Yes sirree, you know what? It's a conspiracy!
They really *are* out there, trying to get you!
... boy, the feats people like you can achieve in order to deny reality keep astonishing me. But I guess you'd even cry GNA-GNA-GNA-I'm-not-hearing-you rather than face reality.
NetCraft confirms it: BSD is NOT dead!
It has just turned into an invisible super-natural being that will come and bite you in the ass, YOU FAT PENGUIN!
Eh, I'm joking. Don't mod into oblivion please, pretty please...
The argument that law and freedom are incompatible doesn't hold water. That's what laws do: they force people to do things. We have millions of them.
Weel I see a problem there: I am forced to obey millions of laws devised to force me to do stuff. If they need to force me, it's because I don't want to, so to sum it up: millions of law force me to do stuff against my will. If that's not incompatible with freedom, tell me what is.
Would you rather people are free to rob you blind?
Yes. Under current laws I am powerless and definitely at the mercy of criminals. It has happened to myself before and will keep happening, becasue laws don't achieve anything else but preventing the "serious people" from living their lives while the "criminals" can do what they want.
I'd rather see the fewest laws possible myself, but laws that impose limits on people's power over other people result in a greater, not lesser, freedom.
As far as I can see, laws that impose limits, well, impose limits. I don't care what they limit for two reasons: 1. the only ones who actually achieve greater freedom, as you say, from this situation are the unrespectful (of the laws) citizens, and 2. even if that were not the case, limiting people's lives in the name of the Greater Good would achieve nothing but apathy (from the serious people) and tyranny (from the guys with the BFG).
I do agree with you, there are problems with the subject we're discussing and many other, but freely (pun) regulating away at them will not solve them.
Somehow, "free market capitalism" and "compelled to [do something] in an equitable fashion" do not sound well in the same sentence. A bit like saying, "you're free to obey". Now don't get me wrong, I agree that nobody should be given monopolies. Nobody should be given anything at all, actually. But at the same time, nobody should be forced to give something up, as that would equate to giving it to someone else.
And by the way, if you take intellectual property rights away by force, most idea owners will either 1. go somewhere else and leave you high and dry, or 2. simply give up researching because it's not worth it anymore. Look at your own statement: if you believe in free market capitalism, you know that unless people are seeking profit, they won't do that much. Take their profit away and see what happens.
Sure, the OSS experiment is cool, but try applying that to the pharma industry, where nobody is a loner who codes away in his mother's basement.
Yeah that's all fine and dandy, unfortunately the only thing that counts here is the number of malaria tablet you can buy per year, which translates to how many people will live per year. So, "people who give large fractions of their income to charity" can save 100 people a year, while Bill can and does save gazillions of them.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who's doing better.
And that is "most people"'s fault, not MS's.
Seriously, what are they supposed to do? Stop developing and not provide said features *at all*? Wouldn't that be worse than providing the features later than other, more agile, systems do?
So the power users want features - guess what, they can use a system that offers them. Guess some more, many power-user features are available in Windows too but people just don't want to RTFM so they don't find out about them.
Excuse me? Are you comparing "self-defense" to "coming alive out of an ambush set up to kill a combat MOS"? Are you serious?
The only reason an aggressor is going to fight you is if he thinks he can win.
Well yes, of course, but what's that got to do with what I said?
Sure, you can use "martial arts" to convince him otherwise, but only after he's had a chance to inflict significant injury on you (especially in a knifefight) and only if you actually are better.
Well duh, of course you need to be good, that why you practice. About the chance to damage you: sure, there is a chance he will do that. I am not saying that MA are sure-fire ways to dispatch him whereas guns are useless. I am saying MA are more effective and useful than guns, for normal citizens, but of course that does not rule out the risk of, uhm, losing the fight? It only lowers it. Which is what we aim to do: lower the risk.
Also, please note that I said that a gun is one the worst options "unless you really know what you're doing". YOU certainly know it. Joe R. Walker does not. Anyway, you have probably been taught a lot about how to fight with your bare hands and you know they are deadly: your natural weapons are always with you, cannot be taken away, and are as dangerous as a knife. Pulling out a gun and shooting an aggressor is something YOU can do well but, again, Joe R. Walker is way better off leaving guns home, learning just 2 (and I do mean 2) techniques that will incapacitate his aggressor and RUNNING AWAY after he's used them.
So as you see I was talking about real life *self-defense* and that is something you just cannot compare to actual *combat*.
