Maybe because they own webOS? And a lot of people are crazy excited over webOS because it offers opportunities that iOS and Android don't? I know a lot of Android users that were hoping to escape their nightmare by switching to a Pre3. Now they can't.
Again, where are your citations for "far more medically effective"? Everything I've read disagrees with you. Marinol is almost universally not tolerated by patients as either an antiemetic or an analgesic. Also, marijuana is not carcinogenic. In a study that used tobacco smokers but not marijuana smokers, marijuana smokers but not tobacco smokers, and both marijuana smokers AND tobacco smokers as subjects, only the subjects that smoked tobacco exclusively or tobacco AND marijuana showed any increased risk for cancer. The marijuana-only smokers (including heavy, multiple-times per day smokers) had some history of possible COPD, but no cancer. In fact, there was some evidence that the marijuana-exclusive group had a reduced risk for cancer.
Start citing your sources. You're just looking like an idiot.
I'm guessing no one in your life has ever had cancer or pain. Well, wait until someone you care about does. If you love them you'd do anything to make it stop. Try to stop being such a judgmental asshole for a few minutes.
Why don't you cite some studies with that "better antiemetics"? Pretty much all antiemetics have severe side effects. Most are anticholinergics or dopamine agonists. In the former case you can have anything from "dry mouth" (as you stated) to delirium (anticholinergics are well known for their awful side-effect profiles). With the latter you can have permanent non-voluntary movement (tardive dyskinesia).
Either you're an illogical conservative idiot that doesn't have a clue what he's on about or you're a very misguided medical practitioner who leaves most of his patients suffering in pain so that he can ride his high horse to the bank. If you are a physician, I hate doctors like you; you should be ashamed. You should look upon any potential treatment (marijuana has been in use for just as long as opium, but I'm sure you're one of those doctors that'd never prescribe opioids because they're addictive!) as good news, but instead you say "nope we've already figured it out: Marinol." It's not that simple. Opium had one major active ingredient: morphine. Great. Opium also had 40 other alkaloids that have served us well, from dextromethorphan to thebaine-derived oxycodone, etc. So we figure marijuana must be just like opium! No, as it turns out, CBN and CBD are just as responsible for marijuana's effects as THC is. It's not "one major active ingredient." Also like opium, there are dozens of other chemicals in that plant with potential medical use.
So please stop being such a judgmental moral nut bag and bother to sit down and actually study something. Try picking up The Pharmacology of Pain -- great book, with lots of cited studies referencing the use of various cannabinoids (more than just anandamide, THC, CBD, and CBN) for the relief of pain. Not to mention the excitement around TRPV1 and the novel pharmacological analgesic opportunities it provides. Maybe just pull your head out of your stuck-up ass for long enough to do some original research instead of repeating what the DEA tells you.
For the good of us all, knock that shit the fuck off.
Man, you must BATHE in that Kool-Aid. I can't imagine where you store it all. You're very misguided my friend. There are 40 some cannabinoids in various strains of marijuana. Do I think smoking crud plant material is a good medical treatment? No. Saying "C1 doesn't affect research" is ridiculous. The "stockpile" is controlled by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, is never handed out to anyone except studies being done by NIDA, is based on 1970s weed, and is of very low quality and is no where near the same as the marijuana being used on the street or in dispensaries. No one can study marijuana legally without a special DEA license which fewer than a thousand people hold. Smoking crude plant material is not a good medical treatment, but until our government gets off their religious moral high horse, there's no way we're getting anything better. I don't know who has been spoon feeding you, but it should be about time for you to step back and take a lot at the jar.
I would imagine they can self-correct for this, especially considering they listen to all the other GPS satellites for hints. They self-correct for lots of things. Even if all ground-based hints disappeared, I imagine the GPS timekeeping system wouldn't drift by any appreciable amount within the "earthquake damage to repair" timespan.
What's your source for that? As far as I can find, nothing says they're ever set by anything on the ground. They don't drift; they're expensive ($50,000-$100,000) atomic clocks. Not as in they're set by a signal (like your "atomic clock" on the wall), but as in they're the ones that SEND the signal that sets your "atomic clock" on the wall. The only "off" thing about them is that they don't take the earth's rotation into account and thus use "GPS time" instead of "UTC time" and they send the difference between them (currently 15 seconds due to leap seconds) in their signal.
Why do people care so much about "wireless charging"? I don't get it. Instead of a cord running from the wall into your device you have a cord running from the wall into a thing you set your device on. What's the benefit here, other than hand-waving and look-at-what-I-can-do-ing?
