Errm, Kinetec Records in London, home of acid techno:) There's still loads of stuff coming out on Routemaster, Stay Up Forever, Bionic Orange, Subvert, Bang On, No Limit, Maximum Minimum, Raw, Hydraulix and others. And it's still played at squat parties across the city.
Plenty of acid trance here at places like Choci's Chewns as well:)
I'm sure there are plenty of tutorials online, but a good way to learn is to get some music and just start. The steps are (as I do it at least):
Play first record
Put next record on, send it to headphones
Adjust cue so you have an even balance between the two tracks in your headphones.
Using your hand to spin forwards and backwards get beats lined up on the two.
Now as the beats start to get out of time, you can adjust the speed to correct.
Repeat the previous two until both records are in time.
Now they're beatmatched, and you can do the actual mix. To start with you could buy two copies of the same record in order just to practise lining the tracks up if that helps.
As I sit here after having had a little mix with my vinyl, I can agree with your last comment. The stuff I mix (acid techno) practically never comes out on CD... there are a half dozen or so compilation CDs with individual tracks on there, and that's it.
Audiogalaxy was the place to get MP3s though, they'd have the latest acid techno tracks ripped within a day of release. None of the other music services come close in terms of content.
Actually general relativity was in part inspired by Mach's principle, which basically asks the question - in a universe with nothing in it other than a single sphere, does it make any sense to consider that sphere to be rotating? Since there's nothing there to measure the rotation against, can you claim with equal validity that the sphere isn't rotating at all? Mach (IIRC) stated that the only way for this to make sense was that rotation could only be considered as being relative to the entire Universe.
Unfortunately for Einstein GR didn't really answer the question.
I think you're thinking of the Michelson-Morley experiment to measure the speed of light both when the Earth was moving towards and away from the source. This was a lot of the impetus for special relativity, not general relativity.
Well it all depends on how stable the vacuum is in its different states. The theory assumes that in its pre-Big Bang state it is "metastable" (fancy technical term for almost but-not-quite stable) and due to a random quantum fluctuation part of it "tunnels" quantum mechnically down to our "true" vacuum, with the change in energy density accounting for the Big Bang, and leaving it in a stable state.
Of course, there's no knowing whether or not our "true" vacuum is actually that at all - it may simply be a different "false" vacuum and also metastable. Which would mean another potential Big Bang event could occur at any point in spacetime as the vacuum tunnels down to an even lower state, which would then expand at the speed of light consuming our current Universe. Which is what I guess you were saying.
If the universe is an evenly distributed thin soup of cold dark mass, would it not then be in a state similiar to the one that precipitated the Big Bang? What I mean is, if the universe was an evenly distributed pinpoint-sized ball of hot mass (relative to it's "surroundings")that "exploded", then wouldn't the massivly-large ball of cold mass not be the same thing at a larger scale/perspective?
No, because space and time were also created at the instant of the Big Bang and in the event of an open Universe we already have these things, plus an energy density quite ridiculously low - one electron/positron pair for every trillion cubic light years is not enough to make any kind of explosion!
Unless superstring theory comes up with some better explaination of what happened before the Big Bang (which I believe it explains as the decoupling of our 4-dimensional macrospace from the other 6 dimensions that are curled up real small), then something like Linde's chaotic inflation seems to be the best bet - an unstable "false" vacuum within which quantum fluctuations can cause a Big Bang-like event at any time...
Interestingly, the UK has strict gun control but a I recall their latest stats show a great increase in illegal gun use anyway. Consequently, the famous "bobbies" are often packing heat now too.
Only armed response teams which are relatively rare, and interestingly enough, plenty of those are now refusing to carry firearms as well due to various incidents where people have been mistakenly shot.
When was the last time Americans were dancing in the streets because some Palestinian or Iraqi CIVILIANS were killed?
Didn't you ever see the footage of the celebrations that happened in several places across the US when we were bombing Baghdad during the Gulf War? You can be pretty sure there were civilian casualties then...
