Other than the bigger display, and thinner case, the iPhone 6 clearly takes its design cues from the 2007 iPhone "1", which Samsung (and others) then shamelessly copied, Home Button shape notwithstanding.
So yeah, I stand by original statement; especially because, rounded corners or no, without the iPhone, y'all would still be using flip phones or Blackberries.
I was kinda hoping that Apple was going to sit this trend out, too.
Like you, I have enough knowledge and experience as an embedded Dev. For over three decades to know that we just aren't quite "there" yet, and that not even the technical might of Apple can bend enough laws of physics to make the impractical a reality.
And like you, I think they have done about as good as "we" can right now, because, even though the Galaxy S has (battery-sucking) WiFi, and apparently has an OS that allows for limited App execution, it really isn't a replacement for your smartphone until it has a cellphone and a front-facing camera in it (and now we've broken the bank, power and space-wise).
So, in a sense, Apple has found the best sweet spot overall for this class of device. Even in TNG-world, sometimes they would have to link Tricorders together, or upload data sets to the Enterprise so that more compute-power could be brought to bear on a problem. Just like most people wouldn't expect to run Maya on their phone, I don't think it's reasonable to expect "smartphone parity" from a watch just yet.
It's not a matter of being fumble-fingered. Rather, the iPhine is small-enough that it usually drops below the top of my shirt pocket, and if you aren't really careful, it is all-too-easy to snag the top of the phone (my phone has a graphite-fiber case that adds about 2mm to the overall thickness of the phone, which doesn't help), or the shirt sort of "bunches-up" and "envelopes" the phone. Being in a rush, trying to answer the phone doesn't help, either.
As for Bluetooth headsets, not only do I find them universally fugly, but I'm not at all sanguine with having a source of microwave energy situated that close to my brain, sorry.
I am NOT apologizing for Apple; just trying to understand why this happened.
And it is obviously the fault of whoever Apple HIRED to handle the "broadcast". Because I doubt that even a company the size of Apple maintains a "Video Truck".
THOSE are the people who deserve to burn; because there really is no denying it, it sure seemed to be amateur-hour in the "video truck".
Using the six degrees of separation, does anyone here know who handled the "broadcast"/streaming duties? Anyone in CA remember SEEING that video truck, or know anything about all this?
Wow! Do you fucking kiss your fucking mother with that fucking mouth? (J/k)
To be perfectly honest, I didn't see your link; but after you mentioned "arm-movement", I do have enough common-sense, intelligence and knowledge of physics to realize you are correct, even without consulting the linked-site.
In short, you win. I know no one ever actually apologizes on/. , but I offer mine to you for not thinking the issue through (and for not seeing your link). Chalk it up to "Hm, I never thought about that!"
My main watch has 100m water resistance and for swimming/watersports I wear the cheaper one that has 200m water resistance.
I can't help it if your watch makers lie. I expect WR to 30ft (10m) to mean just that.
Or are scuba-divers/watersports enthusiasts (sorry, I just chuckled a little at that) just used to subtracting an order-of-magnitude from all their equipment's "water-resistant" specs, due to rampant fraud by equipment vendors?
Real transformers have VERY closely coupled magnetic domains. Particularly transformers designed to be efficient. This is essentially a wall wart grade device where efficiency is fairly irrelevant.
Don't kid yourself that this method of coupling relates at all to efficient transformer design. Now, we know it's Apple, but it's not the second coming of the Altivec.
Oh, the (mostly) unrealized glory of Altivec...
But anyway, I would say that, with the fairly-precise alignment afforded by the magnetic "clasping", that this particular arrangement actually stands a fighting-chance of attaining decent field-coupling.
And, as I said before; this is a Watch battery. I would expect this thing to charge in well under an hour. And Apple simply could not afford to mess around with the stuff (and the space!) necessary to have a real, physical connection that was also reasonably waterproof.
Well pray tell then, AC, what would have "Impressed" you? Perhaps an Apple Watch powered by Cold Fusion, or by harvesting heat energy from your body?
