Who's to say they didn't just pop another box in here right now on that IP so that if there is any exploits, they won't harm their real content?
Are the people who took down their website because it's a new year -really- going to be intelligent enough to even think of that?
Besides, www.audiusa.com/anything gives you a very nice not found page, with links to their entire site. It's still up. They just changed the main page.
like the swiss page that has "19%d",date making it 19100 and the like. It just means we should have to come up with a slightly different way of displaying the date. A pain in the arse, true, but that's the way the sundial crumbles.
19%d is the different way of displaying the date. tm.tm_year is the number of years since 1900. "19%d", tm->tm_year saves a couple keystrokes over "%d", tm->tm_year+1900, that's why people do it. It's very easy to add 1900 to a number, and it's very well known that this is how localtime() works. No pain.
Despite what you saw on the news, 100 or 19100 is extremely likely. The only reasonable explanation I've seen for 1900 is COBOL programs where 99+1 can wrap to 0.
Cocaine is not classified as a narcotic. Crack is the same drug as cocaine.
Now realize that if we move to a free market, where anyone can pick up any drug they wanted, those that make and sell dangerous drugs are probably going to want to hide a few things here and there, or downplay some risks.
My view of a free drug market would still require appropriate labeling.
Are you really suggesting that everyone go to the public library every time they feel a desire to go out and get some prescription drug for some random ailment they've just noticed?
Not everyone, just people who desire to. Other people could still go to a doctor. I think I've made every effort to be quite clear on this, and I wonder if you are just purposely pretending to misunderstand me. If people are going to take a drug without either professional advice or the information to make their own decision, that is their own responsibility.
We already have too many tragic cases of kids harmed by simple overdoses of liquid Tylenol. I shudder to think what would happen when parents have the ability to buy stronger drugs freely and give them to their children.
I realize it's just an example, but I should point out that acetominophen is a pretty dangerous drug, compared to how casually it is treated (the toxic dose is fairly low). In fact, it's added to drugs with recreational value (e.g. codeine, hydrocodone, dextromethorphan) so that anyone trying to get high off of it will destroy their liver. For some reason, it's considered more desirable to cripple or kill people than to let them get high.
That's pretty screwed up, but I can even find you one worse than that. A man was arrested for forging a prescription, when in fact it was perfectly legitimate, he did nothing wrong. The pharmacist had even called the doctor to verify the prescription, but called the police and had the guy arrested anyway.
Here is a Usenet post from someone who called up the police department and pharmacy trying to get information about this case.
Wow, you're right. Those damn drug dealers. Let's put them in jail!
That doesn't even seem to be in response to what I said. Maybe you just ran out of things to say? The scenereo was specifically of a drug that was fraudulently marketed.
Right-o. Those kids hooked on crack deserved what they got. Let 'em sit in misery for the rest of their life. But gods, no, let's not blame the drug or the maker.
I don't blame inanimate objects for anything. Only people. And I said that the maker (or, whoever engaged in fraud, if perhaps it was distributors and not the maker, since the scenereo was not that specific) was *mostly* to blame. People still have a responsibility to check if what they're about to ingest is safe.
I certainly don't favor letting crack addicts "sit in misery for the rest of their life", and I don't think I've said anything that would imply that. I favor treatment, and certainly not the imprisonment of anyone for what drugs they decide to take.
Perhaps. Without these laws, however, how many more people would be addicted to narcotics? Cigarettes?
Since both are readily available, I don't see your point. The only restriction on cigarettes is that you have to be over 18 to buy them, and the reality is, it's not difficult for people under 18 to get cigarettes.
Is it worth it for people to be permitted to purchase recreational drugs (which is what they would be -- after all, this whole thing is about getting drugs a doctor won't prescribe for you, right?) if it means a substantial increase in death and illness for people that either don't have the time nor the money to do research?
The discussion here is mainly about drugs that a doctor will prescribe. I've tried not to stray too far from that, and I think most people have as well. I don't draw any real distinction between recreational and non-recreational drugs, especially since so many can be used for both. (amphetamine and other stimulants, marijuana, opiates, benzodiazepines, GHB, dextromethorphan).