... but I do have the Forgotten Realms atlas at home by Fonstad, and I have to say it's lovely. The maps contain an incredible amount of detail and are amazingly easy to read considering, and it's a pleasure to have maps that haven't been drawn by the author with little triangles for mountains:)
Also the maps depicting important scenes from the books really serve to make things clearer, especially during confusing scenes which occur over wide or tangled geographical areas. I can only imagine the effort that went into making these as consistent as possible with the books, especially in this case as the author cannot be contacted...
I'm not a huge Tolkien fan, but I might get this anyway just to look through. Maps are great, and I wish there were more books like this for all my favourite worlds:)
Re:Abandoned sanitoriums
on
Infiltration
·
· Score: 1
Next time you fly into Heathrow, keep an ewe out for an enormous gothic tower near the airport - that'll be the Sanitorium. Many people mistake it for Holloway's other famous building, the university nearby in Egham, but that's nowhere near as impressive.
But having lived inside Founder's (the Holloway building at Egham) for a year I can tell you it's pretty damn fun for exploring, especially after some hallucinogens...
For a start I'd dispute his claims that there are six numbers that constitute the makeup of everything. There's no mention of things like the masses of the fundamental particles, the interaction strengths of the four forces, Planck's constant etc. etc. His numbers, apart from D (although that is also looking more likely to not be fundamental), are secondary characteristics arising from the effects of the underlying forces.
On the other hand, chaotic inflation is a viable scientific theory, and has its proponents amongst the physics crowd. It's also worth having a look at Lee Smolin's book The Life of the Cosmos for an alternative explaination.
Personally I think we're going to have to wait until we've sorted out a theory of everything before we can attempt to really answer these questions. Given the direction superstring theory/M-theory is taking, it wouldn't suprise me if they said some pretty fundamental things about how the Universe came into existance.
British politics is much more interesting to watch... The parties actually hate each other, and preach nailing members of the other parties to the wall with industrial bolters.
It also helps that we're the only country in the world without proportional representation of some kind but with a strong third party IIRC. This means that there's somewhat less of the polarisation that America suffers from.
That, and they had Screaming Lord Sooch (sp?), head of the Monster Raving Loony Party. Now, that was fun to watch.
Good old Screaming Lord Sutch. His manifesto was that he'd call another general election the day after he got into power:) He was actually a very smart guy though, he managed to predict a lot of policy some 20 years before it was actually introduced, but he was ignored at the time for being too "radical". Well, he was, but he was right a lot of the time.
For the official homepage of the OMRLP, see here. Worth a look:)
There's also an education issue
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
True, and consider the amount of education that people would have to have to judge which issues deserve legislation and which don't? What proportion of the population has the expertise needed to judge the intricacies of, say, the rules that govern the American stock markets, or what effect raising or lowering a certain tax will have?
These are all very complex issues which require a lot of knowledge before you can make an effective judgement. That's why governments have people specifically devoted to studying these issues in depth.
People just aren't going to have the time to even study and think about these reports, let alone the entire issue. The only people who would vote would be the ones that are already informed about the subject, who would vote to please themselves (leading to an elite) and those who just voted without thinking (which is a dumb idea).
It's just not a viable solution at the moment. Chances are, it never will be unless we develop some kind of hivemind:)
Money and drugs. Dealers are also attracted to get rich quick schemes. Sure, it's hype. Nothing new here, not even your silly users vrs. abusers delusion.
So what, you're saying that everyone that uses drugs is an abuser? You don't see any difference between someone who has, say, the odd wrap of speed every month or two and someone who takes it every day? Believe me, there's a world of difference.
My dad's a cardiologist and he's seen the results of regular use. It's a heart that's mostly scar tissue before you are 30. This is also known as death and is generally a non event after you've spent all your money on drugs and driven off all of your friends.
Ah, so you do believe that drug use leads to an inevitable death, at age 30 no less. Whilst many drugs can, when taking in large quantities or over a period of time, have dangerous physical side effects, regular use is generally no more dangerous than drinking regularly, and certainly in the case of marijuana, much less so.
