I used to not vote for the same reasons. Now I 'throw my vote away' because that's actually the BIGGEST influence your vote can have.
The major parties are vote whores. They don't give a shit about the non-voters and they don't actually care about people who always vote along party lines. Votes they could have had matter. If Democrats see Nader stealing their votes, they'll switch to Nader-like policies to get the votes. Otherwise they see their only option as becoming more like Republicans to steal votes from moderates.
Here in Canada, the extreme right of the Reform party started getting votes, so the Conservatives swung way right to get them back. After the green party grabbed a few percent of the votes suddenly all parties at least pretend that the environment is a priority.
'Winning' is not necessary to have an influence. They just have to think 'Those are votes I could of had!'
If there's so much money to be had, why don't you do it and cash in? Why doesn't everyone?
Ever since Napster and mp3.com people have been trying to cash in on the new, inexpensive distribution system. It was baseless lawsuits designed to bankrupt internet distribution companies that kept things down until Apple, which could afford prolonged court cases, got in the game. Now we have artists like Weird Al saying they (artists) make much more money off CDs which have a higher production and distribution cost. It appears the artist is still charged for 'breakage' in shipping of mp3s!
Market forces can be interfered with, for example by copy-right laws. Copy-right is interference in a capitalist market, granting temporary monopolies, to reward artists so they create more works.
The big money in the music business doesn't want real capitalistic forces going on, because that would cut into profits.
In other words, they self-waffle. It reads as if a scientist is thinking out loud, kicking around various viewpoints before any solid conclusions can be drawn. Why make the initial statement then?
Why wouldn't a scientist kick around various view points and possible explanations of their results?! This isn't a creationist or politician we're talking about. Those are things for other scientists to look for, consider and attempt to find evidence for or against.
The solid bit they found is that Homo habilis and Homo erectus co-existed. This was not known before. What this implies is that what was previously assumed as the likely series of events, H.habilis -> H.erectus -> man, is actually unlikely. But yes, it is still possible, since it hasn't been disproved and there are other possible explantions. Scientists are relatively honest about the degree of uncertainty they have about things, which confuses the hell out of people.
Throwing around those kinds of ideas are important to let other scientists understand the scope of importance of the work and what to look for so that solid conclusions can be drawn. Another scientist may be sitting on evidence for one of these possibilities right now that they just weren't able to understand before. Maybe a geneticist studying human fleas has evidence there were two separate strains existing around 1.5 million years ago and both eventually ended up on humans and interbreeding. Previously, this might have been a confusing result but now it could be explained; one of them was living on H.habilis at the time. It might not jump out to a flea geneticist that these two being sister species implies the typically taught theory of human evolution is wrong.
Let's take a big event in the bible, Jesus's crucification. Now through the bible (or anywhere else) try to find out the year he died. Compare that to any of the roman leaders at the time, who had deed recorded by historians. For another example, compare there is a difference in a literate, scientific society, there is a big difference in when Elvis died according to historians or his most devoted fans. Are their opinions equally valid in your mind? The problem with that example is that by the time Elvis died (and was born for that matter), especially in the United States, there was highly organized record-keeping, not to mention the huge amounts of media coverage. Go back a thousand years and you'll find that the exact years of birth and death are rarely known for famous people and completely unknown for the vast majority of common people.
That's actually the point I was trying to make. But look up the roman emperors that lived around Jesus' time and most of them have the day of their birth and death recorded. There's a strikingly different level of detail.
As for the old testament, you're right that I'm not that well versed in it. Actually are there full copies of it online? For some reason it's only the new testament that seems to get handed out for free.
Is the difference between a history book, which tries to represent historical events and a bible, which tries to represent spiritual philosophy, really that hard to comprehend? You haven't really read the Old Testament, have you? Yes, there is a fair amount of spiritual philosophy in it. There are also vast amounts of rather boring historical and genealogical information. I would say that the only stupid people are the ones that aren't capable of reading the Bible and separating the plausible and implausible.
I didn't say there is no history in the book. Just like Nazi history books, there are facts and some of them are correct. But there is an obvious agenda in both these cases and an accurate representation of history is very low priority. The bible is simply not a good history book because it was never trying to be.