Everybody has the money to do the research. It costs nothing to go to a public library. Pharmacists can give you information (I'm not sure how complete it is. In a world where people were free to choose what drugs they take, pharmacists would probably want to keep a good amount of information on hand in order to serve their customerss). If they are too lazy to actually read about the drug or consult someone who has before they take it, that is their own fault. The government does not need to protect people from themselves. I realize that some people won't be able to handle that. You have to determine how much you want the government to run people's lives. I say very little. I think most people will be able to handle that. If there are those that can't, it's probably because they have been brought up being told not to worry, that the government will keep them safe.
Let's say I invent a drug X that, given a single dose, mimics the effects of alcohol while having an extremely addicting effect on the taker. So addicting, in fact, that one dose is sufficient to addict an adult in such a way that 99% of the people that take it begin taking it regularly. This drug is "marketed" as a quick, safe high by the dealers and quickly spreads.
Whoever committed fraud by claiming that it was a safe drug, and by marketing something so dangerous without adequate warnings, would be mostly to blame. But the people who took it without bothering to look up any information on the drug are also to blame for their own recklessness.
Now, I'm not saying that all illegal drugs have these types of effects, but there are plenty that do.
Your example was a good one, because it pretty well described a perfectly addictive drug for the sake of discussion. I hope you're not saying that any real drug, illegal or legal, is nearly that addictive.
It all boils down to the fact that people today have a need to be protected from their own ignorance and stupidity. To suggest that everyone is capable of making educated, informed decisions about everything that will affect their life is naive.
If people are incapable of making decisions for themselves, it's because of two reasons. Laws meant to protect people from themselves, and the schools teaching that thinking for yourself is wrong. Instead of perpetuating this, we should try to move away from it.
Have you considered that your taking drugs can affect others?
Very well, over-use of antibiotics is a serious public health concern. So everyone arguing that they should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own body as long as it affects noone else would probably not have a problem with some sort of restriction on antibiotics. These drugs are the exception. They affect people other than the ones taking the drug.
If over-use of antibiotics is such a problem, I wonder if doctors are aware of it, or even care. In my experience, an antibiotic is frequently the first thing they try.
I find the whole Viagra thing very interesting to watch. It's killed over a hundred people by now, yet it's still hailed as a wonder drug. Reports of a handful of deaths (even if they're from massive overdoses, or from drug interactions) are enough to damn some drugs (those without the backing of any pharmaceutical company). Drugs that make sex better for people who are a generation or two too young to be involved in lawmaking. But if the drug only improves sex for the elderly, it's a perfectly good idea. We even have lawmakers making statements about what a good drug it is.
. I know I don't know about the biochemical reactions when I take an antibiotic but I will trust my doctor and my pharmacy to tell me if there is a large side effect or anything else I should know about.
You trust them to know it from memory, when you could easily look it up yourself? Have you ever been prescribed a drug, and then looked up some information on it? There's a lot of things that you're not told. There was a study that found that doctors almost never fully inform patients about health decisions.
Feel free to ask your doctor if you want, but I don't think their track record is so good that I should go to prison if I decide to do the research on my own.
The average person does not have the knowledge to determine what prescription drugs they should be taking, much less the resources to research those choices.
Then everyone should strongly advise against this, but let the above-average person still have the right to do it. Anyone with the ability to read and get to a decent library can read all the same information that doctors have access to. A great deal of information can be found right on the net.
I'm really surprised to see so many people on/. arguing that the world needs to be kept safe enough that even the most foolish people can't hurt themselves.
What about drug interactions, both with other drugs and any physical conditions/ailments you may have? What about overdoses?
Drug interactions and dosages are information that is readily available to anyone, whether or not they are a doctor. An individual doing research for themself can do a much more thorough job than a doctor, who is probably not going to take the time to do any research at all. A doctor could easily forget something, or not be aware of new information.
For that matter, is the average person going to understand the gobbligook that is written about a medical trial and treatment?
I can understand it, and I have no medical training or education. I have to look up new words frequently, but I'm able to tell that I havn't seen that word before and I need to look it up. It's not like I'm not understanding it and not realizing. If someone knows they're not able to read medical literature, then they can consult a doctor. I don't think anyone is arguing against seeing doctors. Just that people who don't want to should have that right.
People make mistakes - a vast majority don't have medical training, and you can't believe everything you read on a website, especially one promoting the sale of a particular drug.
So the real issue is truth in advertising? This is the first anyone's mentioned that. Are the online pharmacies being deceptive? Is the FDA accusing them of that?
When people make mistakes like these - mistakes that aren't really their fault - they want government to help.