If it's not legal, you don't have any idea of what it is till you use it. Get Real, if you feel the urge to buy something like that you have a problem.
Unless you check out any of the dozens of online sources for drug information, such as the Vaults of Erowid. And considering the amount of people who have admitted to doing drugs, it strikes me as odd that you think each and every one of these people has a "problem".
Maybe you didn't mean it quite as it sounded, but your post comes across as unreasonably naive.
hmmm you know slashdot has prevented me from getting more work done than anything that ive done outside of work....
LOL! That is so true. Anyway, I agree with your original point, I wouldn't take a drugs test because I disagree with the principle. I don't smoke pot, so it wouldn't be any hassle for me to pass one (most drugs are out of your system after three days to a week), but that just isn't the point.
If you can't have as good of a time without them, then it starts to sound questionable...and if you can, then why are you bothering in the first place?
No, that's not quite what I meant... I've been out plenty of times without taking anything and had really excellent nights in much the same way, but there's a certain "intensity" (it's really hard to find the right word) that the drugs can provide. Plus, they really help when you want to dance for eight hours non-stop:)
That was all ten years or more ago. I never conciously quit. I just found different things to occupy myself with.
It seems that this is the most common pattern of drug use - it grows quickly when people start, levels out and then slowly drops off, usually in the mid-twenties. People don't "quit", they just stop using as much. I know I don't do as much as I used to.
How would define 'mild use'? Once a week, month? My experiences with addictive substances were that I started out with casual use and eventually, as my use became more frequent, found myself hooked. Hard.
Totally, I agree. But mild use is possible, although I'm sure how you'd define it varies from person to person. And the more addictive the substance, the more careful you do have to be with the amount and frequency you take.
Now I am not condemning anyone who uses drugs or saying that using something is going to get you hooked and ruin your life. But there is a real danger of physical addiction to a lot of people and discounting addiction as a 'myth' is kind of denying reality.
I'm not saying addiction is a myth - having been there I know damn well it isn't. But the one hit addict is a myth. And yes, I did misread the post I replied to... ah well it's only/.:)
Sounds like you've got your act together, but it also sounds like the chain smoker's "I can quit anytime I want to." If you really can just keep things recreational, and aren't harming anyone else, the Libertarian in me says go for it.
Hell, I smoke, and I *know* how hard that is to try and give up... and it is just a weekend thing nowadays, and not even every weekend. Drugs are something that people tend to slow down on over time. And they're certainly not necessary for a good night out, but they can and do help with the fun:)
Another "regular drug user" who tries to speak for the "underground drug use" masses. A pretty good sign is usually opinions such as "Most of the people I know" or "I can confidently state" that are tried to be spun as facts.
Hi. What separation of drug users is this you're talking about? Your "underground drug use" masses is an interesting concept, what exactly do you mean by this? What is the difference between a regular and an underground drug user? And are you really implying that these Silicon Valley types fall into the underground drug use group?
And you might want to know that addictive substances such as nicotine, heroin, and cocaine leads users to become abusers, because they eventually have to use it.
Oh really? Out of the three chemicals that you mention, nicotene is the most addictive, and even then a single hit won't get you addicted. Mild use without addiction can be acheived for all of these drugs. The myth of instant addiction is just that, a myth. Some drugs are more addictive than others sure, but there is no "take it once, you're doomed to be an addict" truth as you say.
there's no such thing as a 'user' of cocaine or any of the other hard-core drugs mentioned in the article, with the exception of prescription drugs. if you've progressed to the point that your conception of acceptable use includes these drugs, then chances are, you already have a problem.
Hello? Have you ever tried coke? Sure, it's damn nice and you do get the urge for some more, but it's no more than the urge you get to drink more when you've had a few. I've done coke quite a few times, and I've never felt some mad craving to rush out and get some more. I treat coke as a "party drug" for special occasions only. Hell, I haven't had any since Christmas, and it's not because I couldn't get/afford it.
