Apple lost to Nokia in their long-running patent battle and is paying through the nose, so much money in fact that it's going to improve Nokia's bottom line.
More than anything else, isn't that more of a statement of how weak Nokia's finances are?
in this case, the iPhone aficionado because he's going to be making up the difference.
Unlike your examples, you're not dealing with mindless fanboys that will buy anything with an Apple sticker on it, you're dealing with professionals that need to get their work done.
Which is why they should deploy FCPX on one or two workstations, and let their editors play with it for awhile before deciding if it is a good thing for them.
But, if they are just going to nuke their FCP7 install and install FCPX on every machine, then they are hardly professionals. I isn't like people in that trade haven't been talking about it for a long time. Apple said it was going to be brand new. Surprise! They were telling the truth!
Just like with QuickTime X, there are some missing features; but those end up coming back. Fortunately, Apple's design for FCPX is much more modular internally; so the internal components can be updated and added much more quickly now.
So be patient, give Apple some constructive feedback. they do listen.
...and even I'm having trouble caring about this. It's one thing when they talk about it on the Mac news and rumors sites I go to, but here too? Come on. They've already announced it, so it's not like we're getting a sneak peek of some forbidden information. The features are already known, nothing newsworthy has been discovered yet, and it's not available to the public, but will be soon. Its release will be newsworthy in a few months, but the release of a beta build of it that's only for developers and doesn't change much, let alone signal when a potential release date might be? No.
So, your interest level is so low, that you felt compelled to click on the story just to bitch about its very existence?
Pro tip: When encountering a headline for a story for which you have little to no interest, simply direct your attention to other stories. That way, you won't feel compelled to bitch about the story that you didn't care about, thus polluting slashdot's database with even more useless infromation, with your useless comments about useless (to you) information.
Or are you just trying to make slashdot's backups take longer, and waste everyone's time and energy, who apparently did find the story of interest?
Ignoring the fact that I'm in the UK and therefore what is grammatically correct in English may vary across the various dialects over the world, doesn't the US constitution contain the phrase "We the people" rather than "Us the people".
And not trying to be pedantic either but it should be "unless you want TO continue sounding like an idiot".
Ok, strap in, guv'ner, because 'ere we go!
Because it is frankly a seldom-used sentence structure in modern english (on either side of the pond), I had forgotten about the "us" vs. "we" exception that deals with something called "apositives".
The difference is when the us/we is used as the subject of the sentence (e.g. We the People), as opposed to the object of the sentence (e.g. stay away from US).
We/us when used as the subject of a sentence, often occurs in a sentence clause that is separated by a comma. The acutal phrase is "We the people of the United States,...". Note that you could actually remove all the words after the "We", up to the comma, and the sentence would "read" the same. Also note that, besides making nearly all Americans cry, the we/us rule of "sounding right" would obviously be violated by replacing the "we" with "us" at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution.
Here is a page object that addresses that very subject, using "We the people" as the example.
And, if you consider when the U.S. Constitution was written, and by whom (ex-Brits), I think you would agree that it would have far more "U.K. English" grammatical forms than modern "U.S. English". Besides, I really don't think that "which English" matters on the us/we rule. If I am incorrect on that point, please feel free to educate me.
As for the missing "to" in my last sentence, that would be a "typo", not a grammatical error. I wasn't very awake when I posted my comment, and simply overlooked the missing "to", sorry!
But thanks for pointing it out, you damned dirty hippie!;-)
It's +1 now, so either that editor is slacking or...
You also realize that Slashdot does 503 occasionally for everyone, right? Some days worse than others? I'm going to guess that you're either being paranoid here, or are getting MITM'd by your lovely proxy.
However, what IS it with slashdot?!? They have got to have some of THE worst web-coders on the planet!
