Re: Preventing XP from knowing that you program crashed.

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 03/28/04 

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:53:41 +0100

Andrew Kennedy wrote:
> > Annie wrote:
> > > But it's just that the original premise doesn't pass the
> > > common sense "sniff test" for me.
> > >
> > > I mean...if welfare (British: "dole") were made freely
> > > available to anyone who wanted it, would the number of
> > > recipients be likely to decrease?
> > >
> > > Don't think so. Hehehe!
> >
> > That's interesting...because when I applied the exact same
> > "sniff test" on gun ownership and gun deaths in America,
> > you were among the first to insist categorically that
> > there was "clearly no connection whatsoever"...
>
> > Oh, which is an important point that's usually forgotten
> > here...cannabis isn't "legal" in Holland in that
> > sense...there is NOT a "free for all" on it...you must
> > only smoke it in "licenced" areas...as I say, the idea is
> > "regulation" here so they allow it via "licence" and then
> > keep an eye and demand good standards from those they
> > licence...cannabis is a relatively "harmless" drug in
> > comparison to most (the _tobacco_ inside your "spliff" is
> > probably the greater danger)..

First, due to your reply, I should point out the linguistical
points...

I did not put "relatively harmless"...I put 'relatively
"harmless"'...this is like one of those "put the comma in a different
place and the sentence reads completely differently" things...the
point being that "harmless" was in quotation marks, implying quotation
or an unreal or imaginery state...such quotation is a device to use
someone else's terminology in your own sentences...it was in quotation
marks exactly to suggest that I _wouldn't_ entirely agree with the
often-said term "harmless"...

And the key word here is "relatively"...being punched in the face is
_relatively_ "pain-free" in comparison to having your eyes plucked out
with hot pokers...this does not mean there is no pain associated with
being punched in the face, though...we're talking _relative_
measure...you have to be careful with comparative forms...for
instance, "this is good" is saying something is good...

The _comparative_ form "better", though, does NOT necessarily mean
something is in itself good: "Well, it's better to be punched in the
face than have your eyes plucked out with red hot pokers, yeah?" is
NOT saying that being punched in the face is actually a Good Thing...

The _superlative_ form, "best", _usually_ means something is good
(because "best" usually covers the widest possible set of things
:)...but NOT always: "what's best? Being punched in the face or having
your eyes plucked out with a red hot poker?"...here, you'd say
"punched in the face" (unless you're a bit weird)...and, thus, it is
"best"...BUT we've limited the "set of things" to just those two
pretty awful options...it is "best" from those options...but it is not
"best" overall in the wider context of what's the most good out of
everything there possibly could be...

It's a subtle misunderstanding many people do to think "better" and
"best" automatically imply something is "good"...this is not
necessarily the case..."being punched in the face" is both "better"
and "best" from the two limited options presented...but this does not
mean it is "good" and that you should rush off to get yourself punched
in the face...

Hence, for instance, in comparison to, say, solvent abuse - which can
quite literally kill _instantly_ if taken incorrectly - then cannabis
(gradual mental decay, weak addictive qualities) ranks very low on the
scale _in comparison_...this does NOT mean, though, that anyone should
take cannabis because of this...you shouldn't be "on the scale" at
_any_ point, low or high, because this is a scale of _harmful_
things...

This is important to note carefully, because one drug - alcohol - is
actually quite high up on such a "scale" (highly addictive, can induce
violence, has severe effects on co-ordination, changes personality,
lowers people's natural prohibitions, rots your liver, rots your
kidneys, addicts become extremely prone to violent mood changes,
addicts become highly secretive to hide their addiction, prolonged
heavy use produces permanent mental damage, can bring on diabetes in
vurnerable people, mixes extremely badly with most other chemicals
because it's a reactive substance meaning that mixing alcohol with
other things - even aspirin or cough medicine - can lead to blackouts
and other complications, memory loss, etc., etc.) yet is not only
legal, it's not only tolerated...in many cultures, you're a social
leper for NOT doing it...

> You must not seen many examples of people who smoke
> marijuana.

