Kids ignored by their parents? Yes of course current generations invented these things didn't we?
I think the real problem is that this is just a large example of what I cold "golden age syndrome" (social psycology probably has a better term but I only had one class in it). Which is the tendancy of people to think "Things were better back when..."
There seems to be a general sense of "things are getting worst". and of course "this didn't happen back when I was a kid".
I am pretty sure that people have been saying this for the past few thousand years, and with the exception of changes caused by technological advances, they have almost always been wrong.
Kids doing violent things? How about Leopold and Loeb? They were teenagers who killed kidnaped and killed a classmate of theirs, back in the 1920s or so.
Ok, maybe prior to the past 40 years or so, semi-automatic guns were not as available. Better weapons certainly allows violence to be scaled up (like columbine) but seriously, its nothing new, just more of the same.
The only real change that I see, over the past 50 years, is the end of the cold war. Now there is no "Big bad enemy" that our media can focus on. So what happens? We hear more about bad things going on at home. Its not the big bad russians who want to kill nuke our children - its the guy next door.
Serial killers, sociopaths, and people who just like being violent, have existed since the dawn of time. The only thing that has changed is our ability to find out about them (and find out about them and find out about them).
Of course, being a MA native, I would be lax to not throw good old Lizzy Borden into the mix. wasn't that over a hundred years or so ago that she felt the need to axe her parents about a few things? (so what if she wasn't convicted - its pretty widely believed that she did it)
To bring out the old cliche "the more things change, the more they stay the same".
Is it your implication that the quoted sentance, in fact, has no verb?
I would point you to the word "compares"
subject: "The Nakes PC page"
Verb: compares
It is badly worded and breaks common grammar rules (not that there is anything wrong with that - grammar is afterall more a statment of how language is used than rules that language is created from) - but it does so for completely
different reasons than "not having a verb", as it has 2 ("directed").
It would better be written as:
"The Naked PC page, which is directed at independant computer shops, compares selling PC's without an operating system with "selling a house without a roof"
> They don't have to pay for that, only for video
> clips or images, but you can clearly right your
> own report of the ball game and sell it.
They may pay for video clips and images....that doesn't mean that they HAVE to. If they do it, it is because it has become either convinent to do so, or because it has become an industry standard practice.
Use of such things without any payment would be fair use if they were part of a "review", which is, essentially, what a report is.
Thi smakes sense in a twisted sort of way (thats not to say that I agree with it; but I am not a copyright supporter anyway)
The lecure itself is copyright the teacher. The notes however are written by the student. However, the notes are derived from the original work (the lecture).
So thus, as a derivitive work, the original author would still have copyright. This would be like distributing your own "Garfeild" cartoons. The artist who made garfeild has copyright on the character...so unless you are making a parody (which would be fair use), or using it to teach a class (again fair use),distributing it is copyright infringement.
Of course, this assumes that no substantial value was added by the student. That would complicate things.
Of course IANAL; but I have read the FAQs and other stuff at the Copyright office website. They go into some (but not much) detail on these subjects.
While true.... Sean Connery doesn't have one either.
I mean, I like the mans work alot. He has been in some great movies, and he is one of the better actors., but be realistic - he does the same accent in every movie - and it sure as hell ain't russian.
> Anybody who pays $99.95 for these is -- excuse
> me -- a fucking moron.
> I was at the Vintage Computer Fair last weekend,
> and the going rate is about ten bucks.
Yes but was it still in kit form?
Can you get one that has NOT been put toghether yet for $10?
Isn't the whole point of buying one, from these people, the fun of putting it together yourself?
I dunno....if it wasn't for the fact that I just spent a shitload of cash on riding gear for the winter, I would buy 2. One to put together, and one to keep as a kit for posterity.
The first reaction when hearing ANY statistic should ALWAYS be to ask:"What was wrong with the data/tests?"
Now of course, thats easy to forget when they come out in your favor...very easy. I will admit, I have done it myself.
Its a question of "what does the data really mean?". Its very easy to accidently design and run a test that ends up testing something other than what you wanted to test.
> All in all, I thought Linus had to eat crow
> because IIS really *did* outperform Apache on
> Linux. Wasn't there a story about that on
> Slashdot about a month ago?
Yes it may have but I have to ask...was the main bottleneck found and published?
Remember...we have here IIS on NT vs Apache on Linux. Not only 2 different web servers, but 2 different OSs. There is so much room for different configs here that its not even funny!
Now... Apache on NT vs Apache on Linux - that would be interesting. Even then, there would be the questions of performance tuning - which filesystems were running, what hardware (perhaps the disk controller or some other feature is particularly badly supported under linux and a different one would work better? Perhaps there was some other OS stupidity...like every service known to man turned on)
All in all, its important to know where the main bottleneck is. Is it a kernel bottleneck? some other resource? Is it apache? What modules were loaded in apache? What features turned on or off in IIS? Which compilers were used on the kernel and apache? Was it stock "compiled for i386" binaries of both, or were they compiled all for the specific architecture that it was on?
There are so many variables that could have impacts, it isn't even funny. Im not saying that NT/IIS is not faster than linux...I am just saying that there is alot of room for variation and that all of these things really need to be investigated (on both sides - I just don't know enough about NT to comment on performance variables in it - the idea of a GUI running on my server console gives me nausea though)
The rest - I agree. If you don't have, or don't plan to have the bandwidth (or the interest) to be getting 1 million hits a day, then it really wont matter anyway.
Besides...if you rgetting that many hits, then surely you want to cluster the machines for redundancy and load balancing anyway.
1) Falling back to earth should kill any bacteria, fungus, virus or whatever else is on there. Perhaps a few prions or other proteines and organic matter might survive, forget about living organisms
2) The fungus was terrestrial anyway. How do you think it got there? Read the article on the fungus, they said most of it was penecillium and other common fungi.