As for the old testament, can you think of a reason it might try to record (and distort facts if necessary) that make the followers of the religion appear to be a chosen people of God?
Let's take a big event in the bible, Jesus's crucification. Now through the bible (or anywhere else) try to find out the year he died. Compare that to any of the roman leaders at the time, who had deed recorded by historians. For another example, compare there is a difference in a literate, scientific society, there is a big difference in when Elvis died according to historians or his most devoted fans. Are their opinions equally valid in your mind?
Now if you're stupid enough to think it's a historical document then you're on your own. Why's that? It may not be (okay, okay, isn't) completely factual, but how many history books are? A lot of facts are always lost, leaving behind only what historians, authors, and the general populace want to remember.
Is the difference between a history book, which tries to represent historical events and a bible, which tries to represent spiritual philosophy, really that hard to comprehend? Is it really that hard to guess which will have more accurate historical accounts or which gives more ethical advice? Is the Nazi propaganda history (which was really try to promote Nazi philosophy) more, less or similar accuracy as other historical records? It may not be (okay, okay, isn't) completely factual, but how many history books are?;)
There might be some reason or other to give more weight to certain opinions and be aware of likely biases of your sources.
And environmental scientists have a massive agenda in pushing global warming, as without it they don't get any funding.
Environmental scientists have a massive agenda to be CORRECT, as without credibility, they don't get any funding. Scientists get funding for doing innovative and thorough research regardless of the results. I don't get how researchers, who believe in the scientific method to discover the truth regardless of what it is, are somehow more biased than oil companies which stand to loose billions of dollars
Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
Cracking DRM is a burden. I prefer to download it already cracked. This means that the company gets zero income from me instead of one purchase (and the silly dream they have that I would buy several version of each product for each device I have is completely unrealistic)
Unfortunately, the record companies read this as "We lost a sale because of piracy! Stronger copy protection! Harsher laws!"
Of course other things are attributed to piracy too. Bought the video's on DVD instead of CD = CD sale lost to piracy. One song transfered on p2p = one lost song sale (you would think they would know this is wrong from micro-economics 101).
Suppose people do care and start conserving energy. They pay less for their energy bill, so that means they own more money. What do they do with this money? Spend it on other things of course! So that means other people are earning more money, for example in other parts of the world that are currently using less energy. What will they do with this extra money? Yes, spend it and in that process use more energy than they would have before!
Net result? 0
No the net result is that the quality of life for a larger number of people was increased for the same amount environmental damage. And the future technology moves closer to a sustainable, high quality of living for the total population of earth because more efficient use is gotten from finite resources.
There are cases high energy costs hurt productivity and efficiency, but waste can be done with absolutely no benefit (flip side part of that not zero-sum game arguement.) Unless you actually use an SUV for things that cannot be done with a more fuel efficient vehicle, there was extra pollution for no gains in productivity. Pollution that will increase crop prices and lower quality of life for people. There is no reason not to charge through the nose for this privilege or disallow it completely (like requiring higher efficiency standards in cars.)
I don't believe genetics can select for a preference for generic healthiness. It has to be some specific feature that members of the species actually encounter that denotes healthiness, like a peacocks tail.
In a way I have to agree with this, because the other is impossible (by what standard is health measured?) Really, for men's attraction to women, it's signs based on fertility and, therefore, health.
Being fat shows a great ability to gather resources. Being skinny does not. I doubt that a preference for less curvy women is genetic, I'm guessing its cultural.
Or it reflects a hormonal imbalance, or genetic damage (cloned animals, like Dolly, that have genetic damage tend to get fat) or low impulse control. There are other factors involved and other features. Do you really think it's coincidence, though, that the cultural preferences for beauty just happen to reflect a healthier, more fertile segment of the population? There are waist/hip ratios that reflect health which are cross culturally associated with beauty. There is a difference between the healthy 'pleasantly plump' look and obesity.
As for the ability to gather resources, it stands out strikingly when you look at what women find attractive in men.
Genetically speaking, it seems intuitive that men would want a fat curvy girl with big hips. Better for making babies, yes? Living closer to nature, being fat would be a sure sign of genetic superiority. But men also want a woman that other men find attractive.