And if you're small, female or old (old is over 25, if he's 18) you have to be very good to win against someone who has planned an ambush.
Oh come on, you don't need to be very good. You need to hit him once or twice in the right places with the right techniques. He can't fight you if 1. he cannot breath because you've broken his trachea (or just hit him above the stomach) 2. you've gouged out his eye 3. you've just kicked him in the balls 4. you've broken his temple and the list goes on and on. But why I am telling you this, you're a big burly combat MOS after all.
Your argument boils down to "we should do the right stuff because it's the right thing to do; doing otherwise would be wrong" which is a bit too self-referential to be logically valid.
Am I advocating stuff? Definitely not. You were the one rallying the populace to come forth in the name of justice (notice the absence of a capital letter), not me. I sure as hell don't advocate ANYTHING on earth.
Would I argue that something is acceptable because there is no right or wrong? No, I argue that such arguing would be pretty useless and meaningless, and that people don't need to justify their actions in front of you. They will do what they will do, and, no, you're not entitled to judge them. All you can do is fight them, if you want. But please leave this sick moralistic view aside, will you?
"People don't just "know" stuff", OK, I can agree with this, people know stuff when they have read and studied and *thought* a lot - in a word, when they have some real educaton. Unfortunately this process is usually ruined by people like you, who come forth spitting nonsensical insults at anything that happens to belong to the "other side", whatever that may be, and sacrifice everything to satisfy their thirst for confrontation. Oh how I wish you left- and right-leaning idiots would just kill each other and let the serious people live their life.
Because a gun is by far the most effective tool for self-defense, especially for women, who tend on average to be smaller and weaker than their male attackers.
BWHA HA HA HA HA, oh man I hope you're not serious! This is one of the most hilarious things I've read recently...
A gun is by far one of the LEAST effective tool for self-defense. It is useful when you want to attack someone (that, or a rifle), but for proper so-called "self-defense" a gun is one the worst options unless you really know what you're doing. A knife is a better tool, but then again it's not the best one. The "most effective tool for self-defense" is your own body and the weapons that came free with the purchase. Ask anyone who's into real self-defense and they'll confirm. Which, together with the bit about women being "smaller and weaker" leads me to think you don't know what you're talking about, given that someone trained in proper self-defense techniques can easily beat the crap out of anyone twice as big, strong and angry.
Direct further inquiries to your local Krav Maga or Pa Kua club.
Oh, are we? And by whom, pray tell? A Greater Being, in the name of the Greater Good, I suppose? Or your Majestic Self, maybe? Please, elaborate on this curious concept that we should fix social injustices.
1. Define and pinpoint the "injustices" without recurring to What's Right and What's Wrong (unless you wish to define and pinpoint Right and Wrong in the process, in which case I think you'll find better company with many, dead, philosophers)
2. Explain why you think they need to be "fixed"
3. Explain why the fuck you think you can tell ME what I SHOULD do?
Re:Defiance is a changing the system too
on
Modding and the Law
·
· Score: 1
Ok. Don't you think you're stretching it a bit? Sure, it can happen that way - no, it DOES happen that way, to about 0.01% of the people who get HIV. But we know that people in Africa (I choose this because it's the place with most HIV-affected people and with the highest infection rate) get HIV primarily by 1. having unprotected sex with different people 2. being raped by local mercenaries who certainly don't care that much about condoms 3. being born with it because mommy was doing either 1 or 2. So, while you certainly can't waste your time training mercenaries on the correct usage of condoms during looting time, or trying to convince an unborn baby not to get the disease, you CAN certainly educate the majority of people and teach them about condoms, HIV etc. And by doing this you will eradicate the number 1 cause of infection. Then, if they want to be promiscuous, power to them! At least they'll be having more fun than I:). But do you realize that most of them do not even KNOW that they will get HIV if they behave in some ways, and how easy it is to avoid it?
Please, take this piece of advice from me. Go found a start-up, study what your competitors do, learn which of their ideas are good and IGNORE them completely. Instead, only do things people are not interested in. Come back and report when you go bankrupt - shouldn't take long.
Wizards of the Coast (makers of Dungeons & Dragons, for those not in the know)
AAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH
Have we come to this? Nobody remembers TSR anymore? WotC just BOUGHT them. They did not make anything at all. Actually, Gary Gigax and Dave Arneson made D&D.
I demand immediate beheading of the OP for this mistake! Unless he saves vs Traps, that is...
