"No, it's an upgrade without any irritating copy protection"
If it's installed on a blank hard drive, WTF are you upgrading from?
Oh right, nothing. Sucks for you that you're completely wrong, and seem to have no fucking idea what "upgrade" means.
"Any copy of OS X other than the one that came with your Mac, whether it checks or not, is an upgrade copy because there is no way to use it without a) already owning a copy of OS X (and a Mac), or b) violating the license."
BZZZT! Sorry no part of "violating the license" makes it an upgrade fanboi, you're creating a criteria out of thin air because you know you're wrong.
How do you people delude yourselves so thoroughly?
Because putting you and stupid together is just as easy.
What?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007
YOU said that. I'd like to say thanks, it's rare someone says something so colossally stupid and wrong, especially regarding civil rights. I've enjoyed making an example of your stupidity and ignorance.
But do yourself a favor, get a new nick. You don't get to call anyone stupid ever again thanks to that comment.
"Any "professional" who uses the word "abuse" shouldn't be working in the industry. It's a sign of ignorance and low intelligence."
No, moron, it's actually a CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS. But you're a fucking idiot, so you wouldn't know that.
The diagnosis of "addiction" was revised, because too many of the bhaviors needed for diagnosis were not present in cases that were clearly clinically significant.
So TWO diagnoses were created to discern the difference between those people with impending problems, versus those with what would have been classically called "addiction".
"By 1994, The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) issued by the American Psychiatric Association,the DSM-IV-TR, defines substance dependence as "when an individual persists in use of alcohol or other drugs despite problems related to use of the substance, substance dependence may be diagnosed." followed by criteria for the diagnose[4]
DSM-IV-TR defines substance abuse as:[5]
A. A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more) of the following, occurring within a 12-month period: Recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions or expulsions from school; neglect of children or household) Recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired by substance use) Recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for substance-related disorderly conduct) Continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences of intoxication, physical fights) B. The symptoms have never met the criteria for Substance Dependence for this class of substance. The fifth edition of the DSM, planned for release in 2010, is likely to have this terminology revisited yet again. Under consideration is a transition from the abuse/dependence terminology. At the moment, abuse is seen as an early form or less hazardous form of the disease characterized with the dependence criteria. However, the APA's 'dependence' term, as noted above, does not mean that physiologic dependence is present but rather means that a disease state is present. Many involved recognize that the terminology has often led to confusion, both within the medical community and with the general public. The American Psychiatric Association requests input as to how the terminology of this illness should be altered as it moves forward with DSM-V discussion."
It seems you're totally wrong and a fucking idiot.
"BTW, I won't be replying with any more completely idiotic Trolls."
FYP
Do yourself a favor, before you decide to run your fucking mouth, make sure that you're not completely wrong about everything you've said, so you don't look like a colossal fucking moron.
"When it came time for lay-off's, guess who was let go, the director and myself. Eventually the director was re-hired as a consultant. I decided to burn that bridge and when packing my personal effects I threw a notepad at the vice president and told him in a long tirade to get fuxed. Also, I refused to provide any future assistance when they called me later to figure out how to proceed on some of the projects I was working on."
Have someone smarter than you read that and explain why your claims are moronic.
Hint: your claim of "Knowing neither person" isn't appropriate.
You must feel like a fucking imbecile for defending someone for behavior they admitted to, and if you don't, it's because you're too fucking dumb to realize you should.
"The real problem for Gov Huckabee is that if he plans to run again for President this will become an issue "
BWAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAA.
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.
You HONESTLY think that some anonymous fucking edits will matter one iota if Huckabee decides to run again?
I don't know what's worse, that you choose to voice your naivety of politics so openly and pretend you are saying something that isn't colossally stupid and wrong, or that some other fucking idiot agreed with you and wasted a mod point.
No, this isn't an "issue" it will NEVER be an "issue" and the only people who give a fuck about it are either looking to make their bones any way they can, or are too stupid, oblivious, and partisan to understand NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT SILLY INSIGNIFICANT SHIT LIKE THIS. If you DO give a fuck about shit like this, your opinion isn't worth listening to.
And stop throwing around the word "cover up" you fuckwit, you using it demonstrates you haven't even bothered to inform yourself about this story.
"If you aren't investigating private persons, then you don't need a PI license."