I have never seen another site with so many coding errors. It's like the site is coded by six year olds (with apologies to all six year olds, everywhere). Several recent and ridiculously annoying errors that come to mind are:
1. Banner ad partially obscures the login "dialog". Finally fixed, but it took WEEKS to fix that simple issue.
2. When replying through a "reply" email link (in my case, from gmail), when you get the "mini-thread", and click the "Reply" link on that page on slashdot (which opens up the form that allows you to actually, uh, TYPE your reply), as soon as you click in that text field (where you are supposed to, uh, TYPE), the browser immediately scrolls to the top of the "mini-thread". Scroll down. Click. Back to the TOP we go!. The ONLY thing that seems to stop that behavior is to mash on the PageDn key a bunch of times, then click in the field. And even THAT seems to take several trips back up to the top of the page before the text cursor will "stay put" in the edit field, so that you can, uh, actually TYPE. THAT BEHAVIOR HAS EXISTED EVER SINCE THE NEW LAYOUT, AND STILL ISN'T FIXED!
3. Another annoyance with the "mini-thread" page is that the "Log In" link simply doesn't work. If you happen to be logged in already, fine. But if not, you CANNOT log in to post your reply, and must either post as AC, OR open the main Slashdot page, and Log In there (which I assumes creates a session cookie).
4. Speaking of Logging In, if you Log In from within a "story", you are immediately bounced OUT of the story, and taken to the main Slashdot page.
5. When clicking the "Submit" button after entering a comment, about 1 time in 20 (sometimes more often), it never seems to come back from the "spinning wheel" bit, or, sometimes you get the dreaded "The resource is no longer valid" error. WTF IS UP WITH THAT?!?!? And it seems to have NOTHING to do with any "timeout" (or any REASONABLE timeout).
6. When viewing stories past the first page-full (in other words, if you have clicked the "More Stories" button), actually ENTERING one of those stories and then hitting the "back" button (to get back to the list of stories) immediately goes back to the "first" page of stores, with NONE of the stories past that page visible again (just like it is when you first enter slashdot's main page). This isn't so bad when the story you were looking at is only one "more stories"-click away; but on non-slow news days, sometimes stories are so rapidly pushed off the main page, that it is common to be browsing stories that are two or more pages "down" from the main page, and it gets to be QUITE annoying.
I hasten to add that, in my experience with the world-wide-web view of the internet, which goes back to at least 1992 (or earlier) I have NEVER encountered ANY of these problems on ANY "forum"-type website. Never, ever, ever. And its doubly sad, considering Slashdot is supposed to be a "geek" site. You'd think with all the unemployed neckbeards sitting around, that Slashdot would be able to find at least ONE decent web developer.
But apparently not...
And that comment about test servers was right on. If slashdot even uses them, it sure doesn't seem to then add the TESTING phase before changes are made "live".
The way you can decide which is correct is to remove the word following the "we" or "us" (in this case, "hippies"), and then see which one "sounds" right.
For example, which one "sounds" right?: "...stay away from we...", or "...stay away from us..."?
No trying to be pedantic; just trying to be helpful. That is, unless you want continue sounding like an idiot...
On the other hand, applying these statistics to all Android phones is misleading and an abuse of statistics and probability. You can't take an aggregate statistic of a heterogeneous sample and apply it to a single datapoint.
Here is why it is a fair comparison:
When Android fanbois want to crow about how the sale of Android devices outpaces the sale of say, iOS devices, no allowance is made for the "EZ-Break" cheap-ass Android phones that were sold, but now lie broken in someone's drawer or in a landfill, and then were replaced with another Android phone (further artificially inflating the "marketshare"-thru-sales-numbers statistics). Do iPhones fail? Sure; but obviously not at the same rate as the Android phones. And it doesn't take much of a difference in original failure rate to create a seemingly significant "bump" in sales figures.
So, that is why it is fair to lump all the Android sales together. Because all of those sales are considered by the Android fanbois to be currently active units, and this high failure rate adjusts that total downward in a statistically correct manner.