What are you even still talking about? What "writes a config file relative to $HOME"? I've never had anything do this. If you're running some editor for the first time ever, maybe. Even then I think most things are smart enough to look at `whoami` versus `$HOME` and figure it out. I cannot ever recall having root-owned dotfiles in my user homedirs. I just checked on the 30 or so boxes I admin, and not a single one has this issue.
I disagree. Apple has no "right" to deny you anything. They can claim you damaged your phone with liquids, but it's their burden of proof. No one has to accept that. You can tell them to prove it and take them to court. It's all on them, not on you.
I've tripped them on many iPods that were totally wrapped inside water-proof cases that I used to run outside in the rain. It took me months of arguing with Apple before they even opened it up, and guess what? There was a giant blob of melted silicon blocking some pathway. Absolutely nothing to do with moisture, but both of them were tripped.
Gosh.
Apple doesn't have the right or the power to deny me anything. They have a contract with me and I expect them to fulfill it. If they claim I've breached that contract they can take me to court to prove it by spending thousands, or they can fix my fucking iPod for $20.
Seriously, don't get riled up over this Eric, drink a cold Pepsi or something.
Haha, okay. I forgot we're best friends and on a first name basis. I don't drink soda anymore, and I never drank Pepsi.
Out of the box, you forgot Opera.
No one cares about Opera except Slashdot. I'm not looking for some witty reply about its relevance. I just do not care.
[...] where there is no magical ns-plugin that is properly licensed etc. available for the various browsers and platforms out there was the point I was getting at.
Does it matter at all? As long as it works? You're telling me you've never ripped a DVD or something? None of that process is "proper." I'm guessing you're one of those ridiculous people that uses only software approved with the seal of RMS's beard.
For those of us living in the real world, the only thing this does at all is annoy the vast majority of the population. Most of us just do not care if you can put the GPL stamp-o-bullshit on the cover.
I didn't respond to the rest because I didn't feel it was worth reading in the first place.
Right now webm is supported by most browsers, and those that don't just require the codec to be installed in WMP or QuickTime.
What the hell are you talking about? What browser other than Chrome and possibly Firefox support WebM? Nothing I have installed on any of my computers, that's for sure. Chrome was nice, but now that it forces me to use Flash it's not. Firefox stopped being nice when the name was changed from "Phoenix."
And how can you go on to say "well it's in WMP or QT" right after saying "relying on the OS to provide codecs is a terrible idea!"?
Keep in mind that both Chromium and Android are also open source, so a programmer can add H.264 support back in any time they want. Of course, they'd have to deal with the patent mess, but that says more about H.264 than it does about Google.
How is it that I'm going to do this? I understand the source is available for me to modify, but how can I "use" my modifications? The same way I can use a custom modified version of Android on the phone I have today? Which is "you can't, not really"?
This agitates me to no end. I'm a regular guy. I don't have some $3,000 dev phone that I can load whatever I want to on. I have a regular phone that has whatever ROM comes on it. Telling me to jailbreak/root it in order to achieve this result is not an answer. It doesn't matter how much changing of the code I can do if I can't run that code anywhere that's useful to me.
I think my difficulties can be summed up by noting they have this huge list of rules and styles and guidelines for every single little thing that in order to make a tiny edit to Wikipedia "by the book" you have to become an expert on how to contribute to Wikipedia. It's bureaucracy at its best.
I've run into this problem repeatedly on Wikipedia. Once, a local author that was fairly well known noticed he was linked to a lot and that his page was very sparse. He started editing it himself, providing his official PR website as a source. They deleted his changes claiming that they didn't care who he was, his sources were invalid. So, the most accurate source possible is discounted and the official information on that person is discounted. A week later, the entire article on him was deleted.
Wikipedia is nothing but a bunch of bullies running it they way they see things. If you disagree or try to make an article truly neutral, you're shunned immediately.
The fundamental problem with our system is that we charge people just ungodly sums of money when they're sick and nothing when they're well. That only makes sense if you're well. Compare this system to governments that charge their citizens a regular amount of money when they're well and that same amount of money when they're sick, and statistics show that we're paying a lot more to be sick than they are to be well.
I'm guessing everyone replying to this thread with the attitude that things are just fine now have never been seriously sick. Wait until your kid's in the hospital and your insurance won't cover the half-a-million dollar operation he needs to live, and you'll change your tune real quick.