Genetically speaking, men would prefer healthy women. In societies where starvation was a problem, the more curvy look was preferred. Now what is the health problem now days? Yes, you are not talking about model/cocaine thin, but sleek and toned. In general, men still prefer the healthiest/youngest looking women.
When asked to pick out the silhouette of a woman they would like to have with them if marooned on a desert island, most men picked a larger, curvier shape than expected. So guys are pretending to like a body type they don't actually prefer because they think other men prefer it!
It's been repeated found that it's women who believe the ultra-thin look is attractive, not men. I also think it's actually underestimated how much it's other women's opinions that shape women's self-esteem. After all, how many straight men can tell a $300 haircut from a $30 one or notice a women's shoes?
And what about this "hard wired vs soft wired" stuff?
Watching a baby "discover" that they are moving their arms and hands around makes me think we may have no firmware at all. Just lots of potential, and the spark of conciousness.
But watching a baby horse stand-up within minutes of being born implies otherwise. It's well known that both functions exist, the question is how much of each.
Read in New Scientist, we've now reached the point where its no longer promiscuity but religion that is associated with high STD rates. Also, among teens who 'promised no sex till marriage' are a higher STD group. Although they engage in sex less often, these groups are much less likely to use safe sex methods.
Apparently vows do break much more often than condoms.
Fructose used responsibly is actually beneficial. Fructose is substantially sweeter than glucose, so consuming it could allow you to reduce your sugar intake. Consuming as much fructose as you would otherwise consume glucose is clearly bad for you, but there is an opportunity to reduce intake.
The HFCS used in most soft drinks is (I believe) 50% fructose. It is metabolised almost identically to sucrose: there is an initial enzyme that splits sucrose into glucose and fructose at similar ratios to the contents of the corn syrup, after that the metabolism is identical.
The researcher's main point was that fructose is metabolized completely differently from glucose, in a way that is very unhealthy and dangerous in comparison. It's not the calories.
The end result of this protectionism is that Americans pay extra to get fatter while Africans starve, in order to make sure that American sugar farmers can carry on farming sugar instead of getting a real job.
Funny how you insist that American sugar farmers can get 'real jobs' - but somehow the African farmers can't change crops or jobs?
Funny how you don't believe in capitalism OR social responsibility.
Let me get this straight you believe the government is right to increase the taxes (in the form of enforced, artificially high prices) from the rest of America to subsidize American sugar farmers because they are not competitive with the growing seasons and labor around the world. This hurts typical Americans because they pay higher prices. This hurts the third-world farmers because they aren't allowed to participate in a market they're good at (and move on to other areas like taking over IT jobs like you suggest or starve). That is socialism that only helps American sugar farmers.
Let's put it another way, if say Kansas raised the prices on all imported wood to raise it to the price of local grown lumber, wouldn't you think that hurts both residents of Kansas who's business is not lumber and wood exporting states like Washington? Is it really different if it is separate countries and not states within a country?
The law made them into criminals, not their business.
Perhaps. I prefer to look at what makes them... unacceptable.
Their hanging out on street corners, harassing people, and causing trouble is what makes them unacceptable. And why are they hanging out on street corners, harassing people? Because they are dealing/using drugs.
But I've seen lots of alcoholics who behave the same way. Why are they different? The truth is they aren't(by any scientic measure) and many drug dealer and users don't act this way (really, the vast majority are indistinguishable from normal citizens. Remember to compare those on the street to homeless alcoholics, not everyone who drinks or employed alcoholics.) Charge them with the real crimes that bother you (and for some reason carry much lower sentences.) But from this you are an effect of the law, not a letter of the law type person.
For instance, it is legal for Americans to brew beer... up to 100 gallons per person in the household. An ounce more than that? Illegal. It's also illegal for people to distill alcohol.
You are a letter of the law type person then. My grandfather would distill his homemade wines when the taste came out poorly. He considered it a violation of his personal freedom that the government would try interfere with this activity. A juror other than you may decide a WWII vet who worked and paid taxes his whole life is not harmful to society or likely to be 'rehabilitated' by jail time even though he is technically guilty. Although they don't tell you this, this is the very important reason why juries are not made up of lawyers and judges. They want ordinary citizens to use common sense.
The street-corner dealer would have to turn to other methods of making money. Like mugging, robbing, 'protection' rackets, etc.