The only reason that they are so much of a problem on mir is the enclosed atmosphere. They build up fast. remember....these are things that originally adapted to grow, and produce spores...enough spores to spread on earth. Now take all those spores from each generation of fungus...and keep them in a tight enclosed space....add some moisture in the air...very little competition for resources.
Of course, as a bonus....I wonder what the average inside temp is on the station...if its between 90-98F...the fungus will have a feild day.
Scientists here on earth believe that fungi are mutating into new species faster than they can be found and catergorized. After so many years in space, I would imagine their fungus have already mutated quite alot - add the excessive radiation - and it should be quite interesting.
Re:NY Times Story about this (Score:2)
by j-turkey on 12:13 PM October 2nd, 2000 EST (#439)
(User #187775 Info)
Some other Jive-talking Turkey wrote:
You won't see any citations. The Pro-Drug culture never supplies scientific data to
back up their claims.
Oh yeah -- and the Drug-War propaganda is any better?
I can't believe that you'd say this. In the United States, the federal government requires
permits for research of any substance labelled a Schedule 1 illegal drug (yes, including
cannabis). They are only granted if the permit granting agency can be assured that the study
will never show the substance in a positive light. Its hard to come up with this stuff...at the
same time, the government doesn't have any real data either.
For example: In their anti-cannabis campaign, they've consistently talked about how today's
cannabis is x amount stronger than 60's cannabis...which is completely unsubstantiated as
there was no standard testing of the THC content of cannabis in the 60's. The plant matter
that they're comparing is indoor grown, organic, hydroponic, high-grade, hand manucured
sinsemellia (no seeds) to old ditch-weed.
You tell me which orange (or insert your favorite plant) would be better -- the one carefully
grown, or the one in the ditch. Its flawed data from the start.
Whether or not the data is properly scientific -- this example of "scientific data" is irrelevant.
It only serves to scare people and curry public favor for the "war on drugs". It doesn't matter
how much THC is in cannabis.
That's like saying that beer is dangerous -- but Vodka is deadly and therefore, since this
Vodka exists, we need to intensify our enforcement efforts. If I drank 10 beers -- I'd be just
as drunk as if I had 10 shots of vodka. If I smoked a great-big Bob Marley of low-grade
pot -- I'd be just as high from smoking little joint with some high-grade Vermont organic. So
what? So this is the same propaganda that we were fed to support alochol prohibition in the
30's. That didn't work...drug prohibition doesn't either.
It doesn't mean that we need to step-up our enforcement...which we already have, about 8
times...but it doesn't help, it just wanes away at personal liberties -- slowly turning our great
country into a police state...which accounts for about 1/25th pf the world's population, but
1/4 of the world's incarcerated population.
On a related note: Under the Clinton administration, more pot smokers have been arrested
than any other executive administration (see this link ) since Nixon and his
controlled-substances act.
By the way, do you have ANY scientific data to suggest why cannabis should be illegal?
Its always sounded to me like a circular argument:
Why is it bad?
Because its illegal.
> In any case, the anti-cannabis stuff really
> reduces the overall credibility of you anti-drug
> people who just can't admit when they're just
> plain wrong (even a little).
You want credible debate....check out the transcript of the house of reps when cannabis was made illegal in the USA.
I can't find it anymore...but it was so small that the Library of congress couldn't find it - as it had fallen behind some other documents, when one man went to research it.
Boiled down it went like this (Its short enough to memorize - well mostly - I wont even try to get names - if anyone can find the reference to this PLEASE EMAIL ME - I have been searching for it)
Rep: "Mr Speaker, what is marijuana?"
Speaker: "I don't know. Some kind of narcotic, I think."
Rep: "Does the AMA aprove of this bill?"
Speaker: "Their man [name of doctor] was down the other day and they do 100%"
(a lie...the doctor from the AMA testified before the senate that it was a bad idea...he was told by one of the senators "Doctor, if you don't have anything good to say about what we are doing here, then why don't you just go home")
Again...I lost my reference to this. Anyone who can find it please post and email me. I can only work off memory and it has some of my favorite quotes.
Actually....
chewing leaves of the coca tree has been quite common to the indigenous peoples of south america for thousands of years. They get a very mild stimulant effect from it - nothing like the effect of several milligrams of coke snorted into a mucous membrane.
Your renting my time....not my body. My body is mine. It is my responsibility to keep it capable of performing the job.
If I am unable to do that, and my performance suffers, then fire me.
I ask to be judged on the quality of my work rather than the content of my urine. Any company that can't understand that, will not be allowed to rent my time.
You know, I have, in fact been pulled aside and talked to about my performance, at my previous job. Was it because I was smoking too much pot? Hell no. At the time I wasn't even smoking pot. It was because I wasn't sleeping at night and was falling asleep at work. (chronic sleep deprivation blows)
I have used more drugs since I started this new job than I did my entire life previous (never when oncall, and never at work, only pot after work on week nights). They are considering me for raises and giving me glowing performance reviews.
Why? Cuz now I get my fill of Unix use and programming at work, and have no craving to stay up online all night long...(tonight being the exception to the rule). Drug use has had nothing to do with it.
Well thats not true - one of the greatest performance enhancements I have had was quitting one drug - caffeine. (whihc I have relapsed on - I need to quit again) Not only did it helped me sleep better at night (reducing my need for caffeine) but just generally improved my mood, making me more happy, less jittery and on edge, and on the whole, more productive.
Speaking of sleep...bed time now. I am going to have to go to bed real early tomorow night, or else I am really going to be heading for some impairment.
So your saying that an employer should have the right to criticize me for not getting enough sleep at nigght (which certainly does affect performance)?
Thats fair. However should they be able to use the amount of sleep that I get at night as a metric for deciding on whether to hire me?