It certainly is their own fault. (And I havn't seen anyone complaining about what drug they bought on an online pharmacy. Where are these people?) It should be obvious that you have two options, do the research on your own and decide whether you should take a drug, or consult a professional (a doctor). I'm not saying that the option of consulting a doctor should be taken away. I'm just saying that the people who don't want to deal with a doctor for whatever reason still should have the right to purchase whatever drug they want. An intelligent person can make a more informed decision than a doctor, because they can take the time to do research, a doctor will rarely do that before prescribing a drug.
A study found that 91% of the time, patients were not adequately informed about health decisions by their doctor. Am I so incapable of thinking for myself that I should be thrown in prison (and any pharmacy that helps me fined a half-million dollars) if I want a drug without a doctor's prescription?
I'm really shocked to see the crack at Libertarians in the story. Especially when it doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand.
I don't think any of the online pharmacies have been accused of messing up orders. (Though it wouldn't surprise me - real pharmacies do it all the time, and sometimes it kills people). The issue is that they're selling people prescription drugs when they don't really have a prescription. This perpetuates the dangerous idea that the people have any right to determine what they put into their own bodies, so of course the government must put a stop to it. I suppose also at issue is fewer people being forced to go to a doctor just to get a cursory examination, the prescription they knew they needed, and a $75 bill for the office visit.
I don't see how my chances of getting the wrong drug are any greater just because some verification is made that I have a prescription.
And in their zeal they attack even people who come in and who have read all the manuals and who have detailed descriptions of the errors they're encountering.
Yes, because it's still not a help channel, and because these people still have no obligation to help you, no matter how good your question is. Those people don't want to help you, and you should let them be.
1) The linux community has fraudulently swindled its way into an award for technical support.
I can see your point, I suppose. Absolutely every single time I have asked a question in the comp.os.linux.* newsgroups, I have received no help. It's probably because I only ask for help there as a last resort, so they're always fairly difficult problems. A few people will try to help, but they'll suggest things that are completely wrong, or I've already said did not work. I always go through great effort to make sure my questions are clear, concise, and include all pertinent information.
But I have just read those groups also, and helped people in them, and people asking simple questions, or difficult questions that other people have already had to solve, do get very good help. If you ask something that's a little unusual, all the people that are intelligent enough to answer quickly aren't wasting their time with you. And all the people that could solve it with some effort aren't going to bother unless it's an interesting problem.
The support you can get for Linux on comp.os.linux.* and mailing lists blows away any commercial Unix support I've dealt with. Consider that a scathing indictment of commercial OS support.
The *BSD community routinely treats people who go on their channels looking for help, like they're a piece of crap
I frequent an IRC channel that used to get a lot of people joining and asking questions (we had to set a channel key because of this). They would not usually be treated with kindness, though there were plenty of exceptions to that. They'd frequently get at least a pointer to the answer to their question, even if it was in the kick message. I've seen identical behavior on other channels, e.g. #linux.
Here's why. First, they're not help channels. The people that are there are not trying to volunteer their time to answer anyone's questions. That's not usually fun.
The clueless newbies answering questions is constant. Multiple times per hour, perhaps. How do constant stupid questions make you react?
Nobody in the channel knows these people, they come out of nowhere asking for help. They ask questions that are answered in the documentation, or that a search engine could have easily found the answer to. They ask confusing or vague questions. They ask questions that show they don't have basic fundamental knowledge that nobody wants to explain to them. And these people treat the people they're asking like total crap. They want us to believe that our time is worth so little that it's better that we answer their question out of kindness, rather than them going out on their own and learning it.
When not treated with perfect kindness, people who ask questions sometimes become incredibly angry. They make threats, try DoS attacks, etc. It gets very annoying.
And to top it all off, not only do the clueless help-me-please babies *act* like the people in every channel they come to have a responsibility to help them, but there's people like you who almost come out and say it.
If the people in the channel had to deal with stupid questions all day, the people begging for help on IRC make a fabulous target for the response that we've been longing to give to someone all day. This should be obvious pretty quickly, therefore if you continue to run around on IRC thinking that every channel #x is "help for newbies on x", you're hassling people that you know are in a bad mood, and that you know don't have to take any crap from you at all.
Nope. That's erroneous. The correct phrase is the negation of that one. People who can't say what they mean shouldn't be near a computer.
