Ok, sorry, left out MDMA. People do that too, although not so much anymore because it's been "dry" around these parts, at least good stuff. Sure, you can get the tylenol/dxm pills, but I can make those at home:p
Well, I would say my drug experiences have been vastly different from those in the article. I would notice that *managment*, rather than coders or admins (well, *true* admins/coders as someonelse posted), do stimulants to get more work done. Every coder I've talked to refused to do them for a variety of reasons, most of which revolved around abusing your body in such a way being a Bad Thing (tm).
Others I know, will at most do something different occasionally, say 3-4 times a year. Not coke, or speed, or anything of the sort. The folks I know do hallucinogenics (bad sp, sorry, it's early), mainly LSD, mushrooms, and a handful of other drugs that are still legal (check erowid for more, like DXM (cough syrup, yummy), 2cb, or 2ct7).
Generally, and this is in Tx and Ca, so it could be screwed, this is just done to relax with friends, not to fuel the burn they talk about at pre-IPO companies.
While I would disagree about the actual drug use patterns, and the drugs they abuse, I would agree with how wide-spread drug use really is. The only guys I know of who don't do drugs are the older guys, who now have families/etc. However, in reminiscent talks with them, they had the same patterns as their younger generation (us). They'd smoke out, drop acid, and just trip for a night.
I dunno, both groups use drugs, but for some reason the ones in the latter half don't abuse them (and themselves) like the people in the article. I think this has been documented elsewhere, who knows. The people I know use drugs occasionally, and recreationally, not as "business practice". They're also coders, and not driven by managerial/peer pressure. They write what they want, down the still legal caffeine, and code for hours.
I dunno. I see people trying to ban drugs and drug use due to the people in that article, which I disagree with. Read Liar's Poker (by the same guy that wrote The New-New Thing), talks about the decadent and luxurious lifestyle of the 80's. It's the same thing here. If people want to run themselves into the ground, I'd warn them, but you can't stop them, they'll do it one way or another. If you have a friend like this, help them out by telling them what they're doing to themselves. But, don't pass a law against it. You're going to end up with more of the unenforced mess of drugs we have already.
Wow, I hate to say this, but go read their FAQ first (yes, they have one).
http://www.nsa.gov/about_nsa/faqs_internet.html
No, they can't tell you their exact budget, who works for the, whatever. READ THE FAQ. It covers who they say they're allowed to monitor, etc, and answers about half the other questions people have asked so far.
However, MY question is, what is the screening process for people applying for jobs in the NSA? Can certain parts of someone's background be overlooked? I looked at the FBI's screening process, and I don't make it in there for certain abuses of substances when I was "young and dumb". Anyway, I know I'm not the best around, but I'm considered to be pretty bright and I fit a few of the job categories for the NSA. Could a guy like me make it in anyway? Do I need a degree first?
Does it help that I almost applied to work for the CIA (their college program is pretty nice).
"Here's a newsflash -- children _ARE_ second class citizens..."
To start with, I believe this to be completely wrong. I, and others like me, are "young" but are "wired" like adults. I am 20 now, but I have been treated like an adult (in the business world and otherwise) since I was 16. I've worked for major corporations and been good friends with people twice my age (with the understanding that I haven't experienced as much. However, they explain things to me, and I understand and we can still discuss the ideas), and I am still to this day. Most people believe that I look and act like I'm almost 30.
As to kids being second class citizens legally, I agree completely. As a recently ex-teenager (and still under 21), I know how frustrating it is to be limited by general rules setup by the majority to prevent me from hurting myself. I can't join a 401k plan... why is that? I can't drink... I make more than my parents do for a living, I fly around as a consultant helping major companies do business, I rent my own cars, I fly in airplanes, I make my own schedules. Why can't I drink again? My insurance is high, yet I drive better than most adults... why is that again? Yes, I know they have stats to back this up, but those are generalizations again. These generalizations are allowed for age but not for race, creed, color, religion, etc... why is that?
This all goes back to the stigma our society has against age, or the lack of it. I will admit that age does, to a large extent, play in how people act, but it is STILL a stereotype, or an -ism if you like. Most, if not close to all, people I've met have a hard time learning from me once they find out my age. When they believe I'm 29 and have been doing this for a year or two, they're ok with it. But when they learn that I'm 20 and have been doing what I'm teaching them for only a year or two, they freak out and act "strangely". It's all about experience, and many people forget this.