A real wearable computer that doesn't fucking need the smartphone besides it to be useful ?
Right now, Apple's smartwatch is nothing more than a glorified remote control for the iphone (5 and up). Ridiculous.
Samsung's Galaxy Gear S is leagues better than Apple's 0.01 version. There's simply no contest.
And people in Hell want Ice Water, too.
just HOW thick do you want the Apple Watch to be? Or, conversely, just HOW many SECONDS of battery life do you want?
Until we get a serious breakthrough in battery technology (or power-consumption figures), this is about where we are, sorry.
Apple Pay works with Visa, Mastercard, and American express? And it'll ship working with these while on AT&T & Verizon's networks? If I were Google, I'd lawyer up.
Visa, Mastercard, AT&T, and Verizon have all tried to ruin Google Wallet because they wanted to come up with their own standard for everyone to adopt. They are why Google Wallet isn't available on non Nexus devices from the big 2 wireless providers in the US.
So, if Google does it, these companies actively block it. If Apple does it, they welcome them with open arms?
That's bullshit.
So please tell me: Is there another "Wallet" system that has hardware integration, creating what amounts to a "Double-Blind" transaction that is essentially immune from hacking?
If Google cared about your privacy (which Eric Schmidt has publicly stated is a dead issue), and cared about selling hardware (which they clearly don't), then they could have made Google Wallet be as secure, or perhaps even more secure, than Apple's Wallet.
But they don't, so they didn't, so now Apple does their usual bit of swooping in from behind and blindsiding the competition with a system that in one fell swoop, overcomes the limitations and objections that NFC-based payment systems have.
Nope, it's called competition; something that Slashdot readers prize beyond many other things...
behind other phones n the market. Like it always has.
at 349, I might have bought one, depending on how it feels. But I am not also going to buy an iPhone. This reminds me of when the tried to sell macs by making iTunes mac only.
In what ways is Apple Pay not an advance over other smartphones? That alone is a huge feature for a huge percentage of phone users.
Also, you have a short memory: Apple released iTunes for Windows in October, 2003, just about as fast as they could port it from OS X, after introducing the iTunes Store. And, IIRC, the first iPods worked with Windows, too. I suppose you will now claim that iTunes was originally withheld from OS X, because Apple wanted to keep users on MacOS 9, too... (rolls eyes)
Two competitive advantages a $10 Timex from Walmart has over the Apple watch: You can take it to the pool, and the battery lasts years without requiring a charge or replacement.
Let's take that down to one advantage (batter life).
I heard that the Apple Watch will withstand underwater pressure to 30ft, which is about as far as most casual divers go, due to nitrogen issues ("the Bends").
The phone is big and needs to be unlocked to view texts/emails.
This.
I wonder how many iPhone users, including me, would be more likely to use a Passcode on their phones if they didn't have to mess with "unlocking" for every little thing?
What exactly is the reason to have this as well, as opposed to pulling your phone out of your pocket?
Because you don't have to fumble-fuck around with your phone, pulling it out of your pocket.
I was the first to say "Why?" about a Watch; but as usual, Apple has pretty much nailed the UI, and when they make it so you can answer calls from your Phone on the iWatch, then the idea will really make sense.
I can't tell you how many calls I have missed, or nearly missed, because I was trying to fish my phone out of a shirt pocket, let alone a pants pocket. Being able to answer calls on a wrist-mounted (and therefore instantly accessible) device, would be a huge.
Did I miss it, or is that possible with the Apple Watch already. I know you can do Messaging (which is cool, too); but I'd really like to be able to at least answer, if not place, a voice call, too.
Whoever was in charge of the live stream are a bunch of amateurs, incompetent idiots and should be fired, publicity shamed and never hired again.
Interlacing problems with the image, video looping, audio with no video, chinese audio on top of the english one, a stream so full of errors that it froze my Apple TV.
I stopped watching and I'll try later tonight, after Apple has cleaned up that fucking mess. What a joke.
