Technology has never been changing as fast as it is now, but that's also been true for as far back as I'm aware...each generation just doesn't seem to see the trend of acceleration that came before them because it all seems so slow compared to what's happening just then.
This simply isn't true. There have been periods in history when generations would pass without any discernible technological improvements. There have also been things called Dark Ages where technology actually recedes. (I guess that's still change, though.)
Given that technology can only increase in discrete steps, a constant rate of acceleration would necessarily mean that going back in time several generations would have to pass before any discernible improvements were made.
The most dramatic example would be the transition from the bifurcated hand ax to the spear (made by hafting said ax onto a stick). That technological leap took about one million years, which could be consistent with a constant rate of acceleration. However, if I had to guess, I would guess that it's not constant, but caused by discrete changes in the influences on our mental states.
As an aside, announcements of technologies such as this are becoming more frequent. As Alvin Toffler was talking about many years ago, we have entered the period of "Future Shock". Development and change in general is undergoing a period doubling. Not only are these new technologies amazing, but also the technologies they enable will also be amazing. So it begs the question: what do we - as a species - want to do? Because unless a mass extinction occurs we will probably be able to choose from an unimaginable menu of options about fifty years from now.
Not to be overly pedantic (if that is possible on/.?), but "more frequent" and "period doubling" are opposites, as the period is the inverse of the frequency. However, I suppose you may have been using the latter as an analogy to a bifurcating mathematical system transitioning into chaos.
Regardless, until someone actually offers a better battery or capacitor, which hasn't been done in quite a while, I don't think it's necessary to run in terror from the impending wave of too much technological progress. I, for one, would welcome any new inexpensive, high capacity, high voltage capacitors, as they are not easy to build or buy, and I am inexplicably desirous of sending large electrical arcs across the width of my basement.
The CD is not certainly not overspecced for studio quality recording equipment. If you're talking about things like road noise, then fine. But if you're talking about listening to some well-crafted, well-engineered music with headphones, the CD is under-specced. While you can say "most people can't hear a 22khz tone", that's both true and not true. The spacial characteristics of sound are determined by higher frequencies than what we can identify as tones. For example, you can tell if a sound is in front of you or behind you because of how sound bounces of the ridge of your outer ear that's 1cm from your ear canal. That's a reverberation that takes, at sea level, about 29 microseconds, which correlates to a frequency of about 34khz, which is too fast to be recorded at the CD spec.
[1] One 'competition' that pitted serious self-described audiophiles against modern codecs is described in detail here: http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusiccla ssical/mp3test.html. While well-trained ears could discriminate between 128kbit MP3s and PCM, they could not reliably tell the difference between 256kbit and PCM, on average. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Yeah... but if you read that article you notice that the audio pro who COULD reliably tell the 256kbit from the PCM, pointed out that it had a warmer, smoother tone, and you had to not let that fool you. And in fact, most the others seemed to reverse the PCM with the 256kbit. So it seems like they COULD tell the difference. They only assumed that the one that sounded nicer to them was the PCM. Which gets to the larger point, I think, which is that the CD spec is not good enough for real audiophile sound. And as some suggested 256kbit from a better source than CD may easily be better than CD.
ipods have a few million users as a base, i bet at least 25% (probably way more) use the $0.50 earbuds that came with them. they suck, yet the users are fine with it.
I've bought five or six ear buds in my lifetime, spending anywhere from $5 to $30, and the earbuds that came with my ipod are significantly better than any of them. I own better headphones, to be sure, but the point is that ipod earbuds are definitely not $0.50 cheapies.
Given that futures markets [intrade] give [Hillary] nearly double the chance of the second place candidate (39% vs. 20% for Guiliani), why not bet against her and make some money? Since you obviously know more than those who actually are putting real money, rather than just words, on the line.
That's not a bad deal. The bid is currently at 37.0. Does anyone know if intrade allows short selling? Without a Perot running, she would have to do significantly better than her husband did to win. If I were a betting man...
Also 2008 house control is last trading at 81.5 vs 18.5 in favor of the Democrats. If Hillary does win the Democratic nomination, that is a freakin bargain for betting on the Republicans.
No, a man stands up for what he believes in and keeps his word. I seem to recall the President swears to uphold and defend this little document called the Constitution when he is sworn into office. Bush has taken a paper shredder to it.