This really smells like either fanboy marketing posing as journalism or an Apple smear campaign getting primed for their latest iPhone entry. Either way, the fact there is more than a couple of posts to this article submission is pretty pathetic.
Of course this is fanboy marketing and/or an Apple smear campaign. That's why it shows Apple and Windows neck and neck, and BlackBerry with a failure rate less than HALF of the iPhone's.
Considering that it showed that Windows Mobile and iPhone are essentially tied, and that BlackBerry has a failure rate that is less than half of the iPhone, I'd venture a guess and say "Are you fucking nuts?"
If they're using it wrong, then they have a problem with it. Whom is pretty much deprecated anyway. Telling them the rule which is natural to you is one method. Telling them to use who is another method. Either way, you'll end up speaking in a manner that isn't generally considered incorrect.
Things like that only become deprecated through laziness.
ARM is supposed to have a pretty clean instruction set, so maybe even use ARM instead of an old 8 bit micro. x86 is ugly-- as a beginner, would stay away from it.
Um, ARMs may have a "clean" instruction set; but it is NOT designed for humans to code in!
I cut my teeth on 6502 assembler and Integer BASIC on the Apple 1 and Apple ][, and I am here to tell you that the 6502 is, hands-down, the easiest CPU to code Assembler in (6800 being a close, and somewhat related, second).
My suggestion would be to find a good Apple ][ emulator (I think that machine has been emulated on virtually (haha) every single platform). And with the speeds of modern CPUs, it is WAY easy to emulate at, or even well beyond, "bare metal" speeds. Heck, you could probably code an Apple ][ emulation in an INTERPRETED language on today's computers!
But serously, having coded for a wide variety of 8 bit personal computers, and an even wider variety of 8/16/32 bit microprocessors and microcontrollers, I still enjoyed coding on the 6502 more than any other micro, hands-down.
I do believe in the basic (haha) premise that you should learn assembler first, otherwise, the CPU is too much of a "black box", and you never develop a true understanding of the low-level stuff that is going on. And BASIC, and particularly a character-based, interpreted BASIC, is the best for learning program flow, logic control, and (yes you CAN do it in BASIC) good program design.
Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana
and from the article you linked:
Recent research has not yet proven that marihuana use significantly impairs driving ability or performance. The Commission believes, nonetheless, that driving while under the influence of any psychoactive drug is a serious risk to public safety; the acute effects of marihuana intoxication, spatial and time distortion and slowed reflexes may impair driving performance. That the risk of injury may be greater for alcohol than for marihuana matters little.
Really though, the fact that marijuana has a negative impact on reaction time (something well documented) should be enough for you to realize that being high will affect your driving.
Just because someone tests positive for marijuana does not mean they were high when the test was done.
One of the ridiculous things about pot is that the metabolites stay in your bloodstream for several WEEKS. Doesn't mean the person was high at the time the test was taken.
Most of the problem with the legalization ballot measure in California was the campaign against it by the Humbolt County types who are currently "legal" growers...basically they pushed hard and begged for support from the public when medical mj was up for vote, but when it was opened up to the idea of real legalization they saw it as potential competition and profit loss, developed a "fuck you I got mine" attitude and turned on those they begged support from to start with.
That is EXACTLY true. And when I heard about that from some friends who personally knew people out there doing exactly that, it pissed me off to no end!
While I agree that driving under the influence of THC is not as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol, that does not mean that is as safe as normal driving. A car plowing into a pedestrian at 30mph instead of 60mph might not hurt as much, but it can still be fatal. I share the same concern as you about police having to do either invasive roadside tests or taking blood samples though, hence my want for a breathalyzer like mechanism for detecting high levels of THC.
I really hope something can be figured out though, since way to much time and money has been invested in criminalizing something that really isn't a big deal.