I may be an Apple user and fanboy, but this time the Microsoft and Android fanboys can rip into Apple for this clusterfuck of problems, I'll be cheering for them.
While I had some problems with the stream for about the first 1/2 hour or so, they eventually got it stable.
You do realize, of course, that that was likely hands-down, the most amount of streaming viewers of any single internet broadcast, right?
But I am pretty sure there are meetings going on right now at Apple, and some streaming "experts" are seeing another side of Tim Cook...
The thing that disappoints me is the way they've done charging. When I heard "inductive charging" I thought they mean like a Qi or electric toothbrush at least. And I really like that idea. Just toss your watch down on a pad at night and pick it up the next morning. But reading more about it, it looks like the charger will actual be attached by a cable with a magnetic connector at the end. So you'll get all the energy inefficiency of inductive charging and all the inconvenience and connector wear-and-tear of standard cable charging--the worst of both worlds.
Inductive charging doesn't have to be wasteful. After all, we're really just talking about a Transformer, whose primary winding are in the "charger", and the secondary is in the device. That essentially is how every single power supply (with very rare exceptions, and leaving batteries out of this), works.
Depending on the frequencies, transformers can get pretty efficient, upwards of 90%, IIRC. And I assure you, that the AC signal that is going over the "gap" between the charger and the Watch is going to be in the high kiloHertz, or even MegaHertz, range, thus making the energy transfer pretty efficient.
Besides, we're talking about a WATCH battery; how many Joules do you really think they can fit into a battery that fits into that case?
Probably the same way that most popular operating systems store text files as a list of lines separated by newline characters, encoded as 0x0A on UNIX or Windows but 0x0D on Apple II or classic Mac OS.
Bzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing...
Due to a hardware shortcut involving the Keyboard (Keyboard Strobe was expressed as the MSB of the Value when the Keyboard location ($C000) was Read, which extended to the Keyboard Input routines in the Monitor ROMs, Apple ][ systems used a unique "High-Bit ASCII" character-set (but not as "Unique" as the C-64 version of "ASCII"!!!), such that the MSB was ALWAYS "1".
Therefore, in Apple ][ world, a CR was expressed as $8D (0x8D), rather than $0D (0x0D).
Fortunately, this little peccadillo was NOT carried into the Lisa or Mac, which operate as the Parent noted.
Ok, you want to play dueling citations? I'll bite.
First off, only TWO of your cites even contain the word "Cancer" in the title; and of those two, one (Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence) states clearly in it's abstract that there IS NO RELATIONSHIP between Marijuana use and Cancer.
And while trying to find a non-paywalls version of the other study you cited that seemed reasonably on-point ((paraphrasing the title, because mobile slashdot ate my first attempt) "Marijuana and Cancer: Harmful or Helpful?"), I never did find that study thI could read without paying; but, along the way, I ran into this WONDERFUL study on an NIH site that I DARE you to reasonably and factually Rebut:
From the Cancer portion of that 42-page study/report:
Cannabinoids and Cancer
Possibly the greatest harm-reducing potential afforded by cannabinoids comes from their use by cancer patients. Cannabinoids possess numerous pharmacological properties that are often beneficial to cancer patients. Many people are aware of the anti-emetic and appetite stimulating effects of cannabinoids [64]. A systemic study designed to quantify the efficacy of cannabinoids as an anti-emetic agent examined data from 30 randomized controlled studies that were published between 1975 and 1997 and included 1366 patients who were administered non-smoked cannabis [65]. For patients requiring a medium level of control, cannabinoids were the preferred treatment (between 38% and 90%). This preference was lost for patients requiring a low or a high level of control. Sedation and euphoria were noted as beneficial side effects, whereas dizziness, dysphoria, hallucinations, and arterial hypotension were identified as harmful side effects.