What are you talking about? Bush is one of the few men in Washington willing to stand up for the Constitution and defend it.
Soldiers risk everything to defend what they believe in. The founding fathers of the US of A risked hanging and their homes to create this country and the rights people today so easily let go. Tell me one thing Bush has done that shows he is willing to risk ANYTHING so much as someone disagreeing with him?
Bush risked many things for what he believed in. Some of those things he lost. He lost a great deal of political capital by insisting on reforming Social Security, because it was the right thing to do, despite the entire political establishment of both parties being against it. He lost a lot of credibility which greatly undermined his power, by taking a lone and unpopular position on Iraq, in front of the whole world, based on the intelligence available to him, because he believed it was the right thing to do for the country and for the world. Bush is the closest thing we've had to another Lincoln, and in time history will remember him that way. And so will Iraq.
A man as you say... would not use fear to control. He would not use fear to get his people to let him spy on them. He would not use fear and threats to intimidate people into doing what he wanted. A man does not do these things. Bush is a coward, a bully and an idiot that has violated his oath to the American people. Colin Powell was a man, and he would not sacrifice his own personal honor to give Bush credibility.
Bush has done no such thing. Bush has insisted on maintaining our ability to spy on our military adversaries, to protect the country, as is his duty under the Constitution. I have a hard time believing you honestly can't tell the difference between insisting on the good of protecting the country, with intimidating people into submission. What person has been intimidated by him, or is afraid of him, other than Osama and his cohorts?
a) The company agrees to follow all Chinese laws and we agree to promptly extradite any executives residing in US to stand trial for any violations. I hear death penalty is common for stuff like environmental accidents and allowing employees to access information about Tinamenn square events through corporate intranet gets you sent to a re-education camp for a few years. Are you actually suggesting that a company should be allowed to avoid laws of ALL countries by shifting people and corporate registrations around?
Of course, companies have to follow the laws of the countries in which they operate. Death penalty for environmental accidents? Hardly. Maybe if they got proof of someone orchestrating a huge network of bribery to allow massive pollution they'd go there -- and rightly so, considering the number of deaths river pollution is causing in that country.
b) The company goods are charged a non-punitive duty to compensate for the loss of tax income compared to a US company paying wages to american workers.
That's not much better. Again a company might as well just sever ties with the US and move their US offices to a friendly place like Dubai, rather than getting taxed by two countries on the same income. There's a cost barrier to making such a move, especially if they're selling to US markets. But if the government ever makes the cost of doing business in America higher than that barrier... well, then the Left will have finally succeeded in freeing America from the evil multinational corporations. Then, after we default on our debt, we could sell Alaska to Russia, and Hawaii to Japan, and Mexico can build a fence to keep out illegal American immigrants looking for work. Good times.
There has always been a tendency in the past, wherever there were large supplies of workers relative to demand, for workers to "put in time for the company" (i.e. take one for the team) by working *some* extra hours gratis before logging any overtime (this was endemic in Japan during the 1980s where you had the salarymen, as they were called over there, dropping dead from sheer stress).
To me, that sounds more like simply good work ethic and loyalty, rather than a disease as implied by the word "endemic." I've tried to do more than was directly required of me, and more than I would be directly compensated for, wherever I've worked. I'm not saying it should be taken to the point of dropping dead from shear stress, but I do think that the attitude in the East that the whole is greater than the individual, and is worthy of individual sacrifice and loyalty, is far superior to the attitude in the West that corporations are evil, and the individual should bilk their employer for anything they can get.
Those are some great photos. I watch a regular show called Inside China. They mostly show different rural cultures, but they did at least one show on a live-in factory much like this one (possibly the same). It is such an amazing country, with such a different mindset, that is hard for us Westerners to really get our heads around. I'd love to go there one day. The only two things that are truly disturbing are the amount of pollution due to corruption in government that prevents any remedies, and the intrusion into the private (including reproductive, philosophical and religious) life of the individual that the government still feels is appropriate.
Or you could consider that the US company could easily double their salary, reduce work week to, say, 60 hours and fix the most grievous safety hazards - all at the cost of cutting compensation of top executives by half. Just like we are prosecuting ordinary citizens for patronizing child prostitutes in Thailand, we should start going after companies (and their CEOs) that break US labor laws abroad. 5-7 bucks minimum wage per hour is not to expensive for a company, will help 3rd world countries stand up on their feet rather than being cheap slaves and will give US workers at least a slight chance to compete for jobs.