You seem to have fallen under the propaganda spread by people like Barry McCaffrey (America's anti-drug main man) that drugs like cocaine, crack and heroin are instantly addictive and that casual use is impossible. This is nonsense in the same vein that "Reefer madness" was. Sure, they are addictive, but not to the point where a single hit makes you an abuser.
But the sinister allure of these drugs is that you are in control of them. Make no mistake--you aren't. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but with continued use, one day--these drugs will assert themselves over you and you'll have to acknowledge who's the boss.
The reason I got started with the problem was that I started doing it every day. This was because I had a lot of work at the time, and the speed helped me get it done. But I still take the stuff now, just sensibly when I'm going out or something. I'm not going to make the same mistake, there's no hidden catch that will turn me back into a speed freak six months down the line.
I totally agree, moderation is the key. I ended up dropping out of university early because I ended up addicted to amphetamines and it killed my ability to think for quite a while... but that's the only time I've ever had a problem. Now that I'm not caning it 24/7 it doesn't cause any more problems than going down the pub would, in fact it causes less - I don't usually end up puking and I don't have a hangover in the morning:)
It seems to me that drug use used to be limited not only in it's frequency of use and by a small group of people. I'm not sure why it's so popular. I've done a few drugs and none of them ever "did it" for me. The after-effects were much worse than any brief gain they gave me.
Erm, sure for you maybe, but me and millions of other people get a lot of enjoyment from the various chemicals out there. What I can't stand is alcohol, and I try not to drink wherever possible. This weekend I spent out clubbing with a group of people I'd met the week before at another club and I spent the night chatting, dancing and meeting new people, and yes, I was on drugs. And I had an absolutely brilliant time.
Is it me or has our society lost their souls (in general)? It seems that we've all forgotten how to live. The only thing we seem interested in any more is money and getting high (and technology).
You seem to be implying that taking drugs is somehow "soulless" or "unnatural". Why is this? Personally I find that they merely enhance what is already there, they certainly don't turn me into something that wasn't there already. I'm honestly curious...
Somehow I had gottten this rosy picture that engineers (especially software engineers), being people who were paid to think, would be smarter than to use drugs. I personally don't do drugs (scared of needles), drink (hate the taste of alchohol), smoke (allergic to tobacco smoke) or gamble (inefficient).
Okay fair enough that you don't do these things, it's your choice, but you are aware that no drugs actually require a needle to take? I've done a fair old amount of chemicals, but there's no way I'd ever inject.
Slashdot Mirror
Plenty of acid trance here at places like Choci's Chewns as well :)
- Play first record
- Put next record on, send it to headphones
- Adjust cue so you have an even balance between the two tracks in your headphones.
- Using your hand to spin forwards and backwards get beats lined up on the two.
- Now as the beats start to get out of time, you can adjust the speed to correct.
- Repeat the previous two until both records are in time.
Now they're beatmatched, and you can do the actual mix. To start with you could buy two copies of the same record in order just to practise lining the tracks up if that helps.Audiogalaxy was the place to get MP3s though, they'd have the latest acid techno tracks ripped within a day of release. None of the other music services come close in terms of content.
Actually general relativity was in part inspired by Mach's principle, which basically asks the question - in a universe with nothing in it other than a single sphere, does it make any sense to consider that sphere to be rotating? Since there's nothing there to measure the rotation against, can you claim with equal validity that the sphere isn't rotating at all? Mach (IIRC) stated that the only way for this to make sense was that rotation could only be considered as being relative to the entire Universe.
Unfortunately for Einstein GR didn't really answer the question.
I think you're thinking of the Michelson-Morley experiment to measure the speed of light both when the Earth was moving towards and away from the source. This was a lot of the impetus for special relativity, not general relativity.
Well it all depends on how stable the vacuum is in its different states. The theory assumes that in its pre-Big Bang state it is "metastable" (fancy technical term for almost but-not-quite stable) and due to a random quantum fluctuation part of it "tunnels" quantum mechnically down to our "true" vacuum, with the change in energy density accounting for the Big Bang, and leaving it in a stable state.