The cancer cell killing [66] and pain relieving properties of cannabinoids are less well known to the general public. Cannabinoids may prove to be useful chemotherapeutic agents [67]. Numerous cancer types are killed in cell cultures and in animals by cannabinoids. For example, cannabinoids kill the cancer cells of various lymphoblastic malignancies such as leukemia and lymphoma [68], skin cancer [69], glioma [70], breast and prostate cancer [71], pheochromocytoma [72], thyroid cancer [73], and colorectal cancer[74]. Since 2002 THC has been used in a clinical trial in Spain for the treatment of glioma [75]. However, not all cancers are the same, and cannabinoid-induced biochemical modifications, while effective in killing the cells of some cancers, as indicated above, can have the opposite effect on the cells of other types of cancer. For example, recent work has shown that the synthetic cannabinoid, methanandamide, can promote the growth of lung cancer cells by a receptor independent pathway that involves the up-regulation of COX2 [76]. Although much has been learned about the therapeutic value of cannabinoid agonists and antagonists in different situations, scientific understanding of how to appropriately modulate the endocannabinoid pathways remains preliminary, with much remaining to be learned.
The rest of the report is equally enlightening (and enlightened), and I double-dog dare you to read it objectively and not come to the conclusion that you've been misled by all the fervent anti-Marijuana propaganda.
But, I feel I may be giving you too much credit. Feel free to prove that my opinion of you is incorrect, and that you can let facts "in", at least once in awhile, even when it means you have to reconsider something you have simply "decided" is true.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they did. It was called the Original iPhone.
Other than the bigger display, and thinner case, the iPhone 6 clearly takes its design cues from the 2007 iPhone "1", which Samsung (and others) then shamelessly copied, Home Button shape notwithstanding.
So yeah, I stand by original statement; especially because, rounded corners or no, without the iPhone, y'all would still be using flip phones or Blackberries.
I was kinda hoping that Apple was going to sit this trend out, too.
Like you, I have enough knowledge and experience as an embedded Dev. For over three decades to know that we just aren't quite "there" yet, and that not even the technical might of Apple can bend enough laws of physics to make the impractical a reality.
And like you, I think they have done about as good as "we" can right now, because, even though the Galaxy S has (battery-sucking) WiFi, and apparently has an OS that allows for limited App execution, it really isn't a replacement for your smartphone until it has a cellphone and a front-facing camera in it (and now we've broken the bank, power and space-wise).
So, in a sense, Apple has found the best sweet spot overall for this class of device. Even in TNG-world, sometimes they would have to link Tricorders together, or upload data sets to the Enterprise so that more compute-power could be brought to bear on a problem. Just like most people wouldn't expect to run Maya on their phone, I don't think it's reasonable to expect "smartphone parity" from a watch just yet.
It's not a matter of being fumble-fingered. Rather, the iPhine is small-enough that it usually drops below the top of my shirt pocket, and if you aren't really careful, it is all-too-easy to snag the top of the phone (my phone has a graphite-fiber case that adds about 2mm to the overall thickness of the phone, which doesn't help), or the shirt sort of "bunches-up" and "envelopes" the phone. Being in a rush, trying to answer the phone doesn't help, either.
As for Bluetooth headsets, not only do I find them universally fugly, but I'm not at all sanguine with having a source of microwave energy situated that close to my brain, sorry.
I am NOT apologizing for Apple; just trying to understand why this happened.
And it is obviously the fault of whoever Apple HIRED to handle the "broadcast". Because I doubt that even a company the size of Apple maintains a "Video Truck".
THOSE are the people who deserve to burn; because there really is no denying it, it sure seemed to be amateur-hour in the "video truck".
Using the six degrees of separation, does anyone here know who handled the "broadcast"/streaming duties? Anyone in CA remember SEEING that video truck, or know anything about all this?
Wow! Do you fucking kiss your fucking mother with that fucking mouth? (J/k)
/. , but I offer mine to you for not thinking the issue through (and for not seeing your link). Chalk it up to "Hm, I never thought about that!"
To be perfectly honest, I didn't see your link; but after you mentioned "arm-movement", I do have enough common-sense, intelligence and knowledge of physics to realize you are correct, even without consulting the linked-site.