> They're paying you to do a specific job
> function. If what you do on your free time
> interferes then they are going to be wasting
> their money.
Certainly. IF IT INTERFERES. Do companies test for alcohol and fire or not hire employees that have any alcohol at all in their blood?
Afterall....if they drink alcohol, they might start comming in with hangovers, or even drunk. Drugs are drugs.
The simple fact is that the tests can't tell the difference between a person who smokes pot with friends on friday nights, and someone who is sitting in front of them, stoned out of his gord.
> Testing to see if you have been using drugs at
> all shows that there is a higher likelihood of
> drug use on the job.
Again...a positive for alcohol shows a higher likelyhood of comming to work drunk or with a hangover. A positive for nicotine is almost a garauntee that they will be using drugs on the job! It may not impair them much...but not much gets done while they are getting their fix.
As I have said before...IMNSHO a company that drug tests isn't worth working for (even though I know I could beat the test...thats hardly the point - its about respect). My drug use is an issue between me and my doctor - and its no one elses buisness.
My assertaion is this. My private time is just that. MINE and PRIVATE. My employer has no right to know ANYTHING that I do during that time.
Whether its toking on a bowl, or fucking some strange man up the ass, its my time, and my buisness.
I see drug testing as no different than sticking a swab up my ass looking doe semen in my fecal matter. Its none of their buisness. Its up to me to manage what I do on my private time.
> Despite your protests, I have no way to know if
> you are going to be brain dead, paranoid or
> psychotic the next time you come to work.
And if your hobby is sky diving? Bungie jumping?
Pretty good possibility that you might end up laid up in the hospital for months, or even dead. Probably not huge, but certainly non-zero.
Should my employer take into acount that I ride a motorcycle everywhere...and thus if I get in an accident, it could be very serious and might mean they have to look for a new employee?
Oh.... maybe I go around having promiscuous sex and not wearing condoms. Some nasty STDs out there. Just think what some of them could do to my productivity long term!
Perhaps they should be looking at my medical history too...make sure I don't have one of those nasty diseases where the body slowly degenerates over many years. Talk about potential productivity loss...not to mention the hassles with someone going on disability!
Bottom line:
My body is mine. My employer is a person who has a rental agreement on my time, not on my body itself. The chemical makeup of my body is my buisness. As long as I am sober and able to work, they have no buisness investigating that makeup, and no right to do so (yes no right whatsoever, and I don't care what your laws say on the subject)
Any employer that cannot respect me as a human being, does not deserve my time, and will not get it.
> Your performance will degrade, it's only a mater
> of time.
Yes it will degrade and improve...happens all the time, has nothing to do with drug use, has alot more to do with stress level and how much sleep I am able to get. Nothing brings productivity back quite like a week or two of vacation where one doesn't need to think about work at all.
You think a person who is stoned is impaired....I find missing a few hours of sleep to be many times more impairing than I normally would get smoking a joint.
And do you actually have evidence that these same people, had they NOT been smoking grass, would have performed any better?
Some of the most intelligent and productive people I know (and I am not counting myself here) are drug users. My own sister dropped out of HS, got a GED and went to colledge a year ahead of her peers and maintaind a 3.5 GPA, all while smoking HEAVILY. (talking several big joints a day - her and her BF used to buy a QP a month for personal use)
You know of the lycaeum. You have read pihkal and maybe some of tihkal. Perhaps a few other books.
You sounds like another exception.
Most users have never heard of any of those. Most go around talking about how "a ten strip of acid will burn a hole in you rbrain the size of a quarter" or "your tripping on dead brain cells"
All the drug information that the average user has is a mix of urban legends and outright lies. They know how to get high...and thats about it.
This is, of course, why organizations like DanceSafe exist, to try and educate people enough so that they can survive getting high.
Of course this is mostly because people learn on the street. They learn from other users, and just assume that they know what they are talking about.
While its great...all of it can be found at a good site like the www.lycaeum.org (leda.lycaeum.org rocks!)
Of course on moderation - it should be noted that chronic nitrous abuse can hand down a very nasty neurological syndrome to those unlucky enough to truely go overboard.
Check out a couple of case studies of people who walked into the ER after 4 months of daily heavy Nitrous use (20 whippits/day was one of the studies I read). Walking in, no feeling whatsoever throughout parts of the body - barely able to walk.
Takes a while to recover too. Did talk to a friend who worked in a hemotology lab for a while. He said that most of the syndrome is consistant with chronic B-12 depletion (guess what - it is known that nitrous use depletes B-12! - not a big deal once a week or once a month - use it daily and your asking for trouble)
Of course - who can say if thats the total extent of its effect. Some say it might cause certain types of organic brain damage like other dissasciatives (Ketamine, DXM). Though personally I doubt it...since its mechanism of action is so different. (of course the fac tthat I doubt it means very little - of course AFAIK no data has been released one way or the other yet.
Side notes:
1) IMNSHO best to buy a cream dispenser. You can hit directly from it without freeze burn...and you can make some cool deserts too! (yes they are kind of expensive but they work - and they make a pretty good whipped cream to boot)
2) 2 people won darwin awards for strapping on nitrous masks and, subsequently, dieing. Both of them were medical workers, one of them an EMT, I believe. (ie they should have known better)
It also has very little of the euphoric effect that most opiod users are after. Of course, on the up side, it will absorb transdermally.
No, never tried it. My mother used to work in a hospital. Its amazing what you learn from knowing hospital workers.
Of course...its often found in street heroin.
Probably sold mostly to heavy addicts...once their tolerance is high enough I would imagine its much like tobacco...not much of a high...it just keeps the withdrawls away.
I have done some reading. So far, I have found lots of claims, like yours, that they are a cult. However, little in the way of real information.
This is not to belittle your experience, but, personally, I need more info than that to call a church a "cult".