Have you actually looked at any of these companies' balance sheets or do you just figure, "companies are rich they can afford anything?" If we actually passed laws requiring US based companies to pay 5-7 dollars to workers anywhere in the world, their only option would be to leave the US altogether. Many are doing so already, as there are more and more business-friendly places in the world -- places who appreciate business and want to attract companies rather than wanting to penalize them for existing. If socialist policies eventually drive the multinationals out of the US, it will be the end of our tenure as an economic and political superpower, and depending on who takes our place, the world will probably get a whole lot uglier.
Another nail in the coffin of a civilised way of life. Thanks, free market capitalism!
WTF??? Theft is the antithesis of free market capitalism, and it has existed in every sort of society. Free market capitalism is what allows people to trade freely within the laws of fairness, civility, and honest competition.
Hillary's a what? A Moderate? Her political philosophy and practice is a combination of Mussolini, Stalin, and Chavez. I suppose if there's anything that would get her called a moderate, it would be refusing to promise to remove all troops immediately from Iraq. No one is going to do that if elected. No one running is that insane. She's just smart enough to know better than to try to benefit now at the expense of her political power once in office, by promising to do something that's, a key issue to many in her base, that she knows she won't follow through on.
If you think comparing her to Mussolini, Stalin and Chavez is "trolling" you probably missed the video on youtube where she told a Democratic audience (to cheers) how she planned to confiscate the profits of the oil companies. The profits of military contractors are no doubt next. Take a look at the Fascist Manifesto sometime, and let me know how it differs from Hillary's positions.
This is Germany. How is the law imprisoning those who express doubt in the holocaust supposed to protect anyone?
How is this trolling? I think this is a comparable situation. Both laws far exceed what should be the reasonable limits of the government's power to restrict individual freedom.
Why is a bunch of naked hate-spewing rated +5, insightful? Please read the moderation guidelines. The purpose of of moderation is to encourage intelligent discussion, and to discourage such things as spitting obscenities at each other.
I guess you could say that Newt "moralized" about public corruption, but that was hardly hypocritical.
Wrong.
The Democrats came up with literally hundreds of accusations, and the committee had to go through all of them. And every one was bogus, but ONE where he accidentally used a certain type of donation for the wrong purpose. If even half of Congress could stand up to that kind of scrutiny and come out that clean, it would be a much better place than it is now.
The only thing that makes Iraq different than any other credit-money fiat is that Hussein was perhaps the sole individual who could keep a country like Iraq from ripping itself apart. Removing him from the equation results in a very strong tendency toward civil war, which so far is only kept (barely) in check through massive police action by the U.S. military, which the American people tired of long ago.
This is just wrong. Hussein did not have to resist a civil war, partially because there was no one there trying to incite one, as Al Qaeda is now. Regardless, we could keep order in the exact same way that Hussein did if we chose. Namely we could kill all dissenters, and whenever we found an insurgent we could kill all the men and boys in his village and rape all the women. But this is evil, and it's better to have less-than-perfect order than to do this. The American people who are tired of keeping Iraq together need to grow up and learn the meaning of responsibility and sacrifice.
Any pundits saying that are delusional. If the Dems were going into the elections without having these 2 years to embarrass themselves while in control of Congress, it would be a different story. Most people agree that Rove gets the majority of the credit for Bush's two victories. (The second one was larger than the first one, by the way, not smaller.) Giving him credit or blame for Congressional elections is a stretch. But as it works out, losing the Congress will I think probably make the difference in getting a Republican elected in '08. The Dems have just made too great fools of themselves, and the approval ratings show it. And if Hillary is the Dem nominee, they'll lose Congress as well, because that will be sure to bring out all the Republican voters.
Hillary's a what? A Moderate? Her political philosophy and practice is a combination of Mussolini, Stalin, and Chavez. I suppose if there's anything that would get her called a moderate, it would be refusing to promise to remove all troops immediately from Iraq. No one is going to do that if elected. No one running is that insane. She's just smart enough to know better than to try to benefit now at the expense of her political power once in office, by promising to do something that's, a key issue to many in her base, that she knows she won't follow through on.