Choices are good. However, sick people simply cannot pay the bill in the current system. The current system involves charging you $3,000 to run some urine through a GC/MS machine that the hospital owns at little to no cost to them. The current system involves charging you $3,000 to have an MRI with a machine the hospital owns at little to no cost to them. Yes, the hospital had to pay for those machines, but it's not like they lower the bill once the cost is made up for, do they?
I have a chronic-but-not-life-threatening illness, and if I want to not be in horrific pain for the rest of my life I have to spend more than 2/3 of my monthly income (which is not insignificant) to various physicians, facilities, and medications.
The current system is broken. Does "Obamacare" fix it? No, certainly not, but it's a good step and sets the foundation for more steps. You can't overhaul healthcare in one bill.
Ultimately I think that forcing someone to pay a private company is not the Right Thing. If we're forced to do it then government should be providing the health care and we should be paying them, not a private corporation. Look at the NHS for example.
I can't stand this guy, but he makes sense here. The services government offers shouldn't be discriminatory, but the only thing this guy's bigotry hurts is his own business in this example. Good luck operating on that principle, though. The CSA should have required an amendment. The reason government held off on controlling drugs for so long was because they needed an amendment, but after the Harrison Narcotics Act they got away with it and figured they could do whatever they wanted, and they did. What right does government have to tell me what I can and cannot put into my own body?
It is not transmit. It is delivering. They're not transmitting over Comcast's network to someone else, as in a peer. They are delivering TO Comcast's network. I can ask someone to pay me to send me content, but Comcast can? That's retarded, and so are you.
This *isn't* a peering dispute. Comcast is sending Level 3 data to route off somewhere. Level 3 is sending Comcast bits because Comcast subscribers are asking for them. Comcast is routing Level 3's traffic around anywhere but directly to their subscribers, and Level 3 certainly wouldn't need them to in the first place.
So to recap: all data coming from Level 3 to Comcast is requested by Comcast, and paid for by the subscribers. This is simply Comcast's typical greed and hand-waving.
This isn't a peering dispute; Comcast is only try to paint it as one -- and you bought it.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with what you said. ((Please moderate parent up.))
Wow, so that's how the moderation works on Slashdot. I knew it!
Maybe because they own webOS? And a lot of people are crazy excited over webOS because it offers opportunities that iOS and Android don't? I know a lot of Android users that were hoping to escape their nightmare by switching to a Pre3. Now they can't.
We'll start citing sources as soon as you do.
Again, where are your citations for "far more medically effective"? Everything I've read disagrees with you. Marinol is almost universally not tolerated by patients as either an antiemetic or an analgesic. Also, marijuana is not carcinogenic. In a study that used tobacco smokers but not marijuana smokers, marijuana smokers but not tobacco smokers, and both marijuana smokers AND tobacco smokers as subjects, only the subjects that smoked tobacco exclusively or tobacco AND marijuana showed any increased risk for cancer. The marijuana-only smokers (including heavy, multiple-times per day smokers) had some history of possible COPD, but no cancer. In fact, there was some evidence that the marijuana-exclusive group had a reduced risk for cancer.
Start citing your sources. You're just looking like an idiot.
I'm guessing no one in your life has ever had cancer or pain. Well, wait until someone you care about does. If you love them you'd do anything to make it stop. Try to stop being such a judgmental asshole for a few minutes.
Why don't you cite some studies with that "better antiemetics"? Pretty much all antiemetics have severe side effects. Most are anticholinergics or dopamine agonists. In the former case you can have anything from "dry mouth" (as you stated) to delirium (anticholinergics are well known for their awful side-effect profiles). With the latter you can have permanent non-voluntary movement (tardive dyskinesia).
Either you're an illogical conservative idiot that doesn't have a clue what he's on about or you're a very misguided medical practitioner who leaves most of his patients suffering in pain so that he can ride his high horse to the bank. If you are a physician, I hate doctors like you; you should be ashamed. You should look upon any potential treatment (marijuana has been in use for just as long as opium, but I'm sure you're one of those doctors that'd never prescribe opioids because they're addictive!) as good news, but instead you say "nope we've already figured it out: Marinol." It's not that simple. Opium had one major active ingredient: morphine. Great. Opium also had 40 other alkaloids that have served us well, from dextromethorphan to thebaine-derived oxycodone, etc. So we figure marijuana must be just like opium! No, as it turns out, CBN and CBD are just as responsible for marijuana's effects as THC is. It's not "one major active ingredient." Also like opium, there are dozens of other chemicals in that plant with potential medical use.