You may really want to check out what happened before, during and after Prohibition of alcohol if you believe this.
Perhaps the 'racist' jurors understood instinctively that market forces dictate that sending those men to prison will not significantly effect any of the detrimental effects on society you worry about, it will merely raise the street price of drugs until the position is once again filled by the most desperate/undesirable members of society.
Drug laws are also a classic example of racist laws. Cocaine is converted to crack at near 100% efficiency by simple processes like mixing cocaine with baking soda. Drug laws place a major drug offense at the possession of 500g of cocaine and 5g of crack. This allows a major distributor to possess say 250g of powder cocaine and receive only minor penalties but distribute it to 50 crack dealers who will receive major offense charges. Take a guess how racial/economic split of usage and selling goes for power and crack cocaine.
Re:it's not that mysterious what caused extinction
on
Baby Mammoth Found Intact
·
· Score: 2, Informative
what about the dodo
That's well known. Pigs and dogs brought by people ate them and their eggs. Slow flightless birds made easy targets. People tried eating them, but found they weren't very tasty.
I would'nt know about the syndrome you are talking about, but as a smoker, I can assure you that the concentration part of it is temporary. In the beginning, you smoke a cigarette and then you can concentrate well for like 3 hours. Later it becomes 2 hours and then 1.A cigarette on the average lasts about 6-7 minutes... After a point of time it becomes so that you are not concentrating if you are not smoking. Atleast this was the case with me. I did get a good 3-4 years out of it though.
A good control experiment for this would be a person who only smokes when he needs to concentrate and never smokes due to cravings, but I am not sure we can find such a person.
Your experience is probably fairly typical. Nicotine is known to act as a stimulant mentally (increasing concentration). The rest is quite typical of the development of tolerance and dependence.
I was told after a single trip on LSD you could experience flashbacks from it without taking the drug again and these could be good or bad. So from what I was told (at school) LSD sounds like it's worse than nicotine.
By scientific literature, LSD is one of the SAFEST drugs known to man and completely non-addictive. Seriously (it stunned me too, I've been trying to find any valid finding of dangers for a while.) Flashbacks appear to be a psychological effect and rare, more like Viet Nam vet's flashbacks.
Here's some perspective in people averaging over 3 drinks of alcohol per day, PERMANENT deficiencies in problem solving, concentration and memory begin to appear. (This is a statistic, so it is probably people who binge drink on weekends that have the damage, not those who have a few every day. I'm sure you remember mornings when you had brain damage.)
The relapse rates for quitting smokers are on par with heroin addicts.
Ok, assuming the federal should be funding this sort of research*, why pay out grants? We should take advantage of the natural benefits of competition; pay $X to the organization that reaches a specific milestone.
*I don't see why it should be. The energy market is so large, there seems like more than enough incentive for innovation.
If the organization did anything of value and didn't need starting funding, they could just sell the product. No need for an incentive at all.
The free market isn't actually good at long-term basic research (in general). This kind of research actually has as much to do with advancing genetic engineering, the understanding of carbohydrate active enzymes and industrial enzyme design as anything else. So maybe it will never be cost effective as fuel production but they might find ways to make the enzymes function at high temperatures in organic solvents or maybe the enzymes will fail completely but bind tightly to specific carbohydrates making it excellent for targeted drug delivery to certain cancers.
Keeping basic research in your country is usually a good investment. Near most good Universities you will find a number of startup companies.
They are talking about converting cellulose to sugar to make ethanol. This has the advantages that bio-diesel has - it is made out of non-crop plants like wood-chips, grass-clippings, waste stocks of food plants, old paper. Plants like switch-grass and trees can be grown on very marginal land that cannot produce food. They are working on better enzymes to digest the cellulose to glucose, which is the problem.
So you think (traditional) radio stations deserve the (declining) piles of advertising cash that they bring in? Many people only listen to music on the radio and never buy, so it makes sense to me that the artists get a little kick-back for giving the radio stations something to play.
In the US artists pay the radio station to be played. Something around $100 000/year for a hit song (although this goes through middlemen selling playlists). This is done because the advertising effect of being heard results in bigger sales.