All of the Church members that I have met were really nice people (I supose you don't get new members by being an asshole to everyone).
They are certainly very strict, and they certainly have a strict veiw of the bible. They also preach that only members of their church will be saved (a sign of a cult...but not unheard of outside of cults either)
None of them ever tried to push me away from my friend, none of them ever asked me to join or asked me about my beliefs. (I happen to be an agnostic - but ocasionally I like to take a hard line atheist attitude when arguing. I must try the discordian stance some day - soon).
He did leave the church on more than one ocasion. AFAIK he may not even be with them now. Once, as I remember, he left the church with some girl who he was screwing...then he decided that he didn't want to live a life of sin and refused to have sex with her anymore, and asked her to com eback to the church with him.
He was puzzled as to why this pissed her off and she didn't want to. Who says girls don't like getting laid?:)
Anyway bottom line - people who leave churches on bad terms tend to say bad things about them. The experiences of one or two may not be common. I will personally be wary of this church, and will warn others - but I don't know if I believe that its a cult.
It is the "Boston Church of Christ" which is often called a cult (what that means, and whether they are, is not a simple topic).
He began going to bible studies several nights a week. He refused an apartment when he found out that the roomate, who he found through the church, was not a church member. He took an apartment living with several church members.
He took a job, working for a church member. etc etc. He began activly recruiting people. He began carrying a bible everywhere. He began trying to live his life as they said he should.
He submitted. He took them on as the authority on what it means to live a good life and how he should live. He has always (in many other circumstances) seemed, to me, to be looking for outside sources of direction for himself. (this was but one of them)
he has spent most of his adult life bouncing from one "program" to another - always looking for something to "get his life on track" - but when its over getting back off track and going to another "program". All without use of drugs (well no he used tobacco...quit, and went back...quit and went back - I know for a for a fact, for reasons I wont bore anyone by going into, that he hasn't used anything else since he quit).
in short, I don't think that he was brain washed by the church - he didn't need to be. He WANTED an outside authority to tell him how to live and he found one that wouldn't put him out on his own in a year or two (it is more than his actions but also things that he said over the several years that I knew him that lead me to say that). He used it as such, and AFAIK still does (he semi-dissapeared several months ago - have lost touch with him)
Remember, there are 2 parts to the subject. Physical and psycological. Physical is withdrawl and tolerance. Psycological is the association between use and pain relief...the craving.
I think it would be found that its partially both. Some people may lack (or have) enzymes that change the physical aspect. They may be more likely to not become addicts.
However alot is psycological (which of course is partially upbringing and "character" and partially genetic disposition for chemical balances etc). I had a good friend who has what I would call an "Addictive personality". He hbitually used pot and LSd and other things.
Now pot is only mildly addictive, in the technical sense, not the common usage. LSD is not addictive, yet he "couldn't say no". He "needed them" psycologically. He was dependant.
He quit drugs, went on to an abusive relationship with a woman (she was the abuser...if I hadn't seen what she was doing with my own eyes I never would have believed it). Then he joined a strict church...and adopted the same "Need" to have it control his life.
Everything that he has done in his life, as I have seen, has had an underlying compulsion. He has no control over his own urges.
I imagine alot of people like him, become heavy drug users and never kick the habbit. He is, of course, an extreme case.
Here is whats interesting...his father lived a very similar life in alot of ways...his mother too.
Me? I act like a chipper alot of the time. I can resist my caffeine cravings or any other cravings enough to break any addiction that I accidently get myself into (never tried tobacco or heroin...don't intend to).
My father...used to smoke daily. One day he woke up coughing and threw his pack of smokes away...has never smoked since.
I know of very very few others who were able to quit smoking anywhere near that easily.
it IS most certainly AFAIKT the ability to supress cravings. However, is there a genetic component to that ability that makes it easier for some and near impossible for others? Is it a learned trait? Is it partially both?
heroin is (forgive my spelling I am probably off)
di-acytl-morphine. A pretty simple analog of morphine, turns out to be many times more potent.
(trivia: heroin was invented over 100 years ago by Bayer and was, for a while, sold as a cough supressant)
> It also depends on how stong you psychologically
> are in refusing to give into an urge.
> Some of us aren't strong enough to get over the
> first time
This is psycological dependance. Can be much worst than addiction really, and doesn't even require a drug. Some of the worst psycological dependances that I have seen, have had nothing to do with drugs.
> while others can take it for a very long time
> without becoming physically addicted.
Well physical addiction is much more easy to predict and regulate. Its a function of average time between uses more than anything else.
as frequency goes up, so does tolerance, and so does the severity of withdrawl when one tries to stop.
I try to monitor even my cafeine usage so as to not become physically addicted. As soon as I see the signs (headache in the morning before the cup of tea; morning sluggishness etc) I quit for a month or so.
As for heroin...I dunno...its an opiate. I know that it must feel great but...just doesn't seem worth it. Too hard to monitor...too easy to fall in....then getting out is such a pain. (which is even true with caffeine - withdrawls of any kind suck ass - headaches, hot flashes, cold sweats and yes - I am still only talking about my caffeine withdrawl experience)
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing new really.
Kids ignored by their parents? Yes of course current generations invented these things didn't we?
I think the real problem is that this is just a large example of what I cold "golden age syndrome" (social psycology probably has a better term but I only had one class in it). Which is the tendancy of people to think "Things were better back when..."
There seems to be a general sense of "things are getting worst". and of course "this didn't happen back when I was a kid".
I am pretty sure that people have been saying this for the past few thousand years, and with the exception of changes caused by technological advances, they have almost always been wrong.
Kids doing violent things? How about Leopold and Loeb? They were teenagers who killed kidnaped and killed a classmate of theirs, back in the 1920s or so.