You find me even ONE traffic fatality that was attributable to ONLY marijuana. Marijuana smokers realize they are impaired, and actually adjust their driving habits accordingly. All "slow stoned drivers" jokes aside, studies have shown that is exactly the case. The net effect is that stoned drivers, unlike drunk drivers, are on balance, no less safe than their sober counterparts.
Marijuana is the most profitable illegal drug. Last numbers I heard said that $100 spent on growing turns into over $20,000 on the streets.
You are obviously getting your figures from the DEA. They take everything down to the most granular level, to try and make it look like one person makes that incredible profit.
But the fact of the matter is, there are usually quite a few distribution tiers between the farmer and the consumer (far more than in most other products). And each one of those people makes a LITTLE profit.
However, even with that being said, I have a hard time coming up with how those figures are attainable. Because, that assumes that the pot is grown outdoors, with no artificial lights, control of pollenization, etc. In other words, not Sinsemilla (seedless) pot. And pot with seeds will NEVER command the end-user prices that might turn that $100 into $20,000. People aren't stupid.
Besides, without stating how much pot one would be growing for that $100, there is absolutely no way to even check or challenge that claim. It is merely a set of numbers that are pulled out of the Drug Czar's ass.
As a citizen of a third world hell hole, I'm really tired of being mugged by addicts, with a corrupt police force since the drug traffickers have a constant inflow of dollars and euros selling shit to your fat asses.
Calm down! We're talking about Pot, not Crack. Big, Big difference.
Marijuana is simply not physically addictive. The National Commission on Marihuana(sic) and Drug Abuse (a/k/a the Shafer Commission) looked into this exact point. They traveled to countries where people had been HEAVILY smokin' the ganj since they were little kids. They asked them if they could take their Pot away. All of them said "Sure". They did. No withdrawals. No muggings. No nothing. The people just shrugged their collective shoulders and went on about their business.
And I should know: My Mom was a staff member on the Commission (actually the assistant to the Chairman of the Commission, Gov. Raymond P. Shafer), and I heard these (and other) stories from her, first hand.
Here's a pithy summation from the report: "The criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance."
But yet, because of Tricky Dick, here we are, almost 40 years later... And that's the sad, sad truth.
I think you need to re-evaluate your information. Pot smoke contains most of the same carcinogens as regular tobacco smoke. Likewise, THC does have some CNS depressant characteristics.
You would be much more accurate to say that: "Marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco." Otherwise, you're basing your argument on a fallacy, which allows opponents to discount the entire argument.
Actually, you are incorrect.
A not well-publicized fact about marijuana smokers is that, unlike cigarette smokers, pot smokers have no greater chance of getting lung cancer or even COPD than people who smoke NOTHING. In fact, there is evidence that it may even help COPD patients.
Well, this is that patent. And Apple deserves every single year of their protection.
Why? The fact that you, or anyone else, likes the iPhone is not justification for a bad, overbroad patent. That actually hurts you, in terms of the slowed pace of progress, if you had the wit to see that.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't know that. Actually, you do ...
Sure I do. The evidence is there for all to see.
Apple lost to Nokia in their long-running patent battle and is paying through the nose, so much money in fact that it's going to improve Nokia's bottom line.
More than anything else, isn't that more of a statement of how weak Nokia's finances are?
in this case, the iPhone aficionado because he's going to be making up the difference.
You don't know that, actually, do you?
Stop being Steve's bitch for once in your life.
Stop being an Anonymous Coward for once in your life.
Unlike your examples, you're not dealing with mindless fanboys that will buy anything with an Apple sticker on it, you're dealing with professionals that need to get their work done.
Which is why they should deploy FCPX on one or two workstations, and let their editors play with it for awhile before deciding if it is a good thing for them.
But, if they are just going to nuke their FCP7 install and install FCPX on every machine, then they are hardly professionals. I isn't like people in that trade haven't been talking about it for a long time. Apple said it was going to be brand new. Surprise! They were telling the truth!