Well I don't see how I could possibly disagree with your stunningly brilliant position. You told me I'm wrong, without any explanation or evidence.
Face it, there are many sequences of words in English that mean something different than what you would expect from the definitions of each component word. It's messy and imprecise, but a great deal of effort is put into learning it, and that's how it works.
If you don't like it, you should start making suggestions for how the language should be changed. Don't tell people that a phrase that has been in use for half a century is "wrong".
I could really care less if it's more popular or not.
It's comforting to know that you care so much. Most of us, however, couldn't care less.
The idiom is "I could care less". Like many others, it does not mean the same thing when taken literally. It's one of a few that actually means the opposite when taken literally. But this doesn't make your criticism valid.
But this is a market that's very difficult to enter. You have to get the vast majority of browsers to include your root certificate. That's why this is so bad. It means that people will *have* to deal with Verisign's ridiculous pricing if they want to set up an https server that's used by the public. Just at the point where Thawte was entrenched enough to be a completely viable alternative.
- Woman who spilled coffee in her lap (tried to operate car while drinking coffee).
People are pretty stupid, and there's a lot of frivolous lawsuits that people unjustly win. But this isn't one of them. I suggest that before talking about something, you make sure that you have at least a little bit of information on it. Especially when it's part of a rant about how you're smarter than everyone else.
The coffee was significantly hotter than coffee is normally served. (180-190 degrees F, that's about 82-88C). McDonald's had numerous customers burned by it. The woman was -not- driving at the time. The woman received third degree burns, requiring skin grafts. She only sued for her medical costs, and the jury awarded her more. (as punitive damages). Do you think it is reasonable to expect that your food will give you third degree burns if you spill it on yourself? I don't.
This is one of many web pages discussing the case. I found it with a simple google search.
By the way, even though she was not driving the car while drinking her coffee, you should know that that is perfectly normal in the US. Millions of people do it every morning.
Let me describe the effect, but first let me say that my experience relates to Wellbutrin (bupropion hcl) which is a serotonin re-uptake inhibitor, similar to Prozac.
Bupropion is not an SSRI. While it does inihibit the reuptake of serotonin to some extent, it is moreso an inhibitor of dopamine and norepinephrine re-uptake.
I assume your doctor told you this, either as a lie or due to gross incompetence. It's terrible that millions of people are taking psychoactive drugs (or really any drugs at all) with -no- understanding of how they work. I'm always shocked when people tell me they're taking some drug and they don't even know what it's called. I'm less shocked when people know nothing about the drug they're taking - it's just as bad, but it's entirely common.
Don't trust your doctor. Look around at the people in your profession, consider what portion you consider competent. Consider what portion you would trust the advice of. Why should a doctor be any more trustworthy? The fact that it's not your field means you should trust your doctor even -less-, because you can't even evaluate what he says without doing research. You'll never realize he's lying or wrong unless you verify everything.
Sometimes you have to trust a doctor, of course. But if you're prescribed a drug, you have time to at least look up the most basic of information on it. While you're at it, don't trust your pharmacist either. Make sure the pills you got are the same as what the bottle says. If you're taking more than one drug, look for information on the interaction. Sometimes it can surprise you.
Slashdot Mirror
Are the people who took down their website because it's a new year -really- going to be intelligent enough to even think of that?
Besides, www.audiusa.com/anything gives you a very nice not found page, with links to their entire site. It's still up. They just changed the main page.
Is this standard procedure on every new year? Seems like pretty fragile software.
19%d is the different way of displaying the date. tm.tm_year is the number of years since 1900. "19%d", tm->tm_year saves a couple keystrokes over "%d", tm->tm_year+1900, that's why people do it. It's very easy to add 1900 to a number, and it's very well known that this is how localtime() works. No pain.
Despite what you saw on the news, 100 or 19100 is extremely likely. The only reasonable explanation I've seen for 1900 is COBOL programs where 99+1 can wrap to 0.
Cocaine is not classified as a narcotic. Crack is the same drug as cocaine.
Now realize that if we move to a free market, where anyone can pick up any drug they wanted, those that make and sell dangerous drugs are probably going to want to hide a few things here and there, or downplay some risks.
My view of a free drug market would still require appropriate labeling.
Are you really suggesting that everyone go to the public library every time they feel a desire to go out and get some prescription drug for some random ailment they've just noticed?