Ok, maybe prior to the past 40 years or so, semi-automatic guns were not as available. Better weapons certainly allows violence to be scaled up (like columbine) but seriously, its nothing new, just more of the same.
The only real change that I see, over the past 50 years, is the end of the cold war. Now there is no "Big bad enemy" that our media can focus on. So what happens? We hear more about bad things going on at home. Its not the big bad russians who want to kill nuke our children - its the guy next door.
Serial killers, sociopaths, and people who just like being violent, have existed since the dawn of time. The only thing that has changed is our ability to find out about them (and find out about them and find out about them).
Of course, being a MA native, I would be lax to not throw good old Lizzy Borden into the mix. wasn't that over a hundred years or so ago that she felt the need to axe her parents about a few things? (so what if she wasn't convicted - its pretty widely believed that she did it)
To bring out the old cliche "the more things change, the more they stay the same".
Human: Same animal - new toys.
-Steve
Is it your implication that the quoted sentance, in fact, has no verb?
I would point you to the word "compares"
subject: "The Nakes PC page"
Verb: compares
It is badly worded and breaks common grammar rules (not that there is anything wrong with that - grammar is afterall more a statment of how language is used than rules that language is created from) - but it does so for completely
different reasons than "not having a verb", as it has 2 ("directed").
It would better be written as:
"The Naked PC page, which is directed at independant computer shops, compares selling PC's without an operating system with "selling a house without a roof"
-Steve
who just couldn't resist
-Steve
Ahhh - but he couldn't sue you for taking notes and publishing a summary, or review of his work.
This isn't really about verbatim copies of lectures - its about notes.
I dunno where you learned to take notes - but I was always taught that writting lectures verbatim makes for quite useless notes.
> They don't have to pay for that, only for video
> clips or images, but you can clearly right your
> own report of the ball game and sell it.
They may pay for video clips and images....that doesn't mean that they HAVE to. If they do it, it is because it has become either convinent to do so, or because it has become an industry standard practice.
Use of such things without any payment would be fair use if they were part of a "review", which is, essentially, what a report is.
-Steve
Thi smakes sense in a twisted sort of way (thats not to say that I agree with it; but I am not a copyright supporter anyway)
The lecure itself is copyright the teacher. The notes however are written by the student. However, the notes are derived from the original work (the lecture).
So thus, as a derivitive work, the original author would still have copyright. This would be like distributing your own "Garfeild" cartoons. The artist who made garfeild has copyright on the character...so unless you are making a parody (which would be fair use), or using it to teach a class (again fair use),distributing it is copyright infringement.
Of course, this assumes that no substantial value was added by the student. That would complicate things.
Of course IANAL; but I have read the FAQs and other stuff at the Copyright office website. They go into some (but not much) detail on these subjects.
-Steve
While true.... Sean Connery doesn't have one either.
I mean, I like the mans work alot. He has been in some great movies, and he is one of the better actors., but be realistic - he does the same accent in every movie - and it sure as hell ain't russian.
-Steve
> Anybody who pays $99.95 for these is -- excuse
> me -- a fucking moron.
> I was at the Vintage Computer Fair last weekend,
> and the going rate is about ten bucks.
Yes but was it still in kit form?
Can you get one that has NOT been put toghether yet for $10?
Isn't the whole point of buying one, from these people, the fun of putting it together yourself?
I dunno....if it wasn't for the fact that I just spent a shitload of cash on riding gear for the winter, I would buy 2. One to put together, and one to keep as a kit for posterity.
-Steve
The first reaction when hearing ANY statistic should ALWAYS be to ask :"What was wrong with the data/tests?"
Now of course, thats easy to forget when they come out in your favor...very easy. I will admit, I have done it myself.
Its a question of "what does the data really mean?". Its very easy to accidently design and run a test that ends up testing something other than what you wanted to test.
-Steve
> All in all, I thought Linus had to eat crow
> because IIS really *did* outperform Apache on
> Linux. Wasn't there a story about that on
> Slashdot about a month ago?
Yes it may have but I have to ask...was the main bottleneck found and published?
Remember...we have here IIS on NT vs Apache on Linux. Not only 2 different web servers, but 2 different OSs. There is so much room for different configs here that its not even funny!
Now... Apache on NT vs Apache on Linux - that would be interesting. Even then, there would be the questions of performance tuning - which filesystems were running, what hardware (perhaps the disk controller or some other feature is particularly badly supported under linux and a different one would work better? Perhaps there was some other OS stupidity...like every service known to man turned on)
All in all, its important to know where the main bottleneck is. Is it a kernel bottleneck? some other resource? Is it apache? What modules were loaded in apache? What features turned on or off in IIS? Which compilers were used on the kernel and apache? Was it stock "compiled for i386" binaries of both, or were they compiled all for the specific architecture that it was on?
There are so many variables that could have impacts, it isn't even funny. Im not saying that NT/IIS is not faster than linux...I am just saying that there is alot of room for variation and that all of these things really need to be investigated (on both sides - I just don't know enough about NT to comment on performance variables in it - the idea of a GUI running on my server console gives me nausea though)
The rest - I agree. If you don't have, or don't plan to have the bandwidth (or the interest) to be getting 1 million hits a day, then it really wont matter anyway.
Besides...if you rgetting that many hits, then surely you want to cluster the machines for redundancy and load balancing anyway.
-Steve
Fungus *IS* interesting.
:)
Well ok....I find fungus to be interesting.... along with plants, animals, virii etc etc.
What they really need up there is to get rid of the penecillium and get some ergot going. Then sell tickets to mir
-Steve
1) Falling back to earth should kill any bacteria, fungus, virus or whatever else is on there. Perhaps a few prions or other proteines and organic matter might survive, forget about living organisms
2) The fungus was terrestrial anyway. How do you think it got there? Read the article on the fungus, they said most of it was penecillium and other common fungi.