Just like with QuickTime X, there are some missing features; but those end up coming back. Fortunately, Apple's design for FCPX is much more modular internally; so the internal components can be updated and added much more quickly now.
So be patient, give Apple some constructive feedback. they do listen.
...as we've had wireless sync-ing and notification icons for, oh, at least 2 years now.
I really don't think Android fanbois want to get into a discussion about who stole what from who...
Now, STFU, troll.
...and even I'm having trouble caring about this. It's one thing when they talk about it on the Mac news and rumors sites I go to, but here too? Come on. They've already announced it, so it's not like we're getting a sneak peek of some forbidden information. The features are already known, nothing newsworthy has been discovered yet, and it's not available to the public, but will be soon. Its release will be newsworthy in a few months, but the release of a beta build of it that's only for developers and doesn't change much, let alone signal when a potential release date might be? No.
So, your interest level is so low, that you felt compelled to click on the story just to bitch about its very existence?
Pro tip: When encountering a headline for a story for which you have little to no interest, simply direct your attention to other stories. That way, you won't feel compelled to bitch about the story that you didn't care about, thus polluting slashdot's database with even more useless infromation, with your useless comments about useless (to you) information.
Or are you just trying to make slashdot's backups take longer, and waste everyone's time and energy, who apparently did find the story of interest?
No, don't you have a bridge to guard?
Ignoring the fact that I'm in the UK and therefore what is grammatically correct in English may vary across the various dialects over the world, doesn't the US constitution contain the phrase "We the people" rather than "Us the people".
And not trying to be pedantic either but it should be "unless you want TO continue sounding like an idiot".
Ok, strap in, guv'ner, because 'ere we go!
;-)
Because it is frankly a seldom-used sentence structure in modern english (on either side of the pond), I had forgotten about the "us" vs. "we" exception that deals with something called "apositives".
The difference is when the us/we is used as the subject of the sentence (e.g. We the People), as opposed to the object of the sentence (e.g. stay away from US).
We/us when used as the subject of a sentence, often occurs in a sentence clause that is separated by a comma. The acutal phrase is "We the people of the United States,...". Note that you could actually remove all the words after the "We", up to the comma, and the sentence would "read" the same. Also note that, besides making nearly all Americans cry, the we/us rule of "sounding right" would obviously be violated by replacing the "we" with "us" at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution.
Here is a page object that addresses that very subject, using "We the people" as the example.
And, if you consider when the U.S. Constitution was written, and by whom (ex-Brits), I think you would agree that it would have far more "U.K. English" grammatical forms than modern "U.S. English". Besides, I really don't think that "which English" matters on the us/we rule. If I am incorrect on that point, please feel free to educate me.
As for the missing "to" in my last sentence, that would be a "typo", not a grammatical error. I wasn't very awake when I posted my comment, and simply overlooked the missing "to", sorry!
But thanks for pointing it out, you damned dirty hippie!
It's +1 now, so either that editor is slacking or...
You also realize that Slashdot does 503 occasionally for everyone, right? Some days worse than others? I'm going to guess that you're either being paranoid here, or are getting MITM'd by your lovely proxy.
However, what IS it with slashdot?!? They have got to have some of THE worst web-coders on the planet!
I have never seen another site with so many coding errors. It's like the site is coded by six year olds (with apologies to all six year olds, everywhere). Several recent and ridiculously annoying errors that come to mind are:
1. Banner ad partially obscures the login "dialog". Finally fixed, but it took WEEKS to fix that simple issue.
2. When replying through a "reply" email link (in my case, from gmail), when you get the "mini-thread", and click the "Reply" link on that page on slashdot (which opens up the form that allows you to actually, uh, TYPE your reply), as soon as you click in that text field (where you are supposed to, uh, TYPE), the browser immediately scrolls to the top of the "mini-thread". Scroll down. Click. Back to the TOP we go!. The ONLY thing that seems to stop that behavior is to mash on the PageDn key a bunch of times, then click in the field. And even THAT seems to take several trips back up to the top of the page before the text cursor will "stay put" in the edit field, so that you can, uh, actually TYPE. THAT BEHAVIOR HAS EXISTED EVER SINCE THE NEW LAYOUT, AND STILL ISN'T FIXED!