Not everyone, just people who desire to. Other people could still go to a doctor. I think I've made every effort to be quite clear on this, and I wonder if you are just purposely pretending to misunderstand me. If people are going to take a drug without either professional advice or the information to make their own decision, that is their own responsibility.
I realize it's just an example, but I should point out that acetominophen is a pretty dangerous drug, compared to how casually it is treated (the toxic dose is fairly low). In fact, it's added to drugs with recreational value (e.g. codeine, hydrocodone, dextromethorphan) so that anyone trying to get high off of it will destroy their liver. For some reason, it's considered more desirable to cripple or kill people than to let them get high.
Here is a Usenet post from someone who called up the police department and pharmacy trying to get information about this case.
That doesn't even seem to be in response to what I said. Maybe you just ran out of things to say? The scenereo was specifically of a drug that was fraudulently marketed.
Right-o. Those kids hooked on crack deserved what they got. Let 'em sit in misery for the rest of their life. But gods, no, let's not blame the drug or the maker.
I don't blame inanimate objects for anything. Only people. And I said that the maker (or, whoever engaged in fraud, if perhaps it was distributors and not the maker, since the scenereo was not that specific) was *mostly* to blame. People still have a responsibility to check if what they're about to ingest is safe.
I certainly don't favor letting crack addicts "sit in misery for the rest of their life", and I don't think I've said anything that would imply that. I favor treatment, and certainly not the imprisonment of anyone for what drugs they decide to take.
Perhaps. Without these laws, however, how many more people would be addicted to narcotics? Cigarettes?
Since both are readily available, I don't see your point. The only restriction on cigarettes is that you have to be over 18 to buy them, and the reality is, it's not difficult for people under 18 to get cigarettes.
Is it worth it for people to be permitted to purchase recreational drugs (which is what they would be -- after all, this whole thing is about getting drugs a doctor won't prescribe for you, right?) if it means a substantial increase in death and illness for people that either don't have the time nor the money to do research?
The discussion here is mainly about drugs that a doctor will prescribe. I've tried not to stray too far from that, and I think most people have as well. I don't draw any real distinction between recreational and non-recreational drugs, especially since so many can be used for both. (amphetamine and other stimulants, marijuana, opiates, benzodiazepines, GHB, dextromethorphan).
Everybody has the money to do the research. It costs nothing to go to a public library. Pharmacists can give you information (I'm not sure how complete it is. In a world where people were free to choose what drugs they take, pharmacists would probably want to keep a good amount of information on hand in order to serve their customerss). If they are too lazy to actually read about the drug or consult someone who has before they take it, that is their own fault. The government does not need to protect people from themselves. I realize that some people won't be able to handle that. You have to determine how much you want the government to run people's lives. I say very little. I think most people will be able to handle that. If there are those that can't, it's probably because they have been brought up being told not to worry, that the government will keep them safe.
Whoever committed fraud by claiming that it was a safe drug, and by marketing something so dangerous without adequate warnings, would be mostly to blame. But the people who took it without bothering to look up any information on the drug are also to blame for their own recklessness.
Now, I'm not saying that all illegal drugs have these types of effects, but there are plenty that do.
Your example was a good one, because it pretty well described a perfectly addictive drug for the sake of discussion. I hope you're not saying that any real drug, illegal or legal, is nearly that addictive.
It all boils down to the fact that people today have a need to be protected from their own ignorance and stupidity. To suggest that everyone is capable of making educated, informed decisions about everything that will affect their life is naive.
If people are incapable of making decisions for themselves, it's because of two reasons. Laws meant to protect people from themselves, and the schools teaching that thinking for yourself is wrong. Instead of perpetuating this, we should try to move away from it.
Very well, over-use of antibiotics is a serious public health concern. So everyone arguing that they should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own body as long as it affects noone else would probably not have a problem with some sort of restriction on antibiotics. These drugs are the exception. They affect people other than the ones taking the drug.
If over-use of antibiotics is such a problem, I wonder if doctors are aware of it, or even care. In my experience, an antibiotic is frequently the first thing they try.
I find the whole Viagra thing very interesting to watch. It's killed over a hundred people by now, yet it's still hailed as a wonder drug. Reports of a handful of deaths (even if they're from massive overdoses, or from drug interactions) are enough to damn some drugs (those without the backing of any pharmaceutical company). Drugs that make sex better for people who are a generation or two too young to be involved in lawmaking. But if the drug only improves sex for the elderly, it's a perfectly good idea. We even have lawmakers making statements about what a good drug it is.