But, back to the original topic. I do agree that parents should have control over their children. Parents should be able to setup and monitor their kids internet access, but it should be a case by case basis and not a flat "across the board" censorship. Make it the parents responsibility and give them more control. And don't mix words about kids being second class citizens. You're not equal to your peers till you turn 21.
As to : "We are no longer protecting are children - we are oppressing them. It won't be long now... "
Protecting children is the banner under which most groups who promote censorship use. It's for the children dammit! This is nonsense. Before the internet there was magazines you could buy, and cable TV. I grew up with this, and most kids still do. The issue now, as it was then, is how do we make kids not view this stuff? OR, more appropriately, how do we allow parents to keep their kids from viewing this stuff if the parents don't like it? This bill they're proposing puts a ban on everyone, which is unacceptable. Don't ban my actions just because Jonnie's parents won't exercise their control over him. I'm all for allowing parents to censor their children, but let it be their children, and that's all.
After reading this, I decided to email the folks at Etoys.com, and here's what I wrote:
To Whom It May Concern, I have recently read several articles concerning your company and it's lawsuit against eToy.com. In hopes that what these stories purport is false, or maybe mis-represented, I would like to ask you what you stance is concerning eToy.com, and what actions you have taken against them.
The articles concerned were : http://slashdot.org/yro/99/12/01/2156208.shtml http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/9948/barliant .shtml
These articles do not show your company in a good light, and it is believed that a great offense against the community at large has been committed by your company. This is the lowest and worst type of internet abuse, at least what's reported in the articles. Please debunk these statements if they are untrue.
-----
Anyway, the idea was to see what they'll say. I figure you give em a chance to air their side of the story, although Im not terribly optimistic.
Anyway, don't send email to legal@etoys.com, it won't get there. Use service@etoys.com, or so their mail servers, to get to them.
If I get a response, I'll ask them to allow me to post it, or I'll just paraphrase and put it up. Enjoy.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, sorry, left out MDMA. People do that too, although not so much anymore because it's been "dry" around these parts, at least good stuff. Sure, you can get the tylenol/dxm pills, but I can make those at home :p
+1. Heh, I wrote a similar post about 1 min after you did, you must be doing speed or something to have beat me to the post!
:)
Well, I would say my drug experiences have been vastly different from those in the article. I would notice that *managment*, rather than coders or admins (well, *true* admins/coders as someonelse posted), do stimulants to get more work done. Every coder I've talked to refused to do them for a variety of reasons, most of which revolved around abusing your body in such a way being a Bad Thing (tm).
:)
Others I know, will at most do something different occasionally, say 3-4 times a year. Not coke, or speed, or anything of the sort. The folks I know do hallucinogenics (bad sp, sorry, it's early), mainly LSD, mushrooms, and a handful of other drugs that are still legal (check erowid for more, like DXM (cough syrup, yummy), 2cb, or 2ct7).
Generally, and this is in Tx and Ca, so it could be screwed, this is just done to relax with friends, not to fuel the burn they talk about at pre-IPO companies.
While I would disagree about the actual drug use patterns, and the drugs they abuse, I would agree with how wide-spread drug use really is. The only guys I know of who don't do drugs are the older guys, who now have families/etc. However, in reminiscent talks with them, they had the same patterns as their younger generation (us). They'd smoke out, drop acid, and just trip for a night.
I dunno, both groups use drugs, but for some reason the ones in the latter half don't abuse them (and themselves) like the people in the article. I think this has been documented elsewhere, who knows. The people I know use drugs occasionally, and recreationally, not as "business practice". They're also coders, and not driven by managerial/peer pressure. They write what they want, down the still legal caffeine, and code for hours.
I dunno. I see people trying to ban drugs and drug use due to the people in that article, which I disagree with. Read Liar's Poker (by the same guy that wrote The New-New Thing), talks about the decadent and luxurious lifestyle of the 80's. It's the same thing here. If people want to run themselves into the ground, I'd warn them, but you can't stop them, they'll do it one way or another. If you have a friend like this, help them out by telling them what they're doing to themselves. But, don't pass a law against it. You're going to end up with more of the unenforced mess of drugs we have already.