There needs to be a word for "so incredibly wrong and stupid that the person responsible should be bludgeoned about the head", so I could use it for your post.
You're wrong, and the mods who agreed with your VERY WRONG statement need my as yet uncoined word applied to their idiotic mods as well.
"Since this was in a "right to work" state I had little recourse "
No.
You're wrong, you had a very actionable case for religious discrimination, which is definitely a cause for suit, EVEN IN RIGHT TO WORK STATES. If it was as you describe, you had at least a shot at a settlement, and many attorneys would take such a case on contingency, so even the excuse that you couldn't afford top sue fails.
That makes me think the situation isn't as you describe, and you are making shit up after the fact.
"We could cut the "defense" and "homeland security" budgets by 90+% and have no national security issues at all."[citation to make someone actually believe this stupid assertion needed, but impossible to supply]
"This is completely off-topic, but I can't resist suggesting you check the facts."
This is completely on topic, but I suggest you stop making an ass of yourself by cherrypicking statistics, then suggesting arrogantly that someone else "check the facts" when you're too ignorant to do so yourself.
Look into abortion rates. Then look into how infant mortality is defined.
Guess what? The US has a low abortion rate, whereas other countries will much more frequently abort in cases of prenatal birth defect.
Think about that EXTENSIVELY before you use statistics to prove your point, or else you'll get stuck making an assertion like "the US and Cuba are basically equivalent" when you're patently wrong, AND DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY.
They are NOT equivalent, unless the definition of equivalent has changed recently and allows for entirely disparate comparisions to be "equivalent".
"Funny how everyone here is fully aware of the capabilities of our current state of technology in the hands of people with enough resources, yet when someone suggests an actual, real-world possibility for misuse, or the possibility of despotism it's "tinfoil hat" time.
I'm not saying they're doing it to me, or that they're in the walls, but seriously, have those lessons of the mccarthy and now bush eras gone straight out the other ear? "
No.
We just recognize the stupidity of suggesting a pissant operation like the one in TFA could believably produce something that would fool a blind retard, much less an entire jury, and all the assorted individuals involved in such a case.
You don't seem smart enough to recognize such stupidity, and seem to think the foil hat comment was directed toward something that should actually be given any kind of serious consideration, instead of being dismissed like the farcical idiocy it is.
I have to wonder what is wrong with you that you find the need to rant against the dismissal of what is, without doubt, a moronic assertion in the first place.
"Why did my mind instantly jump to the conclusion that some data recovery tech worker did someone a favor, got sued by the MPAA, and got a 24-year sentence..."
Um, yes, you did. Stop trying to backpedal off of what you now realiz is a stupid attempt at a point. You're embarassing yourself.
YOU said
"many people that need protection"
Guess what genius, that IS what you said, and if you think it applies to drugs then you can't claim it doesn't apply to something else without looking like a disingenuous twat.
"When an addict then shuns personal responsibility, doesn't provide care as a parent or care giver, and becomes incapable of dealing with the addiction (cost, self-care, even nutrition), then this is a problem that must be addressed by society and community."
Ok, I've had enough. ALL of these things are possible results of ANY repetitive behavior, and you're not even intelligent enough to realize it.
I genuinely hope you don't live in my country, because YOU simply aren't informed enough to have an opinion worth considering.
Yes, you're not very bright and made a retarded assertion, that once completely destroyed, has left you reeling and unable to form a coherent rebuttal.
Guess what not-too-bright-guy, there is no coherent rebuttal. You don't get to tell ME I can't do something because YOU are too weak to do that same something responsibly.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I see no equivalent situation regarding "illegal" drugs, so why, apart from answering his question, does a restriction on antibiotics matter?
And more importantly than that, it is not the USE of antibiotics, it is the MISUSE of antibiotics, which moots your observation totally.
So, no, the government does not get to step in to stop my USE of drugs, but if I MISUSE those drugs, the government can very rightly step in and deal with it.
In that case, the drug being used is irrelevant, as it is the BEHAVIOR that is the problem, not the substance.
So again, you are wrong, there is no reason for the government to step in, not even in the case of antibiotics.
I genuinely don't care WHO gets saved or how many people go uninjured.
The prohibition on drugs is a direct and clear violation of my rights. There is no discussion, and no amount of "saving people", or rather, no number that isn't bordering on astronomical, makes it a worthy trade off.