Slashdot Mirror
The major parties are vote whores. They don't give a shit about the non-voters and they don't actually care about people who always vote along party lines. Votes they could have had matter. If Democrats see Nader stealing their votes, they'll switch to Nader-like policies to get the votes. Otherwise they see their only option as becoming more like Republicans to steal votes from moderates.
Here in Canada, the extreme right of the Reform party started getting votes, so the Conservatives swung way right to get them back. After the green party grabbed a few percent of the votes suddenly all parties at least pretend that the environment is a priority.
'Winning' is not necessary to have an influence. They just have to think 'Those are votes I could of had!'
Ever since Napster and mp3.com people have been trying to cash in on the new, inexpensive distribution system. It was baseless lawsuits designed to bankrupt internet distribution companies that kept things down until Apple, which could afford prolonged court cases, got in the game. Now we have artists like Weird Al saying they (artists) make much more money off CDs which have a higher production and distribution cost. It appears the artist is still charged for 'breakage' in shipping of mp3s!
Market forces can be interfered with, for example by copy-right laws. Copy-right is interference in a capitalist market, granting temporary monopolies, to reward artists so they create more works.
The big money in the music business doesn't want real capitalistic forces going on, because that would cut into profits.
Why wouldn't a scientist kick around various view points and possible explanations of their results?! This isn't a creationist or politician we're talking about. Those are things for other scientists to look for, consider and attempt to find evidence for or against.
The solid bit they found is that Homo habilis and Homo erectus co-existed. This was not known before. What this implies is that what was previously assumed as the likely series of events, H.habilis -> H.erectus -> man, is actually unlikely. But yes, it is still possible, since it hasn't been disproved and there are other possible explantions. Scientists are relatively honest about the degree of uncertainty they have about things, which confuses the hell out of people.
Throwing around those kinds of ideas are important to let other scientists understand the scope of importance of the work and what to look for so that solid conclusions can be drawn. Another scientist may be sitting on evidence for one of these possibilities right now that they just weren't able to understand before. Maybe a geneticist studying human fleas has evidence there were two separate strains existing around 1.5 million years ago and both eventually ended up on humans and interbreeding. Previously, this might have been a confusing result but now it could be explained; one of them was living on H.habilis at the time. It might not jump out to a flea geneticist that these two being sister species implies the typically taught theory of human evolution is wrong.
That's actually the point I was trying to make. But look up the roman emperors that lived around Jesus' time and most of them have the day of their birth and death recorded. There's a strikingly different level of detail.
As for the old testament, you're right that I'm not that well versed in it. Actually are there full copies of it online? For some reason it's only the new testament that seems to get handed out for free.
I didn't say there is no history in the book. Just like Nazi history books, there are facts and some of them are correct. But there is an obvious agenda in both these cases and an accurate representation of history is very low priority. The bible is simply not a good history book because it was never trying to be.
As for the old testament, can you think of a reason it might try to record (and distort facts if necessary) that make the followers of the religion appear to be a chosen people of God?
Let's take a big event in the bible, Jesus's crucification. Now through the bible (or anywhere else) try to find out the year he died. Compare that to any of the roman leaders at the time, who had deed recorded by historians. For another example, compare there is a difference in a literate, scientific society, there is a big difference in when Elvis died according to historians or his most devoted fans. Are their opinions equally valid in your mind?
Consider what frequent warfare does (say constantly feuding clans).
Coexistence in no solid way rules out one species evolving from another.
That's right, and it was stated in the article.
Is the difference between a history book, which tries to represent historical events and a bible, which tries to represent spiritual philosophy, really that hard to comprehend? Is it really that hard to guess which will have more accurate historical accounts or which gives more ethical advice? Is the Nazi propaganda history (which was really try to promote Nazi philosophy) more, less or similar accuracy as other historical records? It may not be (okay, okay, isn't) completely factual, but how many history books are? ;)
There might be some reason or other to give more weight to certain opinions and be aware of likely biases of your sources.
Environmental scientists have a massive agenda to be CORRECT, as without credibility, they don't get any funding. Scientists get funding for doing innovative and thorough research regardless of the results. I don't get how researchers, who believe in the scientific method to discover the truth regardless of what it is, are somehow more biased than oil companies which stand to loose billions of dollars
Unfortunately, the record companies read this as "We lost a sale because of piracy! Stronger copy protection! Harsher laws!"