"to suit the whims of puritanical christians and crazy neocons.", from the parent post, seems pretty much "left vs right" to me. Also, please, PLEASE, don't tell me that liberals are any less authoritarian than, uh, the "authoritarian" ones. The fact that they would enforce their authority on people different than me (at least at first), and probably to my advantage (coz I don't have much money) does not make their attitude any less disgusting. Regulate in the name of the Greater Good! Yay!
But maybe you wanted to say that it's an issue of free against not free?
History has shown that countries ruled by the left, instead, have a strong tradition of favouring free minds and free media. Ask: Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea and several others.
Yes. I think we should regulate and mandate the user's behaviour in the name of the Greater Good (tm). Why even bother him with choices? Let's only give him *one* format. The ONE TRUE FORMAT that shall reign over all other... And of course you will be the one to choose it, right? Nice to meet you, Mr. Sauron.
Are you implying that scripting/automating is bad? Last time I checked lots of good stuff could be done via scripts. Anyway, yes, there are lots of people other than script kiddies who write macros. You've probably used a macro-ed spreadsheet yourself, sooner or later, and ask anyone who works a lot with Word whether they automate any of their actions. I, for one, certainly do. It makes sense to do it in Photoshop, in Word, in CAD, in OO Writer and in lots of other programs. MOST server administration is done via scripts. Scripts take up your Linux box. And they take it down, too.
Its success also depends on 1. how good it is in terms of functionality and performance, 2. how easy to deploy and administer it is, 3. how easy to script/automate it is, 4. how good the marketing for it is. So, even when they give up the fight for forceful vendor-lock in, they can still fight on... here it comes... quality! The same thing that everybody else fights on.
Note to the zealots: you win a cookie if you manage to find a way for my post to somehow imply that the quality of MS Office is superior to that of its alternatives.
Re:15 Reasons to boycott IMDb
on
IMDb Turns 15
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Oh yeah it takes from the community. It takes your frigging USELESS time, you idiot. Don't like it? Don't watch it. See? It was easy.
Maybe these guys are such a bunch of drugged out losers because they're your friends.
Mmmhhh, yeah, maybe.
Your argument against marijuana... if you're trying to sell the War on Some Drugs... you get your panties in such a bunch about people who are smoking marijuana... assholes like you...
It's always interesting to notice how people who are, hm, let's say "passionate" about something will attack you blindly, spitting insults and spreading bullshit. Unfounded and unmotivated bullshit, at that. Now if you can stop the name-calling for just one second and turn your brain on, will you please: 1, realize that I already made clear I smoke pot occasionally, 2. provide evidence of my alledged "war on drug". Here's a hint, you'll find it in another post of mine: "I have *no* position, to be honest", "I certainly don't drive when I am stoned or drunk", and a series of "do what you like 'cause I don't care"-lookalikes spread around in my posts.
Besides, your argument smells like the old "but they" trick. Sorry pal, nobody's buying that anymore. In your opinion *they* are wrong (hospitals, alcohol drinkers - uh oh, look who's the prohibitionist here...)? Fair enough, do you think that makes YOU any better? Do you think that what they do is of whatsoever relevance to the matter we're discussing? You know how saying goes... the one about lenses and mirrors...
Alcohol fucks your driving up because your risk assessment is broken. Pot does not have that issue, in fact its the opposite. People take less chances, which more than compensates for the slightly slower reactions some people have.
Pot does have this issue, you say it yourself: the reactions that *some* people have. I am one of those and many people I know are, too. Honestly I have never met anyone who is quicker under the influence of pot... but I don't know *that* many potheads, either. I certainly don't drive when I am stoned or drunk.
The tittie-growth thing is pretty funny:). Commonly held myths are certainly hard to take down, but hey, as long as people find it hard to turn their brain on, they will find myths an easy, prepackaged reality that suits them just fine. But it's certainly a shame that both left and right are churning out myths like there's no tomorrow. Why do 60% of Americans believe what you say? Because they find this right-wing reality easy to accept (the fact that most can't locate middle east in a world map probably plays a role, too... I mean, those countries are all the same, aren't they). Why don't they listen to the left-wing reality? Because, guess what, the left wing has been doing the exact same thing over the last decades. So... the people promoting these myths are not really responsible for the misinformation because, sure, they spread it but by now it's just become a game. Right-sided gyus will listen to this and left-sided to that, no matter what. It is *these people's* responsibility to seek truth: you know a priori that parties spread FUD .
Slashdot Mirror
Yes sirree, you know what? It's a conspiracy!