In short, you win. I know no one ever actually apologizes on
Judge Koh? Is that you?
Wait! I thought she was the judge who is blatantly an Apple-Hater, right?
WR to 30 feet means bad weather and doing the washing up at best. You even jump into a swimming pool and you're in trouble.
http://littlejewellers.co.uk/f...
My main watch has 100m water resistance and for swimming/watersports I wear the cheaper one that has 200m water resistance.
I can't help it if your watch makers lie. I expect WR to 30ft (10m) to mean just that.
Or are scuba-divers/watersports enthusiasts (sorry, I just chuckled a little at that) just used to subtracting an order-of-magnitude from all their equipment's "water-resistant" specs, due to rampant fraud by equipment vendors?
Real transformers have VERY closely coupled magnetic domains. Particularly transformers designed to be efficient. This is essentially a wall wart grade device where efficiency is fairly irrelevant.
Don't kid yourself that this method of coupling relates at all to efficient transformer design. Now, we know it's Apple, but it's not the second coming of the Altivec.
Oh, the (mostly) unrealized glory of Altivec...
But anyway, I would say that, with the fairly-precise alignment afforded by the magnetic "clasping", that this particular arrangement actually stands a fighting-chance of attaining decent field-coupling.
And, as I said before; this is a Watch battery. I would expect this thing to charge in well under an hour. And Apple simply could not afford to mess around with the stuff (and the space!) necessary to have a real, physical connection that was also reasonably waterproof.
Not impressed.
Well pray tell then, AC, what would have "Impressed" you? Perhaps an Apple Watch powered by Cold Fusion, or by harvesting heat energy from your body?
A real wearable computer that doesn't fucking need the smartphone besides it to be useful ? Right now, Apple's smartwatch is nothing more than a glorified remote control for the iphone (5 and up). Ridiculous. Samsung's Galaxy Gear S is leagues better than Apple's 0.01 version. There's simply no contest.
And people in Hell want Ice Water, too.
just HOW thick do you want the Apple Watch to be? Or, conversely, just HOW many SECONDS of battery life do you want?
Until we get a serious breakthrough in battery technology (or power-consumption figures), this is about where we are, sorry.
Apple Pay works with Visa, Mastercard, and American express? And it'll ship working with these while on AT&T & Verizon's networks? If I were Google, I'd lawyer up.
Visa, Mastercard, AT&T, and Verizon have all tried to ruin Google Wallet because they wanted to come up with their own standard for everyone to adopt. They are why Google Wallet isn't available on non Nexus devices from the big 2 wireless providers in the US.
So, if Google does it, these companies actively block it. If Apple does it, they welcome them with open arms?
That's bullshit.
So please tell me: Is there another "Wallet" system that has hardware integration, creating what amounts to a "Double-Blind" transaction that is essentially immune from hacking?
If Google cared about your privacy (which Eric Schmidt has publicly stated is a dead issue), and cared about selling hardware (which they clearly don't), then they could have made Google Wallet be as secure, or perhaps even more secure, than Apple's Wallet.
But they don't, so they didn't, so now Apple does their usual bit of swooping in from behind and blindsiding the competition with a system that in one fell swoop, overcomes the limitations and objections that NFC-based payment systems have.
Nope, it's called competition; something that Slashdot readers prize beyond many other things...
behind other phones n the market. Like it always has.
at 349, I might have bought one, depending on how it feels. But I am not also going to buy an iPhone. This reminds me of when the tried to sell macs by making iTunes mac only.
In what ways is Apple Pay not an advance over other smartphones? That alone is a huge feature for a huge percentage of phone users.
Also, you have a short memory: Apple released iTunes for Windows in October, 2003, just about as fast as they could port it from OS X, after introducing the iTunes Store. And, IIRC, the first iPods worked with Windows, too. I suppose you will now claim that iTunes was originally withheld from OS X, because Apple wanted to keep users on MacOS 9, too... (rolls eyes)
I suppose Apple had to join in on the 2009 smartphone market at some point. 5+ years too late, better than never?