Certainly. It comprises a slush in a prius and a hag named tipper.
seriously, that's the most transparent excuse in modern politics. when you are disgraced, you leave and tell the world 'its time to spend more time with my family.'
bollocks.
Disgraced??? Ha! He will go down in history as the most celebrated, most successful deputy cheif-of-staff in American history.
but at any rate, the damage has already been done. who knows how long we'll be 'paying' for the effect this bastard left on the world. yes, the world - he affect way more than just the US, of course.
what an evil evil man. one of the worst of the last 50 years, if I may be so bold.
Right, because exposing Kerry as a disingenuous and dishonorable buffoon, is pretty much as evil as Mao murdering 50-odd million people.
Same here. I am certain nobody will complain about whoever the next president is. I can not wait for the peace and quiet.
Hey, it could happen. It's just hard to remember, as for the last 16 years we've had no one but Clinton and Bush. I remember the first time I really paid attention to Bush on TV, after he won his first nomination. I remember thinking, "holy cow, the lefties are going to hate this guy every bit as much as we righties hate Clinton." And I was right. But it doesn't have to be that way. Of course it would be with Hillary. With Obama, I think it would just be a general disgust at his incompetence, like with Carter. The key is whether the person will polarize or unite the center. Someone like Fred Thompson, I think would likely win them over, the way Reagan did. If Newt runs, it's hard to say. He eventually lost the center to Clinton as house speaker, but first he masterminded the Contract with America and won Congress for the Republicans by winning them over. But if he had the machinery of a presidential campaign with which to respond and react to the MSM, who knows?
In Rove's case, Congressional inquiries are (finally) getting around to having Rove deposed and under oath. The White House doesn't want that and so Rove, last year, decided before things got too hot, to jump ship with Bushs' blessing.
No. No one in the White House could care less about congressional inquiries....except that they're happy to take any opportunities that they present to make the Democrats look more desperate and underhanded. If Rove or Bush was in the least bit scared of congressional inquiries, Rove would stay exactly where he is, where he has a much greater case there to invoke executive privilege than he does as a private citizen.
I suspect he wants to take a month or two to spend with his family before he starts working for a presidential campaign -- probably Fred Thompson's, which will be starting in earnest around that time. He obviously knows a good candidate when he sees one.
It is news for nerds, when an administration is guilty of supporting failing industries like airlines, stopping the path for new airlines to make headway into the arena. It is news for nerds when we remove the advisor who played the "Wizard of Oz" with what should be the most powerful man in the world.
In reality though, it won't change a thing. Rove's departure is too little, too late. My hope is that charges are brought upon him for the firing of the US Attorneys and making it politically motivated, for helping cherry pick intelligence to make a case for a war of choice, for re-writing documents written by climatologists to show that global warming is a hoax, and on and on. The intelligent folks would start the indictment towards the end of Bush's term, and have it run through after he is out of office. No sentence should be passed while George Bush is in office. This way, when faced with SOLID jail time, Karl Rove will show how his underhanded life will play against George Bush and Co when he starts blathering about every bad thing he and his buddies in the White House did during his tenure. And you can bet that it would happen if he did face jail time.
And so you see, kids, that while pot will leave you delusional, mean-spirited and paranoid, it will at least leave your fantasy life intact.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that technology can only increase in discrete steps, a constant rate of acceleration would necessarily mean that going back in time several generations would have to pass before any discernible improvements were made.
The most dramatic example would be the transition from the bifurcated hand ax to the spear (made by hafting said ax onto a stick). That technological leap took about one million years, which could be consistent with a constant rate of acceleration. However, if I had to guess, I would guess that it's not constant, but caused by discrete changes in the influences on our mental states.
Not to be overly pedantic (if that is possible on
Regardless, until someone actually offers a better battery or capacitor, which hasn't been done in quite a while, I don't think it's necessary to run in terror from the impending wave of too much technological progress. I, for one, would welcome any new inexpensive, high capacity, high voltage capacitors, as they are not easy to build or buy, and I am inexplicably desirous of sending large electrical arcs across the width of my basement.
The CD is not certainly not overspecced for studio quality recording equipment. If you're talking about things like road noise, then fine. But if you're talking about listening to some well-crafted, well-engineered music with headphones, the CD is under-specced. While you can say "most people can't hear a 22khz tone", that's both true and not true. The spacial characteristics of sound are determined by higher frequencies than what we can identify as tones. For example, you can tell if a sound is in front of you or behind you because of how sound bounces of the ridge of your outer ear that's 1cm from your ear canal. That's a reverberation that takes, at sea level, about 29 microseconds, which correlates to a frequency of about 34khz, which is too fast to be recorded at the CD spec.