... boy, the feats people like you can achieve in order to deny reality keep astonishing me. But I guess you'd even cry GNA-GNA-GNA-I'm-not-hearing-you rather than face reality.
They really *are* out there, trying to get you!
HA HA HA HA HA, like Opera wasn't there ages before FF!
NetCraft confirms it: BSD is NOT dead!
It has just turned into an invisible super-natural being that will come and bite you in the ass, YOU FAT PENGUIN!
Eh, I'm joking. Don't mod into oblivion please, pretty please...
The argument that law and freedom are incompatible doesn't hold water. That's what laws do: they force people to do things. We have millions of them.
Weel I see a problem there: I am forced to obey millions of laws devised to force me to do stuff. If they need to force me, it's because I don't want to, so to sum it up: millions of law force me to do stuff against my will. If that's not incompatible with freedom, tell me what is.
Would you rather people are free to rob you blind?
Yes. Under current laws I am powerless and definitely at the mercy of criminals. It has happened to myself before and will keep happening, becasue laws don't achieve anything else but preventing the "serious people" from living their lives while the "criminals" can do what they want.
I'd rather see the fewest laws possible myself, but laws that impose limits on people's power over other people result in a greater, not lesser, freedom.
As far as I can see, laws that impose limits, well, impose limits. I don't care what they limit for two reasons: 1. the only ones who actually achieve greater freedom, as you say, from this situation are the unrespectful (of the laws) citizens, and 2. even if that were not the case, limiting people's lives in the name of the Greater Good would achieve nothing but apathy (from the serious people) and tyranny (from the guys with the BFG).
I do agree with you, there are problems with the subject we're discussing and many other, but freely (pun) regulating away at them will not solve them.
Somehow, "free market capitalism" and "compelled to [do something] in an equitable fashion" do not sound well in the same sentence. A bit like saying, "you're free to obey". Now don't get me wrong, I agree that nobody should be given monopolies. Nobody should be given anything at all, actually. But at the same time, nobody should be forced to give something up, as that would equate to giving it to someone else.
And by the way, if you take intellectual property rights away by force, most idea owners will either 1. go somewhere else and leave you high and dry, or 2. simply give up researching because it's not worth it anymore. Look at your own statement: if you believe in free market capitalism, you know that unless people are seeking profit, they won't do that much. Take their profit away and see what happens.
Sure, the OSS experiment is cool, but try applying that to the pharma industry, where nobody is a loner who codes away in his mother's basement.
Yeah that's all fine and dandy, unfortunately the only thing that counts here is the number of malaria tablet you can buy per year, which translates to how many people will live per year. So, "people who give large fractions of their income to charity" can save 100 people a year, while Bill can and does save gazillions of them.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who's doing better.
And that is "most people"'s fault, not MS's.
Seriously, what are they supposed to do? Stop developing and not provide said features *at all*? Wouldn't that be worse than providing the features later than other, more agile, systems do?
So the power users want features - guess what, they can use a system that offers them. Guess some more, many power-user features are available in Windows too but people just don't want to RTFM so they don't find out about them.
Excuse me? Are you comparing "self-defense" to "coming alive out of an ambush set up to kill a combat MOS"? Are you serious?
The only reason an aggressor is going to fight you is if he thinks he can win.
Well yes, of course, but what's that got to do with what I said?
Sure, you can use "martial arts" to convince him otherwise, but only after he's had a chance to inflict significant injury on you (especially in a knifefight) and only if you actually are better.
Well duh, of course you need to be good, that why you practice. About the chance to damage you: sure, there is a chance he will do that. I am not saying that MA are sure-fire ways to dispatch him whereas guns are useless. I am saying MA are more effective and useful than guns, for normal citizens, but of course that does not rule out the risk of, uhm, losing the fight? It only lowers it. Which is what we aim to do: lower the risk.
Also, please note that I said that a gun is one the worst options "unless you really know what you're doing". YOU certainly know it. Joe R. Walker does not. Anyway, you have probably been taught a lot about how to fight with your bare hands and you know they are deadly: your natural weapons are always with you, cannot be taken away, and are as dangerous as a knife. Pulling out a gun and shooting an aggressor is something YOU can do well but, again, Joe R. Walker is way better off leaving guns home, learning just 2 (and I do mean 2) techniques that will incapacitate his aggressor and RUNNING AWAY after he's used them.
So as you see I was talking about real life *self-defense* and that is something you just cannot compare to actual *combat*.