So laws should be passed based on preventing dangerous activity that might be costly to insurance companies?
If so, how do you decide what activities are too dangerous?
You trust them to know it from memory, when you could easily look it up yourself? Have you ever been prescribed a drug, and then looked up some information on it? There's a lot of things that you're not told. There was a study that found that doctors almost never fully inform patients about health decisions.
Feel free to ask your doctor if you want, but I don't think their track record is so good that I should go to prison if I decide to do the research on my own.
Then everyone should strongly advise against this, but let the above-average person still have the right to do it. Anyone with the ability to read and get to a decent library can read all the same information that doctors have access to. A great deal of information can be found right on the net.
I'm really surprised to see so many people on /. arguing that the world needs to be kept safe enough that even the most foolish people can't hurt themselves.
Drug interactions and dosages are information that is readily available to anyone, whether or not they are a doctor. An individual doing research for themself can do a much more thorough job than a doctor, who is probably not going to take the time to do any research at all. A doctor could easily forget something, or not be aware of new information.
For that matter, is the average person going to understand the gobbligook that is written about a medical trial and treatment?
I can understand it, and I have no medical training or education. I have to look up new words frequently, but I'm able to tell that I havn't seen that word before and I need to look it up. It's not like I'm not understanding it and not realizing. If someone knows they're not able to read medical literature, then they can consult a doctor. I don't think anyone is arguing against seeing doctors. Just that people who don't want to should have that right.
So the real issue is truth in advertising? This is the first anyone's mentioned that. Are the online pharmacies being deceptive? Is the FDA accusing them of that?
When people make mistakes like these - mistakes that aren't really their fault - they want government to help.
It certainly is their own fault. (And I havn't seen anyone complaining about what drug they bought on an online pharmacy. Where are these people?) It should be obvious that you have two options, do the research on your own and decide whether you should take a drug, or consult a professional (a doctor). I'm not saying that the option of consulting a doctor should be taken away. I'm just saying that the people who don't want to deal with a doctor for whatever reason still should have the right to purchase whatever drug they want. An intelligent person can make a more informed decision than a doctor, because they can take the time to do research, a doctor will rarely do that before prescribing a drug.
A study found that 91% of the time, patients were not adequately informed about health decisions by their doctor. Am I so incapable of thinking for myself that I should be thrown in prison (and any pharmacy that helps me fined a half-million dollars) if I want a drug without a doctor's prescription?
I'm really shocked to see the crack at Libertarians in the story. Especially when it doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand.
I don't think any of the online pharmacies have been accused of messing up orders. (Though it wouldn't surprise me - real pharmacies do it all the time, and sometimes it kills people). The issue is that they're selling people prescription drugs when they don't really have a prescription. This perpetuates the dangerous idea that the people have any right to determine what they put into their own bodies, so of course the government must put a stop to it. I suppose also at issue is fewer people being forced to go to a doctor just to get a cursory examination, the prescription they knew they needed, and a $75 bill for the office visit.
I don't see how my chances of getting the wrong drug are any greater just because some verification is made that I have a prescription.
Yes, because it's still not a help channel, and because these people still have no obligation to help you, no matter how good your question is. Those people don't want to help you, and you should let them be.
1) The linux community has fraudulently swindled its way into an award for technical support.
I can see your point, I suppose. Absolutely every single time I have asked a question in the comp.os.linux.* newsgroups, I have received no help. It's probably because I only ask for help there as a last resort, so they're always fairly difficult problems. A few people will try to help, but they'll suggest things that are completely wrong, or I've already said did not work. I always go through great effort to make sure my questions are clear, concise, and include all pertinent information.
But I have just read those groups also, and helped people in them, and people asking simple questions, or difficult questions that other people have already had to solve, do get very good help. If you ask something that's a little unusual, all the people that are intelligent enough to answer quickly aren't wasting their time with you. And all the people that could solve it with some effort aren't going to bother unless it's an interesting problem.
The support you can get for Linux on comp.os.linux.* and mailing lists blows away any commercial Unix support I've dealt with. Consider that a scathing indictment of commercial OS support.
I frequent an IRC channel that used to get a lot of people joining and asking questions (we had to set a channel key because of this). They would not usually be treated with kindness, though there were plenty of exceptions to that. They'd frequently get at least a pointer to the answer to their question, even if it was in the kick message. I've seen identical behavior on other channels, e.g. #linux.