Yeah... but if you read that article you notice that the audio pro who COULD reliably tell the 256kbit from the PCM, pointed out that it had a warmer, smoother tone, and you had to not let that fool you. And in fact, most the others seemed to reverse the PCM with the 256kbit. So it seems like they COULD tell the difference. They only assumed that the one that sounded nicer to them was the PCM. Which gets to the larger point, I think, which is that the CD spec is not good enough for real audiophile sound. And as some suggested 256kbit from a better source than CD may easily be better than CD.
I've bought five or six ear buds in my lifetime, spending anywhere from $5 to $30, and the earbuds that came with my ipod are significantly better than any of them. I own better headphones, to be sure, but the point is that ipod earbuds are definitely not $0.50 cheapies.
That's not a bad deal. The bid is currently at 37.0. Does anyone know if intrade allows short selling? Without a Perot running, she would have to do significantly better than her husband did to win. If I were a betting man...
Also 2008 house control is last trading at 81.5 vs 18.5 in favor of the Democrats. If Hillary does win the Democratic nomination, that is a freakin bargain for betting on the Republicans.
What are you talking about? Bush is one of the few men in Washington willing to stand up for the Constitution and defend it.
Bush risked many things for what he believed in. Some of those things he lost. He lost a great deal of political capital by insisting on reforming Social Security, because it was the right thing to do, despite the entire political establishment of both parties being against it. He lost a lot of credibility which greatly undermined his power, by taking a lone and unpopular position on Iraq, in front of the whole world, based on the intelligence available to him, because he believed it was the right thing to do for the country and for the world. Bush is the closest thing we've had to another Lincoln, and in time history will remember him that way. And so will Iraq.
Bush has done no such thing. Bush has insisted on maintaining our ability to spy on our military adversaries, to protect the country, as is his duty under the Constitution. I have a hard time believing you honestly can't tell the difference between insisting on the good of protecting the country, with intimidating people into submission. What person has been intimidated by him, or is afraid of him, other than Osama and his cohorts?
Of course, companies have to follow the laws of the countries in which they operate. Death penalty for environmental accidents? Hardly. Maybe if they got proof of someone orchestrating a huge network of bribery to allow massive pollution they'd go there -- and rightly so, considering the number of deaths river pollution is causing in that country.
That's not much better. Again a company might as well just sever ties with the US and move their US offices to a friendly place like Dubai, rather than getting taxed by two countries on the same income. There's a cost barrier to making such a move, especially if they're selling to US markets. But if the government ever makes the cost of doing business in America higher than that barrier... well, then the Left will have finally succeeded in freeing America from the evil multinational corporations. Then, after we default on our debt, we could sell Alaska to Russia, and Hawaii to Japan, and Mexico can build a fence to keep out illegal American immigrants looking for work. Good times.
To me, that sounds more like simply good work ethic and loyalty, rather than a disease as implied by the word "endemic." I've tried to do more than was directly required of me, and more than I would be directly compensated for, wherever I've worked. I'm not saying it should be taken to the point of dropping dead from shear stress, but I do think that the attitude in the East that the whole is greater than the individual, and is worthy of individual sacrifice and loyalty, is far superior to the attitude in the West that corporations are evil, and the individual should bilk their employer for anything they can get.
Those are some great photos. I watch a regular show called Inside China. They mostly show different rural cultures, but they did at least one show on a live-in factory much like this one (possibly the same). It is such an amazing country, with such a different mindset, that is hard for us Westerners to really get our heads around. I'd love to go there one day. The only two things that are truly disturbing are the amount of pollution due to corruption in government that prevents any remedies, and the intrusion into the private (including reproductive, philosophical and religious) life of the individual that the government still feels is appropriate.
Have you actually looked at any of these companies' balance sheets or do you just figure, "companies are rich they can afford anything?" If we actually passed laws requiring US based companies to pay 5-7 dollars to workers anywhere in the world, their only option would be to leave the US altogether. Many are doing so already, as there are more and more business-friendly places in the world -- places who appreciate business and want to attract companies rather than wanting to penalize them for existing. If socialist policies eventually drive the multinationals out of the US, it will be the end of our tenure as an economic and political superpower, and depending on who takes our place, the world will probably get a whole lot uglier.