So please stop being such a judgmental moral nut bag and bother to sit down and actually study something. Try picking up The Pharmacology of Pain -- great book, with lots of cited studies referencing the use of various cannabinoids (more than just anandamide, THC, CBD, and CBN) for the relief of pain. Not to mention the excitement around TRPV1 and the novel pharmacological analgesic opportunities it provides. Maybe just pull your head out of your stuck-up ass for long enough to do some original research instead of repeating what the DEA tells you.
For the good of us all, knock that shit the fuck off.
Man, you must BATHE in that Kool-Aid. I can't imagine where you store it all. You're very misguided my friend. There are 40 some cannabinoids in various strains of marijuana. Do I think smoking crud plant material is a good medical treatment? No. Saying "C1 doesn't affect research" is ridiculous. The "stockpile" is controlled by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, is never handed out to anyone except studies being done by NIDA, is based on 1970s weed, and is of very low quality and is no where near the same as the marijuana being used on the street or in dispensaries. No one can study marijuana legally without a special DEA license which fewer than a thousand people hold. Smoking crude plant material is not a good medical treatment, but until our government gets off their religious moral high horse, there's no way we're getting anything better. I don't know who has been spoon feeding you, but it should be about time for you to step back and take a lot at the jar.
Didn't this happen like, days ago?
I would imagine they can self-correct for this, especially considering they listen to all the other GPS satellites for hints. They self-correct for lots of things. Even if all ground-based hints disappeared, I imagine the GPS timekeeping system wouldn't drift by any appreciable amount within the "earthquake damage to repair" timespan.
What's your source for that? As far as I can find, nothing says they're ever set by anything on the ground. They don't drift; they're expensive ($50,000-$100,000) atomic clocks. Not as in they're set by a signal (like your "atomic clock" on the wall), but as in they're the ones that SEND the signal that sets your "atomic clock" on the wall. The only "off" thing about them is that they don't take the earth's rotation into account and thus use "GPS time" instead of "UTC time" and they send the difference between them (currently 15 seconds due to leap seconds) in their signal.
GPS satellites have atomic clocks on them. Every one.
I can already do that. My cord isn't half an inch long. As a bonus, it keeps charging!
Why do people care so much about "wireless charging"? I don't get it. Instead of a cord running from the wall into your device you have a cord running from the wall into a thing you set your device on. What's the benefit here, other than hand-waving and look-at-what-I-can-do-ing?
What are you even still talking about? What "writes a config file relative to $HOME"? I've never had anything do this. If you're running some editor for the first time ever, maybe. Even then I think most things are smart enough to look at `whoami` versus `$HOME` and figure it out. I cannot ever recall having root-owned dotfiles in my user homedirs. I just checked on the 30 or so boxes I admin, and not a single one has this issue.
Of course, none of them run Linux.
Apple has the right to deny you.
I disagree. Apple has no "right" to deny you anything. They can claim you damaged your phone with liquids, but it's their burden of proof. No one has to accept that. You can tell them to prove it and take them to court. It's all on them, not on you.
I've tripped them on many iPods that were totally wrapped inside water-proof cases that I used to run outside in the rain. It took me months of arguing with Apple before they even opened it up, and guess what? There was a giant blob of melted silicon blocking some pathway. Absolutely nothing to do with moisture, but both of them were tripped.
Gosh.
Apple doesn't have the right or the power to deny me anything. They have a contract with me and I expect them to fulfill it. If they claim I've breached that contract they can take me to court to prove it by spending thousands, or they can fix my fucking iPod for $20.
Seriously, don't get riled up over this Eric, drink a cold Pepsi or something.
Haha, okay. I forgot we're best friends and on a first name basis. I don't drink soda anymore, and I never drank Pepsi.
Out of the box, you forgot Opera.
No one cares about Opera except Slashdot. I'm not looking for some witty reply about its relevance. I just do not care.
[...] where there is no magical ns-plugin that is properly licensed etc. available for the various browsers and platforms out there was the point I was getting at.
Does it matter at all? As long as it works? You're telling me you've never ripped a DVD or something? None of that process is "proper." I'm guessing you're one of those ridiculous people that uses only software approved with the seal of RMS's beard.
For those of us living in the real world, the only thing this does at all is annoy the vast majority of the population. Most of us just do not care if you can put the GPL stamp-o-bullshit on the cover.
I didn't respond to the rest because I didn't feel it was worth reading in the first place.
Right now webm is supported by most browsers, and those that don't just require the codec to be installed in WMP or QuickTime.