3. Another annoyance with the "mini-thread" page is that the "Log In" link simply doesn't work. If you happen to be logged in already, fine. But if not, you CANNOT log in to post your reply, and must either post as AC, OR open the main Slashdot page, and Log In there (which I assumes creates a session cookie).
4. Speaking of Logging In, if you Log In from within a "story", you are immediately bounced OUT of the story, and taken to the main Slashdot page.
5. When clicking the "Submit" button after entering a comment, about 1 time in 20 (sometimes more often), it never seems to come back from the "spinning wheel" bit, or, sometimes you get the dreaded "The resource is no longer valid" error. WTF IS UP WITH THAT?!?!? And it seems to have NOTHING to do with any "timeout" (or any REASONABLE timeout).
6. When viewing stories past the first page-full (in other words, if you have clicked the "More Stories" button), actually ENTERING one of those stories and then hitting the "back" button (to get back to the list of stories) immediately goes back to the "first" page of stores, with NONE of the stories past that page visible again (just like it is when you first enter slashdot's main page). This isn't so bad when the story you were looking at is only one "more stories"-click away; but on non-slow news days, sometimes stories are so rapidly pushed off the main page, that it is common to be browsing stories that are two or more pages "down" from the main page, and it gets to be QUITE annoying.
I hasten to add that, in my experience with the world-wide-web view of the internet, which goes back to at least 1992 (or earlier) I have NEVER encountered ANY of these problems on ANY "forum"-type website. Never, ever, ever. And its doubly sad, considering Slashdot is supposed to be a "geek" site. You'd think with all the unemployed neckbeards sitting around, that Slashdot would be able to find at least ONE decent web developer.
But apparently not...
And that comment about test servers was right on. If slashdot even uses them, it sure doesn't seem to then add the TESTING phase before changes are made "live".
right ... because no one at google is a certified apple developer ...
That's silly!
Of COURSE they are; how else would they be able to steal all those iOS features so quickly!
(ducks)
Speaking as a smelly hippy myself...
It's US smelly hippies; not WE smelly hippies.
The way you can decide which is correct is to remove the word following the "we" or "us" (in this case, "hippies"), and then see which one "sounds" right.
For example, which one "sounds" right?: "...stay away from we...", or "...stay away from us..."?
No trying to be pedantic; just trying to be helpful. That is, unless you want continue sounding like an idiot...
On the other hand, applying these statistics to all Android phones is misleading and an abuse of statistics and probability. You can't take an aggregate statistic of a heterogeneous sample and apply it to a single datapoint.
Here is why it is a fair comparison:
When Android fanbois want to crow about how the sale of Android devices outpaces the sale of say, iOS devices, no allowance is made for the "EZ-Break" cheap-ass Android phones that were sold, but now lie broken in someone's drawer or in a landfill, and then were replaced with another Android phone (further artificially inflating the "marketshare"-thru-sales-numbers statistics). Do iPhones fail? Sure; but obviously not at the same rate as the Android phones. And it doesn't take much of a difference in original failure rate to create a seemingly significant "bump" in sales figures.
So, that is why it is fair to lump all the Android sales together. Because all of those sales are considered by the Android fanbois to be currently active units, and this high failure rate adjusts that total downward in a statistically correct manner.
This really smells like either fanboy marketing posing as journalism or an Apple smear campaign getting primed for their latest iPhone entry. Either way, the fact there is more than a couple of posts to this article submission is pretty pathetic.
Of course this is fanboy marketing and/or an Apple smear campaign. That's why it shows Apple and Windows neck and neck, and BlackBerry with a failure rate less than HALF of the iPhone's.