WTF??? Theft is the antithesis of free market capitalism, and it has existed in every sort of society. Free market capitalism is what allows people to trade freely within the laws of fairness, civility, and honest competition.
If you think comparing her to Mussolini, Stalin and Chavez is "trolling" you probably missed the video on youtube where she told a Democratic audience (to cheers) how she planned to confiscate the profits of the oil companies. The profits of military contractors are no doubt next. Take a look at the Fascist Manifesto sometime, and let me know how it differs from Hillary's positions.
How is this trolling? I think this is a comparable situation. Both laws far exceed what should be the reasonable limits of the government's power to restrict individual freedom.
Why is a bunch of naked hate-spewing rated +5, insightful? Please read the moderation guidelines. The purpose of of moderation is to encourage intelligent discussion, and to discourage such things as spitting obscenities at each other.
The Democrats came up with literally hundreds of accusations, and the committee had to go through all of them. And every one was bogus, but ONE where he accidentally used a certain type of donation for the wrong purpose. If even half of Congress could stand up to that kind of scrutiny and come out that clean, it would be a much better place than it is now.
I guess you could say that Newt "moralized" about public corruption, but that was hardly hypocritical. It was about time someone did.
This is just wrong. Hussein did not have to resist a civil war, partially because there was no one there trying to incite one, as Al Qaeda is now. Regardless, we could keep order in the exact same way that Hussein did if we chose. Namely we could kill all dissenters, and whenever we found an insurgent we could kill all the men and boys in his village and rape all the women. But this is evil, and it's better to have less-than-perfect order than to do this. The American people who are tired of keeping Iraq together need to grow up and learn the meaning of responsibility and sacrifice.
Any pundits saying that are delusional. If the Dems were going into the elections without having these 2 years to embarrass themselves while in control of Congress, it would be a different story. Most people agree that Rove gets the majority of the credit for Bush's two victories. (The second one was larger than the first one, by the way, not smaller.) Giving him credit or blame for Congressional elections is a stretch. But as it works out, losing the Congress will I think probably make the difference in getting a Republican elected in '08. The Dems have just made too great fools of themselves, and the approval ratings show it. And if Hillary is the Dem nominee, they'll lose Congress as well, because that will be sure to bring out all the Republican voters.
I don't get it.
Hillary's a what? A Moderate? Her political philosophy and practice is a combination of Mussolini, Stalin, and Chavez. I suppose if there's anything that would get her called a moderate, it would be refusing to promise to remove all troops immediately from Iraq. No one is going to do that if elected. No one running is that insane. She's just smart enough to know better than to try to benefit now at the expense of her political power once in office, by promising to do something that's, a key issue to many in her base, that she knows she won't follow through on.
Certainly. It comprises a slush in a prius and a hag named tipper.
Disgraced??? Ha! He will go down in history as the most celebrated, most successful deputy cheif-of-staff in American history.
Right, because exposing Kerry as a disingenuous and dishonorable buffoon, is pretty much as evil as Mao murdering 50-odd million people.
Hey, it could happen. It's just hard to remember, as for the last 16 years we've had no one but Clinton and Bush. I remember the first time I really paid attention to Bush on TV, after he won his first nomination. I remember thinking, "holy cow, the lefties are going to hate this guy every bit as much as we righties hate Clinton." And I was right. But it doesn't have to be that way. Of course it would be with Hillary. With Obama, I think it would just be a general disgust at his incompetence, like with Carter. The key is whether the person will polarize or unite the center. Someone like Fred Thompson, I think would likely win them over, the way Reagan did. If Newt runs, it's hard to say. He eventually lost the center to Clinton as house speaker, but first he masterminded the Contract with America and won Congress for the Republicans by winning them over. But if he had the machinery of a presidential campaign with which to respond and react to the MSM, who knows?
No. No one in the White House could care less about congressional inquiries.
I suspect he wants to take a month or two to spend with his family before he starts working for a presidential campaign -- probably Fred Thompson's, which will be starting in earnest around that time. He obviously knows a good candidate when he sees one.
And so you see, kids, that while pot will leave you delusional, mean-spirited and paranoid, it will at least leave your fantasy life intact.