They were "late" to the Music Player and Phone markets, too. And look how that turned out.
>We should be able to run all legacy applications back to MacOS 1.0
You want an OS to continue to improve, while being able to run 15 year old apps?
Good luck with that.
Yeah.
Ask Microsoft how well that panned-out for them.
Two competitive advantages a $10 Timex from Walmart has over the Apple watch: You can take it to the pool, and the battery lasts years without requiring a charge or replacement.
Let's take that down to one advantage (batter life).
I heard that the Apple Watch will withstand underwater pressure to 30ft, which is about as far as most casual divers go, due to nitrogen issues ("the Bends").
The phone is big and needs to be unlocked to view texts/emails.
This.
I wonder how many iPhone users, including me, would be more likely to use a Passcode on their phones if they didn't have to mess with "unlocking" for every little thing?
What exactly is the reason to have this as well, as opposed to pulling your phone out of your pocket?
Because you don't have to fumble-fuck around with your phone, pulling it out of your pocket.
I was the first to say "Why?" about a Watch; but as usual, Apple has pretty much nailed the UI, and when they make it so you can answer calls from your Phone on the iWatch, then the idea will really make sense.
I can't tell you how many calls I have missed, or nearly missed, because I was trying to fish my phone out of a shirt pocket, let alone a pants pocket. Being able to answer calls on a wrist-mounted (and therefore instantly accessible) device, would be a huge.
Did I miss it, or is that possible with the Apple Watch already. I know you can do Messaging (which is cool, too); but I'd really like to be able to at least answer, if not place, a voice call, too.
Whoever was in charge of the live stream are a bunch of amateurs, incompetent idiots and should be fired, publicity shamed and never hired again.
Interlacing problems with the image, video looping, audio with no video, chinese audio on top of the english one, a stream so full of errors that it froze my Apple TV.
I stopped watching and I'll try later tonight, after Apple has cleaned up that fucking mess. What a joke.
I may be an Apple user and fanboy, but this time the Microsoft and Android fanboys can rip into Apple for this clusterfuck of problems, I'll be cheering for them.
While I had some problems with the stream for about the first 1/2 hour or so, they eventually got it stable.
You do realize, of course, that that was likely hands-down, the most amount of streaming viewers of any single internet broadcast, right?
But I am pretty sure there are meetings going on right now at Apple, and some streaming "experts" are seeing another side of Tim Cook...
The new iPhone looks like a Samsung Galaxy.
I think you have that backwards...
The thing that disappoints me is the way they've done charging. When I heard "inductive charging" I thought they mean like a Qi or electric toothbrush at least. And I really like that idea. Just toss your watch down on a pad at night and pick it up the next morning. But reading more about it, it looks like the charger will actual be attached by a cable with a magnetic connector at the end. So you'll get all the energy inefficiency of inductive charging and all the inconvenience and connector wear-and-tear of standard cable charging--the worst of both worlds.
Inductive charging doesn't have to be wasteful. After all, we're really just talking about a Transformer, whose primary winding are in the "charger", and the secondary is in the device. That essentially is how every single power supply (with very rare exceptions, and leaving batteries out of this), works.
Depending on the frequencies, transformers can get pretty efficient, upwards of 90%, IIRC. And I assure you, that the AC signal that is going over the "gap" between the charger and the Watch is going to be in the high kiloHertz, or even MegaHertz, range, thus making the energy transfer pretty efficient.
Besides, we're talking about a WATCH battery; how many Joules do you really think they can fit into a battery that fits into that case?
Not impressed.
Well pray tell then, AC, what would have "Impressed" you? Perhaps an Apple Watch powered by Cold Fusion, or by harvesting heat energy from your body?
So you've got one of these new iPhones and you've checked it?
Do you really think that Tim Cook is going to go on stage in front of literally millions of viewers and say that if it isn't true?
You DO realize, of course, that while it is not "verifiable" at this point, it will be in about a month.
After all, you trusted us with your nude photos.
Except the data breach you are alluding to was the fault of people using weak passwords, rather than a fault in the security of iCloud.