You get modded down because you forget that part of this discussion, not that said moderation is correct.
"They've recently found that it isn't the cocaine causing the heart attacks."
No.
They found that cocaine causes heart attacks, and the failure to make the doctors aware of the cocaine use results in the standard treatment being counterproductive.
They did not, in any way, form or fashion, find that "it isn't the cocaine causing the heart attacks".
"The cocaine (powder or rock) can give the symptoms of heart attack without the victime actually having heart problems."
The symptoms of a heart attack in this case ARE heart problems, so your comment here makes it clear you simply didn't understand the article as well as you thought you did.
"Of two drugs to have legal, these two are among the most dangerous and addictive there are"
This is only true because of their easy availability. From a purely pharmacological standpoint, they are VERY far down the list. I don't think your observation in really useful in any practical way as it compares apples and oranges.
More importantly, your entire line of reasoning is not helpful. The incessant "what about cigarettes and alcohol" whinging completely misses the point. This is a personal rights issue, plain and simple, and it DOES NOT MATTER that tobacco and alcohol are legal, the fact that something else is illegal is an infringement on my liberties, and your observation of the hypocrisy of the system is nice, but ultimately irrelevant.
More importantly, I seriously doubt pointing out hypocrisy is going to do anything at all to improve the situation, and with the increasing move to criminalize tobacco use may ultimately end with those drugs being made illegal as well, NOT with the decriminalization of drugs that are illegal now.
Slashdot Mirror
"Exactly my point."
We know, what you seem to have missed is that he was making fun of your "point" and how idiotic it is.
You know, like I did when you made a "point" to me which was factually wrong.
And I fully expect you to start calling names and then run and hide again, now that you've been wrong.
"What part of the NSA wire-tapping program did you miss over the course of this entire year??"
FYP, didn't miss it, still no explanation why America has anything to do with you being a paranoid nutball.
"You realize your statement is illogical, right?"
No it isn't and your analogy sucks.
In fact, every single thing you posted was wrong and moronic.
"No, it's an upgrade without any irritating copy protection"
If it's installed on a blank hard drive, WTF are you upgrading from?
Oh right, nothing. Sucks for you that you're completely wrong, and seem to have no fucking idea what "upgrade" means.
"Any copy of OS X other than the one that came with your Mac, whether it checks or not, is an upgrade copy because there is no way to use it without a) already owning a copy of OS X (and a Mac), or b) violating the license."
BZZZT! Sorry no part of "violating the license" makes it an upgrade fanboi, you're creating a criteria out of thin air because you know you're wrong.
How do you people delude yourselves so thoroughly?
"There are moments when I am not proud of America..."
What does America have to do with you being a paranoid whackjob?
Because putting you and stupid together is just as easy.
What?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007
YOU said that. I'd like to say thanks, it's rare someone says something so colossally stupid and wrong, especially regarding civil rights. I've enjoyed making an example of your stupidity and ignorance.
But do yourself a favor, get a new nick. You don't get to call anyone stupid ever again thanks to that comment.
"Any "professional" who uses the word "abuse" shouldn't be working in the industry. It's a sign of ignorance and low intelligence."
No, moron, it's actually a CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS. But you're a fucking idiot, so you wouldn't know that.
The diagnosis of "addiction" was revised, because too many of the bhaviors needed for diagnosis were not present in cases that were clearly clinically significant.
So TWO diagnoses were created to discern the difference between those people with impending problems, versus those with what would have been classically called "addiction".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse
"By 1994, The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) issued by the American Psychiatric Association ,the DSM-IV-TR, defines substance dependence as "when an individual persists in use of alcohol or other drugs despite problems related to use of the substance, substance dependence may be diagnosed." followed by criteria for the diagnose[4]
DSM-IV-TR defines substance abuse as:[5]
A. A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more) of the following, occurring within a 12-month period:
Recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions or expulsions from school; neglect of children or household)
Recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired by substance use)
Recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for substance-related disorderly conduct)
Continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences of intoxication, physical fights)
B. The symptoms have never met the criteria for Substance Dependence for this class of substance.
The fifth edition of the DSM, planned for release in 2010, is likely to have this terminology revisited yet again. Under consideration is a transition from the abuse/dependence terminology. At the moment, abuse is seen as an early form or less hazardous form of the disease characterized with the dependence criteria. However, the APA's 'dependence' term, as noted above, does not mean that physiologic dependence is present but rather means that a disease state is present. Many involved recognize that the terminology has often led to confusion, both within the medical community and with the general public. The American Psychiatric Association requests input as to how the terminology of this illness should be altered as it moves forward with DSM-V discussion."