Reading is FUNdamental. Try it some time.
Was this study paid for by Apple...??
Considering that it showed that Windows Mobile and iPhone are essentially tied, and that BlackBerry has a failure rate that is less than half of the iPhone, I'd venture a guess and say "Are you fucking nuts?"
If they're using it wrong, then they have a problem with it. Whom is pretty much deprecated anyway. Telling them the rule which is natural to you is one method. Telling them to use who is another method. Either way, you'll end up speaking in a manner that isn't generally considered incorrect.
Things like that only become deprecated through laziness.
ARM is supposed to have a pretty clean instruction set, so maybe even use ARM instead of an old 8 bit micro. x86 is ugly-- as a beginner, would stay away from it.
Um, ARMs may have a "clean" instruction set; but it is NOT designed for humans to code in!
I cut my teeth on 6502 assembler and Integer BASIC on the Apple 1 and Apple ][, and I am here to tell you that the 6502 is, hands-down, the easiest CPU to code Assembler in (6800 being a close, and somewhat related, second).
My suggestion would be to find a good Apple ][ emulator (I think that machine has been emulated on virtually (haha) every single platform). And with the speeds of modern CPUs, it is WAY easy to emulate at, or even well beyond, "bare metal" speeds. Heck, you could probably code an Apple ][ emulation in an INTERPRETED language on today's computers!
But serously, having coded for a wide variety of 8 bit personal computers, and an even wider variety of 8/16/32 bit microprocessors and microcontrollers, I still enjoyed coding on the 6502 more than any other micro, hands-down.
I do believe in the basic (haha) premise that you should learn assembler first, otherwise, the CPU is too much of a "black box", and you never develop a true understanding of the low-level stuff that is going on. And BASIC, and particularly a character-based, interpreted BASIC, is the best for learning program flow, logic control, and (yes you CAN do it in BASIC) good program design.
This seems to find quite a few fatal accidents.
Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana
and from the article you linked:
Recent research has not yet proven that marihuana use significantly impairs driving ability or performance. The Commission believes, nonetheless, that driving while under the influence of any psychoactive drug is a serious risk to public safety; the acute effects of marihuana intoxication, spatial and time distortion and slowed reflexes may impair driving performance. That the risk of injury may be greater for alcohol than for marihuana matters little.
Really though, the fact that marijuana has a negative impact on reaction time (something well documented) should be enough for you to realize that being high will affect your driving.
Just because someone tests positive for marijuana does not mean they were high when the test was done.
One of the ridiculous things about pot is that the metabolites stay in your bloodstream for several WEEKS. Doesn't mean the person was high at the time the test was taken.
Most of the problem with the legalization ballot measure in California was the campaign against it by the Humbolt County types who are currently "legal" growers...basically they pushed hard and begged for support from the public when medical mj was up for vote, but when it was opened up to the idea of real legalization they saw it as potential competition and profit loss, developed a "fuck you I got mine" attitude and turned on those they begged support from to start with.
That is EXACTLY true. And when I heard about that from some friends who personally knew people out there doing exactly that, it pissed me off to no end!
While I agree that driving under the influence of THC is not as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol, that does not mean that is as safe as normal driving. A car plowing into a pedestrian at 30mph instead of 60mph might not hurt as much, but it can still be fatal. I share the same concern as you about police having to do either invasive roadside tests or taking blood samples though, hence my want for a breathalyzer like mechanism for detecting high levels of THC.
I really hope something can be figured out though, since way to much time and money has been invested in criminalizing something that really isn't a big deal.
You find me even ONE traffic fatality that was attributable to ONLY marijuana. Marijuana smokers realize they are impaired, and actually adjust their driving habits accordingly. All "slow stoned drivers" jokes aside, studies have shown that is exactly the case. The net effect is that stoned drivers, unlike drunk drivers, are on balance, no less safe than their sober counterparts.
Salvia is a common garden plant found everywhere. They might as well outlaw dandelions.