Having said that, anyone who posts nudie selfies onto ANY online/cloud-based storage deserves exactly what they get.
Probably the same way that most popular operating systems store text files as a list of lines separated by newline characters, encoded as 0x0A on UNIX or Windows but 0x0D on Apple II or classic Mac OS.
Bzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing...
Due to a hardware shortcut involving the Keyboard (Keyboard Strobe was expressed as the MSB of the Value when the Keyboard location ($C000) was Read, which extended to the Keyboard Input routines in the Monitor ROMs, Apple ][ systems used a unique "High-Bit ASCII" character-set (but not as "Unique" as the C-64 version of "ASCII"!!!), such that the MSB was ALWAYS "1".
Therefore, in Apple ][ world, a CR was expressed as $8D (0x8D), rather than $0D (0x0D).
Fortunately, this little peccadillo was NOT carried into the Lisa or Mac, which operate as the Parent noted.
Ok. Perhaps you will find this report a little more "targeted".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Ok, you want to play dueling citations? I'll bite.
First off, only TWO of your cites even contain the word "Cancer" in the title; and of those two, one (Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence) states clearly in it's abstract that there IS NO RELATIONSHIP between Marijuana use and Cancer.
And while trying to find a non-paywalls version of the other study you cited that seemed reasonably on-point ((paraphrasing the title, because mobile slashdot ate my first attempt) "Marijuana and Cancer: Harmful or Helpful?"), I never did find that study thI could read without paying; but, along the way, I ran into this WONDERFUL study on an NIH site that I DARE you to reasonably and factually Rebut:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
From the Cancer portion of that 42-page study/report:
Cannabinoids and Cancer
Possibly the greatest harm-reducing potential afforded by cannabinoids comes from their use by cancer patients. Cannabinoids possess numerous pharmacological properties that are often beneficial to cancer patients. Many people are aware of the anti-emetic and appetite stimulating effects of cannabinoids [64]. A systemic study designed to quantify the efficacy of cannabinoids as an anti-emetic agent examined data from 30 randomized controlled studies that were published between 1975 and 1997 and included 1366 patients who were administered non-smoked cannabis [65]. For patients requiring a medium level of control, cannabinoids were the preferred treatment (between 38% and 90%). This preference was lost for patients requiring a low or a high level of control. Sedation and euphoria were noted as beneficial side effects, whereas dizziness, dysphoria, hallucinations, and arterial hypotension were identified as harmful side effects.
The cancer cell killing [66] and pain relieving properties of cannabinoids are less well known to the general public. Cannabinoids may prove to be useful chemotherapeutic agents [67]. Numerous cancer types are killed in cell cultures and in animals by cannabinoids. For example, cannabinoids kill the cancer cells of various lymphoblastic malignancies such as leukemia and lymphoma [68], skin cancer [69], glioma [70], breast and prostate cancer [71], pheochromocytoma [72], thyroid cancer [73], and colorectal cancer[74]. Since 2002 THC has been used in a clinical trial in Spain for the treatment of glioma [75]. However, not all cancers are the same, and cannabinoid-induced biochemical modifications, while effective in killing the cells of some cancers, as indicated above, can have the opposite effect on the cells of other types of cancer. For example, recent work has shown that the synthetic cannabinoid, methanandamide, can promote the growth of lung cancer cells by a receptor independent pathway that involves the up-regulation of COX2 [76]. Although much has been learned about the therapeutic value of cannabinoid agonists and antagonists in different situations, scientific understanding of how to appropriately modulate the endocannabinoid pathways remains preliminary, with much remaining to be learned.
The rest of the report is equally enlightening (and enlightened), and I double-dog dare you to read it objectively and not come to the conclusion that you've been misled by all the fervent anti-Marijuana propaganda.
But, I feel I may be giving you too much credit. Feel free to prove that my opinion of you is incorrect, and that you can let facts "in", at least once in awhile, even when it means you have to reconsider something you have simply "decided" is true.