It seems you're totally wrong and a fucking idiot.
"BTW, I won't be replying with any more completely idiotic Trolls."
FYP
Do yourself a favor, before you decide to run your fucking mouth, make sure that you're not completely wrong about everything you've said, so you don't look like a colossal fucking moron.
Like you did here.
"When it came time for lay-off's, guess who was let go, the director and myself. Eventually the director was re-hired as a consultant. I decided to burn that bridge and when packing my personal effects I threw a notepad at the vice president and told him in a long tirade to get fuxed. Also, I refused to provide any future assistance when they called me later to figure out how to proceed on some of the projects I was working on."
Have someone smarter than you read that and explain why your claims are moronic.
Hint: your claim of "Knowing neither person" isn't appropriate.
You must feel like a fucking imbecile for defending someone for behavior they admitted to, and if you don't, it's because you're too fucking dumb to realize you should.
"The real problem for Gov Huckabee is that if he plans to run again for President this will become an issue "
BWAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAA.
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.
You HONESTLY think that some anonymous fucking edits will matter one iota if Huckabee decides to run again?
I don't know what's worse, that you choose to voice your naivety of politics so openly and pretend you are saying something that isn't colossally stupid and wrong, or that some other fucking idiot agreed with you and wasted a mod point.
No, this isn't an "issue" it will NEVER be an "issue" and the only people who give a fuck about it are either looking to make their bones any way they can, or are too stupid, oblivious, and partisan to understand NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT SILLY INSIGNIFICANT SHIT LIKE THIS. If you DO give a fuck about shit like this, your opinion isn't worth listening to.
And stop throwing around the word "cover up" you fuckwit, you using it demonstrates you haven't even bothered to inform yourself about this story.
"If you aren't investigating private persons, then you don't need a PI license."
There needs to be a word for "so incredibly wrong and stupid that the person responsible should be bludgeoned about the head", so I could use it for your post.
You're wrong, and the mods who agreed with your VERY WRONG statement need my as yet uncoined word applied to their idiotic mods as well.
"Since this was in a "right to work" state I had little recourse "
No.
You're wrong, you had a very actionable case for religious discrimination, which is definitely a cause for suit, EVEN IN RIGHT TO WORK STATES. If it was as you describe, you had at least a shot at a settlement, and many attorneys would take such a case on contingency, so even the excuse that you couldn't afford top sue fails.
That makes me think the situation isn't as you describe, and you are making shit up after the fact.
"We could cut the "defense" and "homeland security" budgets by 90+% and have no national security issues at all."[citation to make someone actually believe this stupid assertion needed, but impossible to supply]
"This is completely off-topic, but I can't resist suggesting you check the facts."
This is completely on topic, but I suggest you stop making an ass of yourself by cherrypicking statistics, then suggesting arrogantly that someone else "check the facts" when you're too ignorant to do so yourself.
Look into abortion rates. Then look into how infant mortality is defined.
Guess what? The US has a low abortion rate, whereas other countries will much more frequently abort in cases of prenatal birth defect.
Think about that EXTENSIVELY before you use statistics to prove your point, or else you'll get stuck making an assertion like "the US and Cuba are basically equivalent" when you're patently wrong, AND DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY.
They are NOT equivalent, unless the definition of equivalent has changed recently and allows for entirely disparate comparisions to be "equivalent".
"Funny how everyone here is fully aware of the capabilities of our current state of technology in the hands of people with enough resources, yet when someone suggests an actual, real-world possibility for misuse, or the possibility of despotism it's "tinfoil hat" time.
I'm not saying they're doing it to me, or that they're in the walls, but seriously, have those lessons of the mccarthy and now bush eras gone straight out the other ear? "
No.
We just recognize the stupidity of suggesting a pissant operation like the one in TFA could believably produce something that would fool a blind retard, much less an entire jury, and all the assorted individuals involved in such a case.
You don't seem smart enough to recognize such stupidity, and seem to think the foil hat comment was directed toward something that should actually be given any kind of serious consideration, instead of being dismissed like the farcical idiocy it is.