Of course other things are attributed to piracy too. Bought the video's on DVD instead of CD = CD sale lost to piracy. One song transfered on p2p = one lost song sale (you would think they would know this is wrong from micro-economics 101).
Suppose people do care and start conserving energy. They pay less for their energy bill, so that means they own more money. What do they do with this money? Spend it on other things of course! So that means other people are earning more money, for example in other parts of the world that are currently using less energy. What will they do with this extra money? Yes, spend it and in that process use more energy than they would have before!
Net result? 0
No the net result is that the quality of life for a larger number of people was increased for the same amount environmental damage. And the future technology moves closer to a sustainable, high quality of living for the total population of earth because more efficient use is gotten from finite resources.
There are cases high energy costs hurt productivity and efficiency, but waste can be done with absolutely no benefit (flip side part of that not zero-sum game arguement.) Unless you actually use an SUV for things that cannot be done with a more fuel efficient vehicle, there was extra pollution for no gains in productivity. Pollution that will increase crop prices and lower quality of life for people. There is no reason not to charge through the nose for this privilege or disallow it completely (like requiring higher efficiency standards in cars.)
In a way I have to agree with this, because the other is impossible (by what standard is health measured?) Really, for men's attraction to women, it's signs based on fertility and, therefore, health.
Being fat shows a great ability to gather resources. Being skinny does not. I doubt that a preference for less curvy women is genetic, I'm guessing its cultural.Or it reflects a hormonal imbalance, or genetic damage (cloned animals, like Dolly, that have genetic damage tend to get fat) or low impulse control. There are other factors involved and other features. Do you really think it's coincidence, though, that the cultural preferences for beauty just happen to reflect a healthier, more fertile segment of the population? There are waist/hip ratios that reflect health which are cross culturally associated with beauty. There is a difference between the healthy 'pleasantly plump' look and obesity.
As for the ability to gather resources, it stands out strikingly when you look at what women find attractive in men.
Genetically speaking, men would prefer healthy women. In societies where starvation was a problem, the more curvy look was preferred. Now what is the health problem now days? Yes, you are not talking about model/cocaine thin, but sleek and toned. In general, men still prefer the healthiest/youngest looking women.
When asked to pick out the silhouette of a woman they would like to have with them if marooned on a desert island, most men picked a larger, curvier shape than expected. So guys are pretending to like a body type they don't actually prefer because they think other men prefer it!It's been repeated found that it's women who believe the ultra-thin look is attractive, not men. I also think it's actually underestimated how much it's other women's opinions that shape women's self-esteem. After all, how many straight men can tell a $300 haircut from a $30 one or notice a women's shoes?
Watching a baby "discover" that they are moving their arms and hands around makes me think we may have no firmware at all. Just lots of potential, and the spark of conciousness.
But watching a baby horse stand-up within minutes of being born implies otherwise. It's well known that both functions exist, the question is how much of each.
Apparently vows do break much more often than condoms.
The HFCS used in most soft drinks is (I believe) 50% fructose. It is metabolised almost identically to sucrose: there is an initial enzyme that splits sucrose into glucose and fructose at similar ratios to the contents of the corn syrup, after that the metabolism is identical.
The researcher's main point was that fructose is metabolized completely differently from glucose, in a way that is very unhealthy and dangerous in comparison. It's not the calories.
Funny how you insist that American sugar farmers can get 'real jobs' - but somehow the African farmers can't change crops or jobs?
Funny how you don't believe in capitalism OR social responsibility.
Let me get this straight you believe the government is right to increase the taxes (in the form of enforced, artificially high prices) from the rest of America to subsidize American sugar farmers because they are not competitive with the growing seasons and labor around the world. This hurts typical Americans because they pay higher prices. This hurts the third-world farmers because they aren't allowed to participate in a market they're good at (and move on to other areas like taking over IT jobs like you suggest or starve). That is socialism that only helps American sugar farmers.
Let's put it another way, if say Kansas raised the prices on all imported wood to raise it to the price of local grown lumber, wouldn't you think that hurts both residents of Kansas who's business is not lumber and wood exporting states like Washington? Is it really different if it is separate countries and not states within a country?
Perhaps. I prefer to look at what makes them... unacceptable.