The only reason that they are so much of a problem on mir is the enclosed atmosphere. They build up fast. remember....these are things that originally adapted to grow, and produce spores...enough spores to spread on earth. Now take all those spores from each generation of fungus...and keep them in a tight enclosed space....add some moisture in the air...very little competition for resources.
Of course, as a bonus....I wonder what the average inside temp is on the station...if its between 90-98F...the fungus will have a feild day.
Scientists here on earth believe that fungi are mutating into new species faster than they can be found and catergorized. After so many years in space, I would imagine their fungus have already mutated quite alot - add the excessive radiation - and it should be quite interesting.
I, for one, hope that they kept samples.
oops
Sorry about the previous reply...I fucked up with my pasteing. The top part is from the message before.
Yea I am lame. I forgot to preview.
more proof that its my bed time. and no...I am not stoned.
Re:NY Times Story about this (Score:2)
by j-turkey on 12:13 PM October 2nd, 2000 EST (#439)
(User #187775 Info)
Some other Jive-talking Turkey wrote:
You won't see any citations. The Pro-Drug culture never supplies scientific data to
back up their claims.
Oh yeah -- and the Drug-War propaganda is any better?
I can't believe that you'd say this. In the United States, the federal government requires
permits for research of any substance labelled a Schedule 1 illegal drug (yes, including
cannabis). They are only granted if the permit granting agency can be assured that the study
will never show the substance in a positive light. Its hard to come up with this stuff...at the
same time, the government doesn't have any real data either.
For example: In their anti-cannabis campaign, they've consistently talked about how today's
cannabis is x amount stronger than 60's cannabis...which is completely unsubstantiated as
there was no standard testing of the THC content of cannabis in the 60's. The plant matter
that they're comparing is indoor grown, organic, hydroponic, high-grade, hand manucured
sinsemellia (no seeds) to old ditch-weed.
You tell me which orange (or insert your favorite plant) would be better -- the one carefully
grown, or the one in the ditch. Its flawed data from the start.
Whether or not the data is properly scientific -- this example of "scientific data" is irrelevant.
It only serves to scare people and curry public favor for the "war on drugs". It doesn't matter
how much THC is in cannabis.
That's like saying that beer is dangerous -- but Vodka is deadly and therefore, since this
Vodka exists, we need to intensify our enforcement efforts. If I drank 10 beers -- I'd be just
as drunk as if I had 10 shots of vodka. If I smoked a great-big Bob Marley of low-grade
pot -- I'd be just as high from smoking little joint with some high-grade Vermont organic. So
what? So this is the same propaganda that we were fed to support alochol prohibition in the
30's. That didn't work...drug prohibition doesn't either.
It doesn't mean that we need to step-up our enforcement...which we already have, about 8
times...but it doesn't help, it just wanes away at personal liberties -- slowly turning our great
country into a police state...which accounts for about 1/25th pf the world's population, but
1/4 of the world's incarcerated population.
On a related note: Under the Clinton administration, more pot smokers have been arrested
than any other executive administration (see this link ) since Nixon and his
controlled-substances act.
By the way, do you have ANY scientific data to suggest why cannabis should be illegal?
Its always sounded to me like a circular argument:
Why is it bad?
Because its illegal.
> In any case, the anti-cannabis stuff really
> reduces the overall credibility of you anti-drug
> people who just can't admit when they're just
> plain wrong (even a little).
You want credible debate....check out the transcript of the house of reps when cannabis was made illegal in the USA.
I can't find it anymore...but it was so small that the Library of congress couldn't find it - as it had fallen behind some other documents, when one man went to research it.
Boiled down it went like this (Its short enough to memorize - well mostly - I wont even try to get names - if anyone can find the reference to this PLEASE EMAIL ME - I have been searching for it)
Rep: "Mr Speaker, what is marijuana?"
Speaker: "I don't know. Some kind of narcotic, I think."
Rep: "Does the AMA aprove of this bill?"
Speaker: "Their man [name of doctor] was down the other day and they do 100%"
(a lie...the doctor from the AMA testified before the senate that it was a bad idea...he was told by one of the senators "Doctor, if you don't have anything good to say about what we are doing here, then why don't you just go home")
Again...I lost my reference to this. Anyone who can find it please post and email me. I can only work off memory and it has some of my favorite quotes.
-Steve
Actually....
chewing leaves of the coca tree has been quite common to the indigenous peoples of south america for thousands of years. They get a very mild stimulant effect from it - nothing like the effect of several milligrams of coke snorted into a mucous membrane.
> I'm selling you my labor--you don't own me.
Exactly.
Your renting my time....not my body. My body is mine. It is my responsibility to keep it capable of performing the job.
If I am unable to do that, and my performance suffers, then fire me.
I ask to be judged on the quality of my work rather than the content of my urine. Any company that can't understand that, will not be allowed to rent my time.
You know, I have, in fact been pulled aside and talked to about my performance, at my previous job. Was it because I was smoking too much pot? Hell no. At the time I wasn't even smoking pot. It was because I wasn't sleeping at night and was falling asleep at work. (chronic sleep deprivation blows)
I have used more drugs since I started this new job than I did my entire life previous (never when oncall, and never at work, only pot after work on week nights). They are considering me for raises and giving me glowing performance reviews.
Why? Cuz now I get my fill of Unix use and programming at work, and have no craving to stay up online all night long...(tonight being the exception to the rule). Drug use has had nothing to do with it.
Well thats not true - one of the greatest performance enhancements I have had was quitting one drug - caffeine. (whihc I have relapsed on - I need to quit again) Not only did it helped me sleep better at night (reducing my need for caffeine) but just generally improved my mood, making me more happy, less jittery and on edge, and on the whole, more productive.