And if you're small, female or old (old is over 25, if he's 18) you have to be very good to win against someone who has planned an ambush.
Oh come on, you don't need to be very good. You need to hit him once or twice in the right places with the right techniques. He can't fight you if 1. he cannot breath because you've broken his trachea (or just hit him above the stomach) 2. you've gouged out his eye 3. you've just kicked him in the balls 4. you've broken his temple and the list goes on and on. But why I am telling you this, you're a big burly combat MOS after all.
Your argument boils down to "we should do the right stuff because it's the right thing to do; doing otherwise would be wrong" which is a bit too self-referential to be logically valid.
Am I advocating stuff? Definitely not. You were the one rallying the populace to come forth in the name of justice (notice the absence of a capital letter), not me. I sure as hell don't advocate ANYTHING on earth.
Would I argue that something is acceptable because there is no right or wrong? No, I argue that such arguing would be pretty useless and meaningless, and that people don't need to justify their actions in front of you. They will do what they will do, and, no, you're not entitled to judge them. All you can do is fight them, if you want. But please leave this sick moralistic view aside, will you?
"People don't just "know" stuff", OK, I can agree with this, people know stuff when they have read and studied and *thought* a lot - in a word, when they have some real educaton. Unfortunately this process is usually ruined by people like you, who come forth spitting nonsensical insults at anything that happens to belong to the "other side", whatever that may be, and sacrifice everything to satisfy their thirst for confrontation. Oh how I wish you left- and right-leaning idiots would just kill each other and let the serious people live their life.
Because a gun is by far the most effective tool for self-defense, especially for women, who tend on average to be smaller and weaker than their male attackers.
BWHA HA HA HA HA, oh man I hope you're not serious! This is one of the most hilarious things I've read recently...
A gun is by far one of the LEAST effective tool for self-defense. It is useful when you want to attack someone (that, or a rifle), but for proper so-called "self-defense" a gun is one the worst options unless you really know what you're doing. A knife is a better tool, but then again it's not the best one. The "most effective tool for self-defense" is your own body and the weapons that came free with the purchase. Ask anyone who's into real self-defense and they'll confirm. Which, together with the bit about women being "smaller and weaker" leads me to think you don't know what you're talking about, given that someone trained in proper self-defense techniques can easily beat the crap out of anyone twice as big, strong and angry.
Direct further inquiries to your local Krav Maga or Pa Kua club.
Oh, are we? And by whom, pray tell? A Greater Being, in the name of the Greater Good, I suppose? Or your Majestic Self, maybe? Please, elaborate on this curious concept that we should fix social injustices.
1. Define and pinpoint the "injustices" without recurring to What's Right and What's Wrong (unless you wish to define and pinpoint Right and Wrong in the process, in which case I think you'll find better company with many, dead, philosophers)
2. Explain why you think they need to be "fixed"
3. Explain why the fuck you think you can tell ME what I SHOULD do?
... do I sense a fellow ancap here?
Ok. Don't you think you're stretching it a bit? Sure, it can happen that way - no, it DOES happen that way, to about 0.01% of the people who get HIV. But we know that people in Africa (I choose this because it's the place with most HIV-affected people and with the highest infection rate) get HIV primarily by 1. having unprotected sex with different people 2. being raped by local mercenaries who certainly don't care that much about condoms 3. being born with it because mommy was doing either 1 or 2. So, while you certainly can't waste your time training mercenaries on the correct usage of condoms during looting time, or trying to convince an unborn baby not to get the disease, you CAN certainly educate the majority of people and teach them about condoms, HIV etc. And by doing this you will eradicate the number 1 cause of infection. Then, if they want to be promiscuous, power to them! At least they'll be having more fun than I :). But do you realize that most of them do not even KNOW that they will get HIV if they behave in some ways, and how easy it is to avoid it?
Please, take this piece of advice from me. Go found a start-up, study what your competitors do, learn which of their ideas are good and IGNORE them completely. Instead, only do things people are not interested in. Come back and report when you go bankrupt - shouldn't take long.
Wizards of the Coast (makers of Dungeons & Dragons, for those not in the know)
AAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH
Have we come to this? Nobody remembers TSR anymore? WotC just BOUGHT them. They did not make anything at all. Actually, Gary Gigax and Dave Arneson made D&D.
I demand immediate beheading of the OP for this mistake! Unless he saves vs Traps, that is...
