used to do this during the 70's, but they used UFI foam instead of concrete. Made for damn ugly buildings....fit the decade perfectly.
Well, in all seriousness, there is always a gap between what a technology CAN do and what it WILL do. When the Semantic Web is fully implemented and it changes the world, I want to be able to tell my children how I never really saw its true potential.
So, in the future, we will all be able to use the Semantic Web to make pretty pictures out of our data. Spiro-Graph and the Etch-A-Sketch will be things of the past. My kids will now be able to make pretty abstract art from my checkbook. Technology is wonderful. I'm one of those people who is waiting for a killer app before I get on the Semantic Web bandwagon. In the meantime, I'm just going to regard it as the source of more computer science acronyms. What I suspect will happen is the next great thing AFTER the Semantic Web will, perhaps, borrow a concept or two from it. That will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.