Speaking of sleep...bed time now. I am going to have to go to bed real early tomorow night, or else I am really going to be heading for some impairment.
-Steve
So your saying that an employer should have the right to criticize me for not getting enough sleep at nigght (which certainly does affect performance)?
Thats fair. However should they be able to use the amount of sleep that I get at night as a metric for deciding on whether to hire me?
> They're paying you to do a specific job
> function. If what you do on your free time
> interferes then they are going to be wasting
> their money.
Certainly. IF IT INTERFERES. Do companies test for alcohol and fire or not hire employees that have any alcohol at all in their blood?
Afterall....if they drink alcohol, they might start comming in with hangovers, or even drunk. Drugs are drugs.
The simple fact is that the tests can't tell the difference between a person who smokes pot with friends on friday nights, and someone who is sitting in front of them, stoned out of his gord.
> Testing to see if you have been using drugs at
> all shows that there is a higher likelihood of
> drug use on the job.
Again...a positive for alcohol shows a higher likelyhood of comming to work drunk or with a hangover. A positive for nicotine is almost a garauntee that they will be using drugs on the job! It may not impair them much...but not much gets done while they are getting their fix.
As I have said before...IMNSHO a company that drug tests isn't worth working for (even though I know I could beat the test...thats hardly the point - its about respect). My drug use is an issue between me and my doctor - and its no one elses buisness.
-Steve
My assertaion is this. My private time is just that. MINE and PRIVATE. My employer has no right to know ANYTHING that I do during that time.
Whether its toking on a bowl, or fucking some strange man up the ass, its my time, and my buisness.
I see drug testing as no different than sticking a swab up my ass looking doe semen in my fecal matter. Its none of their buisness. Its up to me to manage what I do on my private time.
> Despite your protests, I have no way to know if
> you are going to be brain dead, paranoid or
> psychotic the next time you come to work.
And if your hobby is sky diving? Bungie jumping?
Pretty good possibility that you might end up laid up in the hospital for months, or even dead. Probably not huge, but certainly non-zero.
Should my employer take into acount that I ride a motorcycle everywhere...and thus if I get in an accident, it could be very serious and might mean they have to look for a new employee?
Oh.... maybe I go around having promiscuous sex and not wearing condoms. Some nasty STDs out there. Just think what some of them could do to my productivity long term!
Perhaps they should be looking at my medical history too...make sure I don't have one of those nasty diseases where the body slowly degenerates over many years. Talk about potential productivity loss...not to mention the hassles with someone going on disability!
Bottom line:
My body is mine. My employer is a person who has a rental agreement on my time, not on my body itself. The chemical makeup of my body is my buisness. As long as I am sober and able to work, they have no buisness investigating that makeup, and no right to do so (yes no right whatsoever, and I don't care what your laws say on the subject)
Any employer that cannot respect me as a human being, does not deserve my time, and will not get it.
> Your performance will degrade, it's only a mater
> of time.
Yes it will degrade and improve...happens all the time, has nothing to do with drug use, has alot more to do with stress level and how much sleep I am able to get. Nothing brings productivity back quite like a week or two of vacation where one doesn't need to think about work at all.
You think a person who is stoned is impaired....I find missing a few hours of sleep to be many times more impairing than I normally would get smoking a joint.
-Steve
And do you actually have evidence that these same people, had they NOT been smoking grass, would have performed any better?
Some of the most intelligent and productive people I know (and I am not counting myself here) are drug users. My own sister dropped out of HS, got a GED and went to colledge a year ahead of her peers and maintaind a 3.5 GPA, all while smoking HEAVILY. (talking several big joints a day - her and her BF used to buy a QP a month for personal use)
Of course she is just one person.
-Steve
Let me guess....
You know of the lycaeum. You have read pihkal and maybe some of tihkal. Perhaps a few other books.
You sounds like another exception.
Most users have never heard of any of those. Most go around talking about how "a ten strip of acid will burn a hole in you rbrain the size of a quarter" or "your tripping on dead brain cells"
All the drug information that the average user has is a mix of urban legends and outright lies. They know how to get high...and thats about it.
This is, of course, why organizations like DanceSafe exist, to try and educate people enough so that they can survive getting high.
Of course this is mostly because people learn on the street. They learn from other users, and just assume that they know what they are talking about.
-Steve
While its great...all of it can be found at a good site like the www.lycaeum.org (leda.lycaeum.org rocks!)
Of course on moderation - it should be noted that chronic nitrous abuse can hand down a very nasty neurological syndrome to those unlucky enough to truely go overboard.
Check out a couple of case studies of people who walked into the ER after 4 months of daily heavy Nitrous use (20 whippits/day was one of the studies I read). Walking in, no feeling whatsoever throughout parts of the body - barely able to walk.
Takes a while to recover too. Did talk to a friend who worked in a hemotology lab for a while. He said that most of the syndrome is consistant with chronic B-12 depletion (guess what - it is known that nitrous use depletes B-12! - not a big deal once a week or once a month - use it daily and your asking for trouble)
Of course - who can say if thats the total extent of its effect. Some say it might cause certain types of organic brain damage like other dissasciatives (Ketamine, DXM). Though personally I doubt it...since its mechanism of action is so different. (of course the fac tthat I doubt it means very little - of course AFAIK no data has been released one way or the other yet.
Side notes:
1) IMNSHO best to buy a cream dispenser. You can hit directly from it without freeze burn...and you can make some cool deserts too! (yes they are kind of expensive but they work - and they make a pretty good whipped cream to boot)
2) 2 people won darwin awards for strapping on nitrous masks and, subsequently, dieing. Both of them were medical workers, one of them an EMT, I believe. (ie they should have known better)
More potent - but very very short acting.
It also has very little of the euphoric effect that most opiod users are after. Of course, on the up side, it will absorb transdermally.