What the hell are you talking about? What browser other than Chrome and possibly Firefox support WebM? Nothing I have installed on any of my computers, that's for sure. Chrome was nice, but now that it forces me to use Flash it's not. Firefox stopped being nice when the name was changed from "Phoenix."
And how can you go on to say "well it's in WMP or QT" right after saying "relying on the OS to provide codecs is a terrible idea!"?
Keep in mind that both Chromium and Android are also open source, so a programmer can add H.264 support back in any time they want. Of course, they'd have to deal with the patent mess, but that says more about H.264 than it does about Google.
How is it that I'm going to do this? I understand the source is available for me to modify, but how can I "use" my modifications? The same way I can use a custom modified version of Android on the phone I have today? Which is "you can't, not really"? This agitates me to no end. I'm a regular guy. I don't have some $3,000 dev phone that I can load whatever I want to on. I have a regular phone that has whatever ROM comes on it. Telling me to jailbreak/root it in order to achieve this result is not an answer. It doesn't matter how much changing of the code I can do if I can't run that code anywhere that's useful to me.
I think my difficulties can be summed up by noting they have this huge list of rules and styles and guidelines for every single little thing that in order to make a tiny edit to Wikipedia "by the book" you have to become an expert on how to contribute to Wikipedia. It's bureaucracy at its best.
I've run into this problem repeatedly on Wikipedia. Once, a local author that was fairly well known noticed he was linked to a lot and that his page was very sparse. He started editing it himself, providing his official PR website as a source. They deleted his changes claiming that they didn't care who he was, his sources were invalid. So, the most accurate source possible is discounted and the official information on that person is discounted. A week later, the entire article on him was deleted.
Wikipedia is nothing but a bunch of bullies running it they way they see things. If you disagree or try to make an article truly neutral, you're shunned immediately.
The fundamental problem with our system is that we charge people just ungodly sums of money when they're sick and nothing when they're well. That only makes sense if you're well. Compare this system to governments that charge their citizens a regular amount of money when they're well and that same amount of money when they're sick, and statistics show that we're paying a lot more to be sick than they are to be well.
I'm guessing everyone replying to this thread with the attitude that things are just fine now have never been seriously sick. Wait until your kid's in the hospital and your insurance won't cover the half-a-million dollar operation he needs to live, and you'll change your tune real quick.
Choices are good. However, sick people simply cannot pay the bill in the current system. The current system involves charging you $3,000 to run some urine through a GC/MS machine that the hospital owns at little to no cost to them. The current system involves charging you $3,000 to have an MRI with a machine the hospital owns at little to no cost to them. Yes, the hospital had to pay for those machines, but it's not like they lower the bill once the cost is made up for, do they?
I have a chronic-but-not-life-threatening illness, and if I want to not be in horrific pain for the rest of my life I have to spend more than 2/3 of my monthly income (which is not insignificant) to various physicians, facilities, and medications.
The current system is broken. Does "Obamacare" fix it? No, certainly not, but it's a good step and sets the foundation for more steps. You can't overhaul healthcare in one bill.
Ultimately I think that forcing someone to pay a private company is not the Right Thing. If we're forced to do it then government should be providing the health care and we should be paying them, not a private corporation. Look at the NHS for example.
I can't stand this guy, but he makes sense here. The services government offers shouldn't be discriminatory, but the only thing this guy's bigotry hurts is his own business in this example. Good luck operating on that principle, though. The CSA should have required an amendment. The reason government held off on controlling drugs for so long was because they needed an amendment, but after the Harrison Narcotics Act they got away with it and figured they could do whatever they wanted, and they did. What right does government have to tell me what I can and cannot put into my own body?
It is not transmit. It is delivering. They're not transmitting over Comcast's network to someone else, as in a peer. They are delivering TO Comcast's network. I can ask someone to pay me to send me content, but Comcast can? That's retarded, and so are you.
Understood, but you also must get the usual "this is Slashdot and the editors are idiots" bit.
This *isn't* a peering dispute. Comcast is sending Level 3 data to route off somewhere. Level 3 is sending Comcast bits because Comcast subscribers are asking for them. Comcast is routing Level 3's traffic around anywhere but directly to their subscribers, and Level 3 certainly wouldn't need them to in the first place.
So to recap: all data coming from Level 3 to Comcast is requested by Comcast, and paid for by the subscribers. This is simply Comcast's typical greed and hand-waving.
This isn't a peering dispute; Comcast is only try to paint it as one -- and you bought it.