Here's why. First, they're not help channels. The people that are there are not trying to volunteer their time to answer anyone's questions. That's not usually fun.
The clueless newbies answering questions is constant. Multiple times per hour, perhaps. How do constant stupid questions make you react?
Nobody in the channel knows these people, they come out of nowhere asking for help. They ask questions that are answered in the documentation, or that a search engine could have easily found the answer to. They ask confusing or vague questions. They ask questions that show they don't have basic fundamental knowledge that nobody wants to explain to them. And these people treat the people they're asking like total crap. They want us to believe that our time is worth so little that it's better that we answer their question out of kindness, rather than them going out on their own and learning it.
When not treated with perfect kindness, people who ask questions sometimes become incredibly angry. They make threats, try DoS attacks, etc. It gets very annoying.
And to top it all off, not only do the clueless help-me-please babies *act* like the people in every channel they come to have a responsibility to help them, but there's people like you who almost come out and say it.
If the people in the channel had to deal with stupid questions all day, the people begging for help on IRC make a fabulous target for the response that we've been longing to give to someone all day. This should be obvious pretty quickly, therefore if you continue to run around on IRC thinking that every channel #x is "help for newbies on x", you're hassling people that you know are in a bad mood, and that you know don't have to take any crap from you at all.
Well I don't see how I could possibly disagree with your stunningly brilliant position. You told me I'm wrong, without any explanation or evidence.
Face it, there are many sequences of words in English that mean something different than what you would expect from the definitions of each component word. It's messy and imprecise, but a great deal of effort is put into learning it, and that's how it works.
If you don't like it, you should start making suggestions for how the language should be changed. Don't tell people that a phrase that has been in use for half a century is "wrong".
It's comforting to know that you care so much. Most of us, however, couldn't care less.
The idiom is "I could care less". Like many others, it does not mean the same thing when taken literally. It's one of a few that actually means the opposite when taken literally. But this doesn't make your criticism valid.
But this is a market that's very difficult to enter. You have to get the vast majority of browsers to include your root certificate. That's why this is so bad. It means that people will *have* to deal with Verisign's ridiculous pricing if they want to set up an https server that's used by the public. Just at the point where Thawte was entrenched enough to be a completely viable alternative.
STATE income tax.
But most states do have both an income tax and a sales tax.
People are pretty stupid, and there's a lot of frivolous lawsuits that people unjustly win. But this isn't one of them. I suggest that before talking about something, you make sure that you have at least a little bit of information on it. Especially when it's part of a rant about how you're smarter than everyone else.
The coffee was significantly hotter than coffee is normally served. (180-190 degrees F, that's about 82-88C). McDonald's had numerous customers burned by it. The woman was -not- driving at the time. The woman received third degree burns, requiring skin grafts. She only sued for her medical costs, and the jury awarded her more. (as punitive damages). Do you think it is reasonable to expect that your food will give you third degree burns if you spill it on yourself? I don't.
This is one of many web pages discussing the case. I found it with a simple google search.
By the way, even though she was not driving the car while drinking her coffee, you should know that that is perfectly normal in the US. Millions of people do it every morning.
Bupropion is not an SSRI. While it does inihibit the reuptake of serotonin to some extent, it is moreso an inhibitor of dopamine and norepinephrine re-uptake.
I assume your doctor told you this, either as a lie or due to gross incompetence. It's terrible that millions of people are taking psychoactive drugs (or really any drugs at all) with -no- understanding of how they work. I'm always shocked when people tell me they're taking some drug and they don't even know what it's called. I'm less shocked when people know nothing about the drug they're taking - it's just as bad, but it's entirely common.
Don't trust your doctor. Look around at the people in your profession, consider what portion you consider competent. Consider what portion you would trust the advice of. Why should a doctor be any more trustworthy? The fact that it's not your field means you should trust your doctor even -less-, because you can't even evaluate what he says without doing research. You'll never realize he's lying or wrong unless you verify everything.
Sometimes you have to trust a doctor, of course. But if you're prescribed a drug, you have time to at least look up the most basic of information on it. While you're at it, don't trust your pharmacist either. Make sure the pills you got are the same as what the bottle says. If you're taking more than one drug, look for information on the interaction. Sometimes it can surprise you.