Remember, the UK now has higher statistics than both the US and
Holland on this...I grew up in a working class environment...do you
really want to put money on that assertion? Hint: I'd advice against
doing so...

> "Relatively harmless" is a very poor assessment of it.

That was NOT my assessment of it, anyway, you misread what I was
saying...

> It has 4 times the tar and nicotine of a cigarette

Nicotine?!? Who's your supplier? What on Earth hell is that doing in
there?

> in addition to the permanent brain damage it does.

This is correct; With prolonged use, it causes serious damage to
mental functionality...slowness, forgetfulness, etc....it's not
actually been shown that it is a "permanent" effect medically...BUT I
don't doubt that for a second...generally, with the brain, when it's
physically "damaged" - especially over a prolonged period of time -
there usually no going back, whatever the cause...

Though, to be correct here, this does require _prolonged_ and quite
_heavy_ usage...also, this is still an area of active research (due to
the illegality, there actually isn't as much "official" research into
all the long-term effects as you may think...long-time cannabis users
probably know as much, if not more, than the scientists on this
one...after all, multiple sclerosis suffers are still fighting for a
legalisation of it for _medical purposes_ in easing the pain of the
condition...and those who have this illness have been saying - and
breaking the law - for decades, knowing from direct experience that
it's one of the best treatments for their condition there is...seeing
as they are the actual ones suffering the pain, I actually kind of
trust their opinion over the "theory" of whether doctors think it
should or shouldn't work by what their textbooks say...empirical
evidence basically overrides any other type...the scientists would be
among the first to agree with that because that's why they run
"trials" of drugs before wide-spread medical use ;)...

It's not as black-and-white as the "war on drugs" adverts may like to
paint it...what about _medical use_ for multiple sclerosis? Why do
those anti-drugs never talk about the far, far worse effects alcohol
not only has on the individual but their family and those around
them...ultimately, due to its legality, on entire societies? It's
difficult to take such a wildly biased _hypocritical_ policy all that
seriously...you know, they were _right_ about prohibition...we might
not want that to happen but, fundamentally, we _do_ know that, on
medical and social grounds, the prohibition of alcohol was entirely
logical and entirely accurate...

You know, in this country, _all_ tobacco advertising has been banned
completely (billboard posters were allowed until recently but now
these have been disallowed too, so there can be NO form of advertising
for cigarettes whatsover)...the health warnings read: "SMOKING KILLS",
"SMOKING GREATLY INCREASES YOUR RISK OF HEART DISEASE", etc. (_their_
capital letters...stark black and white...delibrately ugly and
standardised by law that way to ruin any "artistic" designs the
manufacturers might try to tempt people with) and the law mandates
that they must - get this - cover a minimum of _40%_ of the packet's
front and _50%_ of the packet's back (which, in practice, means those
are exactly the sizes the manufacturers make them because they don't
want to make them any bigger and law disallows them from making it any
smaller)...the warnings are _massive_ and completely blunt and
non-compromising...Britain has hideously high taxation on
cigarettes...cigarette manufacturers, in fact, try to counter this by
offering both _10_ as well as the usual 20 packs...which, throwing it
quickly into an internet currency convertor is approaching $9 per pack
of 20 (heading towards £5 per pack since this last budget, in its
original currency)...

The point being, when they say in America that they are serious about
these kinds of things and tackling the problems, don't underestimate
how much money tobacco makes for America that they do like to "water
down" their committments...poor old American government, caught
between a rock and a hard place...they can't not address the health
issues but push too hard and all that money and all those jobs in the
tobacco industry will probably ensure they lose the next
election...so, it's very, very slow and creeping measures put into
force...though, that said, the full-out bans on smoking in all public
places in major cities is a radical step not many have
copied...ironic, really, for the "land of the free" to have this when
the usual reason given elsewhere for not doing it: Well, it's all a
bit "fascist" and "police state", isn't it? I guess we're just all too
"leftist" over here or something ;)...

> It also drops their motivation and productivity far more
> than most other drugs.

Well, Frank captured the essence on this one: There's no disputing
with that...of course, cannabis users would consider that this is
"chilling out" and is kind of _the point_ of taking it in the first
place ;)...

Beth :)

Quantcast