I have to wonder what is wrong with you that you find the need to rant against the dismissal of what is, without doubt, a moronic assertion in the first place.
"Why did my mind instantly jump to the conclusion that some data recovery tech worker did someone a favor, got sued by the MPAA, and got a 24-year sentence..."
Because you're cynical and not terribly bright.
"Uh huh. Very professional answer there. Where do you work again? :)"
Professional doesn't mean polite, genius.
Fuck off now, thanks.
"Didn't say that at all."
Um, yes, you did. Stop trying to backpedal off of what you now realiz is a stupid attempt at a point. You're embarassing yourself.
YOU said
"many people that need protection"
Guess what genius, that IS what you said, and if you think it applies to drugs then you can't claim it doesn't apply to something else without looking like a disingenuous twat.
"When an addict then shuns personal responsibility, doesn't provide care as a parent or care giver, and becomes incapable of dealing with the addiction (cost, self-care, even nutrition), then this is a problem that must be addressed by society and community."
Ok, I've had enough. ALL of these things are possible results of ANY repetitive behavior, and you're not even intelligent enough to realize it.
I genuinely hope you don't live in my country, because YOU simply aren't informed enough to have an opinion worth considering.
"See the problem?"
Yes, you're not very bright and made a retarded assertion, that once completely destroyed, has left you reeling and unable to form a coherent rebuttal.
Guess what not-too-bright-guy, there is no coherent rebuttal. You don't get to tell ME I can't do something because YOU are too weak to do that same something responsibly.
Period.
"Opiates aren't particularly equivalent, there are multiple receptors"
No, there aren't. ALL opiates are converted into morphine in the body. The concentration and metabolites vary, but it all ends up as morphine.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
THAT is the tenth amendment. It says you are COMPLETELY, IRREFUTABLY, UTTERLY WRONG.
Don't bother replying, you are wrong and there's nothing left to say about it.
I see no equivalent situation regarding "illegal" drugs, so why, apart from answering his question, does a restriction on antibiotics matter?
And more importantly than that, it is not the USE of antibiotics, it is the MISUSE of antibiotics, which moots your observation totally.
So, no, the government does not get to step in to stop my USE of drugs, but if I MISUSE those drugs, the government can very rightly step in and deal with it.
In that case, the drug being used is irrelevant, as it is the BEHAVIOR that is the problem, not the substance.
So again, you are wrong, there is no reason for the government to step in, not even in the case of antibiotics.
Bullshit.
I'm a fool, you titled your post and I read it anyway.
Sadly, you were right and now I feel silly for reading it.
I genuinely don't care WHO gets saved or how many people go uninjured.
The prohibition on drugs is a direct and clear violation of my rights. There is no discussion, and no amount of "saving people", or rather, no number that isn't bordering on astronomical, makes it a worthy trade off.
You get modded down because you forget that part of this discussion, not that said moderation is correct.
http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2003/cocaineheart.htm
"They've recently found that it isn't the cocaine causing the heart attacks."
No.
They found that cocaine causes heart attacks, and the failure to make the doctors aware of the cocaine use results in the standard treatment being counterproductive.
They did not, in any way, form or fashion, find that "it isn't the cocaine causing the heart attacks".
"The cocaine (powder or rock) can give the symptoms of heart attack without the victime actually having heart problems."
The symptoms of a heart attack in this case ARE heart problems, so your comment here makes it clear you simply didn't understand the article as well as you thought you did.
"Of two drugs to have legal, these two are among the most dangerous and addictive there are"
This is only true because of their easy availability. From a purely pharmacological standpoint, they are VERY far down the list. I don't think your observation in really useful in any practical way as it compares apples and oranges.
More importantly, your entire line of reasoning is not helpful. The incessant "what about cigarettes and alcohol" whinging completely misses the point. This is a personal rights issue, plain and simple, and it DOES NOT MATTER that tobacco and alcohol are legal, the fact that something else is illegal is an infringement on my liberties, and your observation of the hypocrisy of the system is nice, but ultimately irrelevant.
More importantly, I seriously doubt pointing out hypocrisy is going to do anything at all to improve the situation, and with the increasing move to criminalize tobacco use may ultimately end with those drugs being made illegal as well, NOT with the decriminalization of drugs that are illegal now.