But, I could be wrong.
Wow, I hate to say this, but go read their FAQ first (yes, they have one).
http://www.nsa.gov/about_nsa/faqs_internet.html
No, they can't tell you their exact budget, who works for the, whatever. READ THE FAQ. It covers who they say they're allowed to monitor, etc, and answers about half the other questions people have asked so far.
However, MY question is, what is the screening process for people applying for jobs in the NSA? Can certain parts of someone's background be overlooked? I looked at the FBI's screening process, and I don't make it in there for certain abuses of substances when I was "young and dumb". Anyway, I know I'm not the best around, but I'm considered to be pretty bright and I fit a few of the job categories for the NSA. Could a guy like me make it in anyway? Do I need a degree first?
Does it help that I almost applied to work for the CIA (their college program is pretty nice).
"Here's a newsflash -- children _ARE_ second class citizens..."
... "
To start with, I believe this to be completely wrong. I, and others like me, are "young" but are "wired" like adults. I am 20 now, but I have been treated like an adult (in the business world and otherwise) since I was 16. I've worked for major corporations and been good friends with people twice my age (with the understanding that I haven't experienced as much. However, they explain things to me, and I understand and we can still discuss the ideas), and I am still to this day. Most people believe that I look and act like I'm almost 30.
As to kids being second class citizens legally, I agree completely. As a recently ex-teenager (and still under 21), I know how frustrating it is to be limited by general rules setup by the majority to prevent me from hurting myself. I can't join a 401k plan... why is that? I can't drink... I make more than my parents do for a living, I fly around as a consultant helping major companies do business, I rent my own cars, I fly in airplanes, I make my own schedules. Why can't I drink again? My insurance is high, yet I drive better than most adults... why is that again? Yes, I know they have stats to back this up, but those are generalizations again. These generalizations are allowed for age but not for race, creed, color, religion, etc... why is that?
This all goes back to the stigma our society has against age, or the lack of it. I will admit that age does, to a large extent, play in how people act, but it is STILL a stereotype, or an -ism if you like. Most, if not close to all, people I've met have a hard time learning from me once they find out my age. When they believe I'm 29 and have been doing this for a year or two, they're ok with it. But when they learn that I'm 20 and have been doing what I'm teaching them for only a year or two, they freak out and act "strangely". It's all about experience, and many people forget this.
But, back to the original topic. I do agree that parents should have control over their children. Parents should be able to setup and monitor their kids internet access, but it should be a case by case basis and not a flat "across the board" censorship. Make it the parents responsibility and give them more control. And don't mix words about kids being second class citizens. You're not equal to your peers till you turn 21.
As to : "We are no longer protecting are children - we are oppressing them. It won't be long now
Protecting children is the banner under which most groups who promote censorship use. It's for the children dammit! This is nonsense. Before the internet there was magazines you could buy, and cable TV. I grew up with this, and most kids still do. The issue now, as it was then, is how do we make kids not view this stuff? OR, more appropriately, how do we allow parents to keep their kids from viewing this stuff if the parents don't like it? This bill they're proposing puts a ban on everyone, which is unacceptable. Don't ban my actions just because Jonnie's parents won't exercise their control over him. I'm all for allowing parents to censor their children, but let it be their children, and that's all.
After reading this, I decided to email the folks at Etoys.com, and here's what I wrote:
t .shtml
To Whom It May Concern,
I have recently read several articles concerning your company and it's lawsuit against eToy.com. In hopes that what these stories purport is false, or maybe mis-represented, I would like to ask you what you stance is concerning eToy.com, and what actions you have taken against them.
The articles concerned were :
http://slashdot.org/yro/99/12/01/2156208.shtml
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/9948/barlian
These articles do not show your company in a good light, and it is believed that a great offense against the community at large has been committed by your company. This is the lowest and worst type of internet abuse, at least what's reported in the articles. Please debunk these statements if they are untrue.
-----
Anyway, the idea was to see what they'll say. I figure you give em a chance to air their side of the story, although Im not terribly optimistic.
Anyway, don't send email to legal@etoys.com, it won't get there. Use service@etoys.com, or so their mail servers, to get to them.
If I get a response, I'll ask them to allow me to post it, or I'll just paraphrase and put it up. Enjoy.