Of course, there's no knowing whether or not our "true" vacuum is actually that at all - it may simply be a different "false" vacuum and also metastable. Which would mean another potential Big Bang event could occur at any point in spacetime as the vacuum tunnels down to an even lower state, which would then expand at the speed of light consuming our current Universe. Which is what I guess you were saying.
Of course, this is all very speculative... :)
If the universe is an evenly distributed thin soup of cold dark mass, would it not then be in a state similiar to the one that precipitated the Big Bang? What I mean is, if the universe was an evenly distributed pinpoint-sized ball of hot mass (relative to it's "surroundings")that "exploded", then wouldn't the massivly-large ball of cold mass not be the same thing at a larger scale/perspective?
No, because space and time were also created at the instant of the Big Bang and in the event of an open Universe we already have these things, plus an energy density quite ridiculously low - one electron/positron pair for every trillion cubic light years is not enough to make any kind of explosion!
Unless superstring theory comes up with some better explaination of what happened before the Big Bang (which I believe it explains as the decoupling of our 4-dimensional macrospace from the other 6 dimensions that are curled up real small), then something like Linde's chaotic inflation seems to be the best bet - an unstable "false" vacuum within which quantum fluctuations can cause a Big Bang-like event at any time...
Cannibal Corpse, right?
Interestingly, the UK has strict gun control but a I recall their latest stats show a great increase in illegal gun use anyway. Consequently, the famous "bobbies" are often packing heat now too.
Only armed response teams which are relatively rare, and interestingly enough, plenty of those are now refusing to carry firearms as well due to various incidents where people have been mistakenly shot.
When was the last time Americans were dancing in the streets because some Palestinian or Iraqi CIVILIANS were killed?
Didn't you ever see the footage of the celebrations that happened in several places across the US when we were bombing Baghdad during the Gulf War? You can be pretty sure there were civilian casualties then...
... but I do have the Forgotten Realms atlas at home by Fonstad, and I have to say it's lovely. The maps contain an incredible amount of detail and are amazingly easy to read considering, and it's a pleasure to have maps that haven't been drawn by the author with little triangles for mountains :)
Also the maps depicting important scenes from the books really serve to make things clearer, especially during confusing scenes which occur over wide or tangled geographical areas. I can only imagine the effort that went into making these as consistent as possible with the books, especially in this case as the author cannot be contacted...
I'm not a huge Tolkien fan, but I might get this anyway just to look through. Maps are great, and I wish there were more books like this for all my favourite worlds :)
Next time you fly into Heathrow, keep an ewe out for an enormous gothic tower near the airport - that'll be the Sanitorium. Many people mistake it for Holloway's other famous building, the university nearby in Egham, but that's nowhere near as impressive.
But having lived inside Founder's (the Holloway building at Egham) for a year I can tell you it's pretty damn fun for exploring, especially after some hallucinogens...
For a start I'd dispute his claims that there are six numbers that constitute the makeup of everything. There's no mention of things like the masses of the fundamental particles, the interaction strengths of the four forces, Planck's constant etc. etc. His numbers, apart from D (although that is also looking more likely to not be fundamental), are secondary characteristics arising from the effects of the underlying forces.
On the other hand, chaotic inflation is a viable scientific theory, and has its proponents amongst the physics crowd. It's also worth having a look at Lee Smolin's book The Life of the Cosmos for an alternative explaination.
Personally I think we're going to have to wait until we've sorted out a theory of everything before we can attempt to really answer these questions. Given the direction superstring theory/M-theory is taking, it wouldn't suprise me if they said some pretty fundamental things about how the Universe came into existance.
British politics is much more interesting to watch... The parties actually hate each other, and preach nailing members of the other parties to the wall with industrial bolters.
It also helps that we're the only country in the world without proportional representation of some kind but with a strong third party IIRC. This means that there's somewhat less of the polarisation that America suffers from.
That, and they had Screaming Lord Sooch (sp?), head of the Monster Raving Loony Party. Now, that was fun to watch.
Good old Screaming Lord Sutch. His manifesto was that he'd call another general election the day after he got into power :) He was actually a very smart guy though, he managed to predict a lot of policy some 20 years before it was actually introduced, but he was ignored at the time for being too "radical". Well, he was, but he was right a lot of the time.