In THIS country? I thought it was native to South America, not North.
And I bought some Salvia. Tried it exactly once. Scared the FUCK out of me!
It's isn't a hallucinogen. It's a DELERIANT, like Dramamine.
And yes, I have taken LSD many times. Nothing ever like the Salvia high.
Not fun. At least not for me. Pretty amazing for a relative of Parsley, though.
Marijuana is the most profitable illegal drug. Last numbers I heard said that $100 spent on growing turns into over $20,000 on the streets.
You are obviously getting your figures from the DEA. They take everything down to the most granular level, to try and make it look like one person makes that incredible profit.
But the fact of the matter is, there are usually quite a few distribution tiers between the farmer and the consumer (far more than in most other products). And each one of those people makes a LITTLE profit.
However, even with that being said, I have a hard time coming up with how those figures are attainable. Because, that assumes that the pot is grown outdoors, with no artificial lights, control of pollenization, etc. In other words, not Sinsemilla (seedless) pot. And pot with seeds will NEVER command the end-user prices that might turn that $100 into $20,000. People aren't stupid.
Besides, without stating how much pot one would be growing for that $100, there is absolutely no way to even check or challenge that claim. It is merely a set of numbers that are pulled out of the Drug Czar's ass.
As a citizen of a third world hell hole, I'm really tired of being mugged by addicts, with a corrupt police force since the drug traffickers have a constant inflow of dollars and euros selling shit to your fat asses.
Calm down! We're talking about Pot, not Crack. Big, Big difference.
.
Marijuana is simply not physically addictive. The National Commission on Marihuana(sic) and Drug Abuse (a/k/a the Shafer Commission) looked into this exact point. They traveled to countries where people had been HEAVILY smokin' the ganj since they were little kids. They asked them if they could take their Pot away. All of them said "Sure". They did. No withdrawals. No muggings. No nothing. The people just shrugged their collective shoulders and went on about their business.
And I should know: My Mom was a staff member on the Commission (actually the assistant to the Chairman of the Commission, Gov. Raymond P. Shafer), and I heard these (and other) stories from her, first hand.
BTW, they recommended decriminalization (because they knew that legalization would never "fly"); but President Nixon, who had created the Commission to demonize Pot, refused to accept the report and had it buried
And that's exactly why we are having this discussion now, over 39 years after the Federal Government itself recommended that Marijuana possession be decriminalized.
Here's a pithy summation from the report: "The criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance."
But yet, because of Tricky Dick, here we are, almost 40 years later... And that's the sad, sad truth.
I think you need to re-evaluate your information. Pot smoke contains most of the same carcinogens as regular tobacco smoke. Likewise, THC does have some CNS depressant characteristics.
You would be much more accurate to say that: "Marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco." Otherwise, you're basing your argument on a fallacy, which allows opponents to discount the entire argument.
Actually, you are incorrect.
A not well-publicized fact about marijuana smokers is that, unlike cigarette smokers, pot smokers have no greater chance of getting lung cancer or even COPD than people who smoke NOTHING. In fact, there is evidence that it may even help COPD patients.
100% Safe? Really? I guess there is some magical property of marijuana smoke that heals your lungs as you inhale it. Awesome.
Well, as far as lung cancer goes, that is exactly the case.
whats a linux dildo
Basically the same as regular dildo but anyone's free to dick around with it however they want.
Actually, you mean that everyone has to dick around with it every time they want to use it.
Well, this is that patent. And Apple deserves every single year of their protection.
Why? The fact that you, or anyone else, likes the iPhone is not justification for a bad, overbroad patent. That actually hurts you, in terms of the slowed pace of progress, if you had the wit to see that.
Doesn't seem to be slowing Apple down... ;-)
Are you personally familiar with a significant enough portion of all iTunes users to make this statement valid?
Why yes, as a matter of fact, I am.
Prove otherwise.