"to suit the whims of puritanical christians and crazy neocons.", from the parent post, seems pretty much "left vs right" to me. Also, please, PLEASE, don't tell me that liberals are any less authoritarian than, uh, the "authoritarian" ones. The fact that they would enforce their authority on people different than me (at least at first), and probably to my advantage (coz I don't have much money) does not make their attitude any less disgusting. Regulate in the name of the Greater Good! Yay!
But maybe you wanted to say that it's an issue of free against not free?
History has shown that countries ruled by the left, instead, have a strong tradition of favouring free minds and free media. Ask: Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea and several others.
It's amazing... I agree on almost everything you said. Doesn't happen often on Slashdot. CLAP CLAP CLAP
Yes. I think we should regulate and mandate the user's behaviour in the name of the Greater Good (tm). Why even bother him with choices? Let's only give him *one* format. The ONE TRUE FORMAT that shall reign over all other... And of course you will be the one to choose it, right? Nice to meet you, Mr. Sauron.
Are you implying that scripting/automating is bad? Last time I checked lots of good stuff could be done via scripts. Anyway, yes, there are lots of people other than script kiddies who write macros. You've probably used a macro-ed spreadsheet yourself, sooner or later, and ask anyone who works a lot with Word whether they automate any of their actions. I, for one, certainly do. It makes sense to do it in Photoshop, in Word, in CAD, in OO Writer and in lots of other programs. MOST server administration is done via scripts. Scripts take up your Linux box. And they take it down, too.
Its success also depends on 1. how good it is in terms of functionality and performance, 2. how easy to deploy and administer it is, 3. how easy to script/automate it is, 4. how good the marketing for it is. So, even when they give up the fight for forceful vendor-lock in, they can still fight on... here it comes... quality! The same thing that everybody else fights on.
Note to the zealots: you win a cookie if you manage to find a way for my post to somehow imply that the quality of MS Office is superior to that of its alternatives.
Oh yeah it takes from the community. It takes your frigging USELESS time, you idiot. Don't like it? Don't watch it. See? It was easy.
Maybe these guys are such a bunch of drugged out losers because they're your friends.
Mmmhhh, yeah, maybe.
Your argument against marijuana... if you're trying to sell the War on Some Drugs... you get your panties in such a bunch about people who are smoking marijuana... assholes like you...
It's always interesting to notice how people who are, hm, let's say "passionate" about something will attack you blindly, spitting insults and spreading bullshit. Unfounded and unmotivated bullshit, at that. Now if you can stop the name-calling for just one second and turn your brain on, will you please: 1, realize that I already made clear I smoke pot occasionally, 2. provide evidence of my alledged "war on drug". Here's a hint, you'll find it in another post of mine: "I have *no* position, to be honest", "I certainly don't drive when I am stoned or drunk", and a series of "do what you like 'cause I don't care"-lookalikes spread around in my posts.
Besides, your argument smells like the old "but they" trick. Sorry pal, nobody's buying that anymore. In your opinion *they* are wrong (hospitals, alcohol drinkers - uh oh, look who's the prohibitionist here...)? Fair enough, do you think that makes YOU any better? Do you think that what they do is of whatsoever relevance to the matter we're discussing? You know how saying goes... the one about lenses and mirrors...
Care to provide some sources for your claims? Especially: 1. 15% of caucasians are immune 2. the immunity has got something to do with the plague
Alcohol fucks your driving up because your risk assessment is broken. Pot does not have that issue, in fact its the opposite. People take less chances, which more than compensates for the slightly slower reactions some people have.
:). Commonly held myths are certainly hard to take down, but hey, as long as people find it hard to turn their brain on, they will find myths an easy, prepackaged reality that suits them just fine. But it's certainly a shame that both left and right are churning out myths like there's no tomorrow. Why do 60% of Americans believe what you say? Because they find this right-wing reality easy to accept (the fact that most can't locate middle east in a world map probably plays a role, too... I mean, those countries are all the same, aren't they). Why don't they listen to the left-wing reality? Because, guess what, the left wing has been doing the exact same thing over the last decades. So... the people promoting these myths are not really responsible for the misinformation because, sure, they spread it but by now it's just become a game. Right-sided gyus will listen to this and left-sided to that, no matter what. It is *these people's* responsibility to seek truth: you know a priori that parties spread FUD .
Pot does have this issue, you say it yourself: the reactions that *some* people have. I am one of those and many people I know are, too. Honestly I have never met anyone who is quicker under the influence of pot... but I don't know *that* many potheads, either. I certainly don't drive when I am stoned or drunk.
The tittie-growth thing is pretty funny