For the official homepage of the OMRLP, see here. Worth a look :)
True, and consider the amount of education that people would have to have to judge which issues deserve legislation and which don't? What proportion of the population has the expertise needed to judge the intricacies of, say, the rules that govern the American stock markets, or what effect raising or lowering a certain tax will have?
These are all very complex issues which require a lot of knowledge before you can make an effective judgement. That's why governments have people specifically devoted to studying these issues in depth.
People just aren't going to have the time to even study and think about these reports, let alone the entire issue. The only people who would vote would be the ones that are already informed about the subject, who would vote to please themselves (leading to an elite) and those who just voted without thinking (which is a dumb idea).
It's just not a viable solution at the moment. Chances are, it never will be unless we develop some kind of hivemind :)
Money and drugs. Dealers are also attracted to get rich quick schemes. Sure, it's hype. Nothing new here, not even your silly users vrs. abusers delusion.
So what, you're saying that everyone that uses drugs is an abuser? You don't see any difference between someone who has, say, the odd wrap of speed every month or two and someone who takes it every day? Believe me, there's a world of difference.
My dad's a cardiologist and he's seen the results of regular use. It's a heart that's mostly scar tissue before you are 30. This is also known as death and is generally a non event after you've spent all your money on drugs and driven off all of your friends.
Ah, so you do believe that drug use leads to an inevitable death, at age 30 no less. Whilst many drugs can, when taking in large quantities or over a period of time, have dangerous physical side effects, regular use is generally no more dangerous than drinking regularly, and certainly in the case of marijuana, much less so.
If it's not legal, you don't have any idea of what it is till you use it. Get Real, if you feel the urge to buy something like that you have a problem.
Unless you check out any of the dozens of online sources for drug information, such as the Vaults of Erowid. And considering the amount of people who have admitted to doing drugs, it strikes me as odd that you think each and every one of these people has a "problem".
Maybe you didn't mean it quite as it sounded, but your post comes across as unreasonably naive.
hmmm you know slashdot has prevented me from getting more work done than anything that ive done outside of work....
LOL! That is so true. Anyway, I agree with your original point, I wouldn't take a drugs test because I disagree with the principle. I don't smoke pot, so it wouldn't be any hassle for me to pass one (most drugs are out of your system after three days to a week), but that just isn't the point.
If you can't have as good of a time without them, then it starts to sound questionable...and if you can, then why are you bothering in the first place?
No, that's not quite what I meant... I've been out plenty of times without taking anything and had really excellent nights in much the same way, but there's a certain "intensity" (it's really hard to find the right word) that the drugs can provide. Plus, they really help when you want to dance for eight hours non-stop :)
That was all ten years or more ago. I never conciously quit. I just found different things to occupy myself with.
It seems that this is the most common pattern of drug use - it grows quickly when people start, levels out and then slowly drops off, usually in the mid-twenties. People don't "quit", they just stop using as much. I know I don't do as much as I used to.
How would define 'mild use'? Once a week, month? My experiences with addictive substances were that I started out with casual use and eventually, as my use became more frequent, found myself hooked. Hard.
Totally, I agree. But mild use is possible, although I'm sure how you'd define it varies from person to person. And the more addictive the substance, the more careful you do have to be with the amount and frequency you take.
Now I am not condemning anyone who uses drugs or saying that using something is going to get you hooked and ruin your life. But there is a real danger of physical addiction to a lot of people and discounting addiction as a 'myth' is kind of denying reality.
I'm not saying addiction is a myth - having been there I know damn well it isn't. But the one hit addict is a myth. And yes, I did misread the post I replied to... ah well it's only /. :)
Sounds like you've got your act together, but it also sounds like the chain smoker's "I can quit anytime I want to." If you really can just keep things recreational, and aren't harming anyone else, the Libertarian in me says go for it.