Their hanging out on street corners, harassing people, and causing trouble is what makes them unacceptable. And why are they hanging out on street corners, harassing people? Because they are dealing/using drugs.
But I've seen lots of alcoholics who behave the same way. Why are they different? The truth is they aren't(by any scientic measure) and many drug dealer and users don't act this way (really, the vast majority are indistinguishable from normal citizens. Remember to compare those on the street to homeless alcoholics, not everyone who drinks or employed alcoholics.) Charge them with the real crimes that bother you (and for some reason carry much lower sentences.) But from this you are an effect of the law, not a letter of the law type person.
For instance, it is legal for Americans to brew beer... up to 100 gallons per person in the household. An ounce more than that? Illegal. It's also illegal for people to distill alcohol.
You are a letter of the law type person then. My grandfather would distill his homemade wines when the taste came out poorly. He considered it a violation of his personal freedom that the government would try interfere with this activity. A juror other than you may decide a WWII vet who worked and paid taxes his whole life is not harmful to society or likely to be 'rehabilitated' by jail time even though he is technically guilty. Although they don't tell you this, this is the very important reason why juries are not made up of lawyers and judges. They want ordinary citizens to use common sense.
The street-corner dealer would have to turn to other methods of making money. Like mugging, robbing, 'protection' rackets, etc.
You may really want to check out what happened before, during and after Prohibition of alcohol if you believe this.
Perhaps the 'racist' jurors understood instinctively that market forces dictate that sending those men to prison will not significantly effect any of the detrimental effects on society you worry about, it will merely raise the street price of drugs until the position is once again filled by the most desperate/undesirable members of society.
Drug laws are also a classic example of racist laws. Cocaine is converted to crack at near 100% efficiency by simple processes like mixing cocaine with baking soda. Drug laws place a major drug offense at the possession of 500g of cocaine and 5g of crack. This allows a major distributor to possess say 250g of powder cocaine and receive only minor penalties but distribute it to 50 crack dealers who will receive major offense charges. Take a guess how racial/economic split of usage and selling goes for power and crack cocaine.
That's well known. Pigs and dogs brought by people ate them and their eggs. Slow flightless birds made easy targets. People tried eating them, but found they weren't very tasty.
Your experience is probably fairly typical. Nicotine is known to act as a stimulant mentally (increasing concentration). The rest is quite typical of the development of tolerance and dependence.
btw, in the article they mention that they are trying to make derivatives of nicotine that lack properties like addictiveness.
By scientific literature, LSD is one of the SAFEST drugs known to man and completely non-addictive. Seriously (it stunned me too, I've been trying to find any valid finding of dangers for a while.) Flashbacks appear to be a psychological effect and rare, more like Viet Nam vet's flashbacks.
Here's some perspective in people averaging over 3 drinks of alcohol per day, PERMANENT deficiencies in problem solving, concentration and memory begin to appear. (This is a statistic, so it is probably people who binge drink on weekends that have the damage, not those who have a few every day. I'm sure you remember mornings when you had brain damage.)
The relapse rates for quitting smokers are on par with heroin addicts.
*I don't see why it should be. The energy market is so large, there seems like more than enough incentive for innovation.
If the organization did anything of value and didn't need starting funding, they could just sell the product. No need for an incentive at all.
The free market isn't actually good at long-term basic research (in general). This kind of research actually has as much to do with advancing genetic engineering, the understanding of carbohydrate active enzymes and industrial enzyme design as anything else. So maybe it will never be cost effective as fuel production but they might find ways to make the enzymes function at high temperatures in organic solvents or maybe the enzymes will fail completely but bind tightly to specific carbohydrates making it excellent for targeted drug delivery to certain cancers.
Keeping basic research in your country is usually a good investment. Near most good Universities you will find a number of startup companies.
They are talking about converting cellulose to sugar to make ethanol. This has the advantages that bio-diesel has - it is made out of non-crop plants like wood-chips, grass-clippings, waste stocks of food plants, old paper. Plants like switch-grass and trees can be grown on very marginal land that cannot produce food. They are working on better enzymes to digest the cellulose to glucose, which is the problem.
In the US artists pay the radio station to be played. Something around $100 000/year for a hit song (although this goes through middlemen selling playlists). This is done because the advertising effect of being heard results in bigger sales.