No, never tried it. My mother used to work in a hospital. Its amazing what you learn from knowing hospital workers.
Of course...its often found in street heroin.
Probably sold mostly to heavy addicts...once their tolerance is high enough I would imagine its much like tobacco...not much of a high...it just keeps the withdrawls away.
-Steve
I have done some reading. So far, I have found lots of claims, like yours, that they are a cult. However, little in the way of real information.
:)
This is not to belittle your experience, but, personally, I need more info than that to call a church a "cult".
All of the Church members that I have met were really nice people (I supose you don't get new members by being an asshole to everyone).
They are certainly very strict, and they certainly have a strict veiw of the bible. They also preach that only members of their church will be saved (a sign of a cult...but not unheard of outside of cults either)
None of them ever tried to push me away from my friend, none of them ever asked me to join or asked me about my beliefs. (I happen to be an agnostic - but ocasionally I like to take a hard line atheist attitude when arguing. I must try the discordian stance some day - soon).
He did leave the church on more than one ocasion. AFAIK he may not even be with them now. Once, as I remember, he left the church with some girl who he was screwing...then he decided that he didn't want to live a life of sin and refused to have sex with her anymore, and asked her to com eback to the church with him.
He was puzzled as to why this pissed her off and she didn't want to. Who says girls don't like getting laid?
Anyway bottom line - people who leave churches on bad terms tend to say bad things about them. The experiences of one or two may not be common. I will personally be wary of this church, and will warn others - but I don't know if I believe that its a cult.
-Steve
-Steve
Well it apeared controlling from my POV.
It is the "Boston Church of Christ" which is often called a cult (what that means, and whether they are, is not a simple topic).
He began going to bible studies several nights a week. He refused an apartment when he found out that the roomate, who he found through the church, was not a church member. He took an apartment living with several church members.
He took a job, working for a church member. etc etc. He began activly recruiting people. He began carrying a bible everywhere. He began trying to live his life as they said he should.
He submitted. He took them on as the authority on what it means to live a good life and how he should live. He has always (in many other circumstances) seemed, to me, to be looking for outside sources of direction for himself. (this was but one of them)
he has spent most of his adult life bouncing from one "program" to another - always looking for something to "get his life on track" - but when its over getting back off track and going to another "program". All without use of drugs (well no he used tobacco...quit, and went back...quit and went back - I know for a for a fact, for reasons I wont bore anyone by going into, that he hasn't used anything else since he quit).
in short, I don't think that he was brain washed by the church - he didn't need to be. He WANTED an outside authority to tell him how to live and he found one that wouldn't put him out on his own in a year or two (it is more than his actions but also things that he said over the several years that I knew him that lead me to say that). He used it as such, and AFAIK still does (he semi-dissapeared several months ago - have lost touch with him)
-Steve
Now thats an interesting topic.
Perosonally...I think its half and half.
Remember, there are 2 parts to the subject. Physical and psycological. Physical is withdrawl and tolerance. Psycological is the association between use and pain relief...the craving.
I think it would be found that its partially both. Some people may lack (or have) enzymes that change the physical aspect. They may be more likely to not become addicts.
However alot is psycological (which of course is partially upbringing and "character" and partially genetic disposition for chemical balances etc). I had a good friend who has what I would call an "Addictive personality". He hbitually used pot and LSd and other things.
Now pot is only mildly addictive, in the technical sense, not the common usage. LSD is not addictive, yet he "couldn't say no". He "needed them" psycologically. He was dependant.
He quit drugs, went on to an abusive relationship with a woman (she was the abuser...if I hadn't seen what she was doing with my own eyes I never would have believed it). Then he joined a strict church...and adopted the same "Need" to have it control his life.
Everything that he has done in his life, as I have seen, has had an underlying compulsion. He has no control over his own urges.
I imagine alot of people like him, become heavy drug users and never kick the habbit. He is, of course, an extreme case.
Here is whats interesting...his father lived a very similar life in alot of ways...his mother too.
Me? I act like a chipper alot of the time. I can resist my caffeine cravings or any other cravings enough to break any addiction that I accidently get myself into (never tried tobacco or heroin...don't intend to).
My father...used to smoke daily. One day he woke up coughing and threw his pack of smokes away...has never smoked since.
I know of very very few others who were able to quit smoking anywhere near that easily.
it IS most certainly AFAIKT the ability to supress cravings. However, is there a genetic component to that ability that makes it easier for some and near impossible for others? Is it a learned trait? Is it partially both?
-Steve
> whatever that goodie is that is in heroin
heroin is (forgive my spelling I am probably off)
di-acytl-morphine. A pretty simple analog of morphine, turns out to be many times more potent.
(trivia: heroin was invented over 100 years ago by Bayer and was, for a while, sold as a cough supressant)
> It also depends on how stong you psychologically
> are in refusing to give into an urge.
> Some of us aren't strong enough to get over the
> first time
This is psycological dependance. Can be much worst than addiction really, and doesn't even require a drug. Some of the worst psycological dependances that I have seen, have had nothing to do with drugs.
> while others can take it for a very long time
> without becoming physically addicted.
Well physical addiction is much more easy to predict and regulate. Its a function of average time between uses more than anything else.
as frequency goes up, so does tolerance, and so does the severity of withdrawl when one tries to stop.
I try to monitor even my cafeine usage so as to not become physically addicted. As soon as I see the signs (headache in the morning before the cup of tea; morning sluggishness etc) I quit for a month or so.
As for heroin...I dunno...its an opiate. I know that it must feel great but...just doesn't seem worth it. Too hard to monitor...too easy to fall in....then getting out is such a pain. (which is even true with caffeine - withdrawls of any kind suck ass - headaches, hot flashes, cold sweats and yes - I am still only talking about my caffeine withdrawl experience)
--Steve