Hell, I smoke, and I *know* how hard that is to try and give up... and it is just a weekend thing nowadays, and not even every weekend. Drugs are something that people tend to slow down on over time. And they're certainly not necessary for a good night out, but they can and do help with the fun :)
Another "regular drug user" who tries to speak for the "underground drug use" masses. A pretty good sign is usually opinions such as "Most of the people I know" or "I can confidently state" that are tried to be spun as facts.
Hi. What separation of drug users is this you're talking about? Your "underground drug use" masses is an interesting concept, what exactly do you mean by this? What is the difference between a regular and an underground drug user? And are you really implying that these Silicon Valley types fall into the underground drug use group?
And you might want to know that addictive substances such as nicotine, heroin, and cocaine leads users to become abusers, because they eventually have to use it.
Oh really? Out of the three chemicals that you mention, nicotene is the most addictive, and even then a single hit won't get you addicted. Mild use without addiction can be acheived for all of these drugs. The myth of instant addiction is just that, a myth. Some drugs are more addictive than others sure, but there is no "take it once, you're doomed to be an addict" truth as you say.
there's no such thing as a 'user' of cocaine or any of the other hard-core drugs mentioned in the article, with the exception of prescription drugs. if you've progressed to the point that your conception of acceptable use includes these drugs, then chances are, you already have a problem.
Hello? Have you ever tried coke? Sure, it's damn nice and you do get the urge for some more, but it's no more than the urge you get to drink more when you've had a few. I've done coke quite a few times, and I've never felt some mad craving to rush out and get some more. I treat coke as a "party drug" for special occasions only. Hell, I haven't had any since Christmas, and it's not because I couldn't get/afford it.
You seem to have fallen under the propaganda spread by people like Barry McCaffrey (America's anti-drug main man) that drugs like cocaine, crack and heroin are instantly addictive and that casual use is impossible. This is nonsense in the same vein that "Reefer madness" was. Sure, they are addictive, but not to the point where a single hit makes you an abuser.
But the sinister allure of these drugs is that you are in control of them. Make no mistake--you aren't. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but with continued use, one day--these drugs will assert themselves over you and you'll have to acknowledge who's the boss.
The reason I got started with the problem was that I started doing it every day. This was because I had a lot of work at the time, and the speed helped me get it done. But I still take the stuff now, just sensibly when I'm going out or something. I'm not going to make the same mistake, there's no hidden catch that will turn me back into a speed freak six months down the line.
I totally agree, moderation is the key. I ended up dropping out of university early because I ended up addicted to amphetamines and it killed my ability to think for quite a while... but that's the only time I've ever had a problem. Now that I'm not caning it 24/7 it doesn't cause any more problems than going down the pub would, in fact it causes less - I don't usually end up puking and I don't have a hangover in the morning :)
It seems to me that drug use used to be limited not only in it's frequency of use and by a small group of people. I'm not sure why it's so popular. I've done a few drugs and none of them ever "did it" for me. The after-effects were much worse than any brief gain they gave me.
Erm, sure for you maybe, but me and millions of other people get a lot of enjoyment from the various chemicals out there. What I can't stand is alcohol, and I try not to drink wherever possible. This weekend I spent out clubbing with a group of people I'd met the week before at another club and I spent the night chatting, dancing and meeting new people, and yes, I was on drugs. And I had an absolutely brilliant time.
Is it me or has our society lost their souls (in general)? It seems that we've all forgotten how to live. The only thing we seem interested in any more is money and getting high (and technology).
You seem to be implying that taking drugs is somehow "soulless" or "unnatural". Why is this? Personally I find that they merely enhance what is already there, they certainly don't turn me into something that wasn't there already. I'm honestly curious...
Somehow I had gottten this rosy picture that engineers (especially software engineers), being people who were paid to think, would be smarter than to use drugs. I personally don't do drugs (scared of needles), drink (hate the taste of alchohol), smoke (allergic to tobacco smoke) or gamble (inefficient).
Okay fair enough that you don't do these things, it's your choice, but you are aware that no drugs actually require a needle to take? I've done a fair old amount of chemicals, but there's no way I'd ever inject.