Dudde

interesting that the drive show's up as Z: instead of D or E or F - did you keep all defaults when creating that partition?

if you aren't sure, try right clicking on that drive in 'my computer' - the Z: drive from the looks of it, and format once more - make sure you're formatting in NTFS (as long as you're using xp anyway) and it would probably be advisable to perform a 'quick format' - there's a checkbox at the bottom of the format window to do that.

again as a friendly side note, be sure not to play with your boot drive when using the formatting tools

EDIT:

whoops, too slow

hey that's awesome, glad to help!

Usually when I'm drinking, I just down a whole lot of water on the side - not like a gallon, but a couple glasses while I'm drinking, I haven't woken up with a hangover for a few years - keeping in mind of course that I take everclear shots straight =o

I also wanted to throw a side note in here too - if the computer is a prefab, or OEM manufactured like Dell or IBM, it would probably be best to go to their support site to download the drivers you're looking for - sometimes it doesn't matter, but with a lot of drivers, they're made especially for the system you're using, and the original vendor drivers may not account for specific differences on the computer

uh oh, that last comment made by person is slightly worry-some, hopefully they don't do anything with that CD....

anyway person, if you come back here, do this:

1. Right click 'my computer' on the desktop, click 'manage'

2. In the left panel, select the 'disk management' option

You should see a couple different blocks on this screen, on of which should be a fairly large one that says 'unallocated data' - if you right click that drive, you may need to initialize the disk (it actually says initialize as a right click option)- but when you right click that unallocated block, if it's initialized, it should give you the option to create partition, or create new partition - follow that wizard and it'll set it up for you

as a side note, while you're setting up that new partition, if you aren't too technical I would probably advise leaving the default options, should be fine!

EDIT: as another side note, PLEASE do not right click or do anything with the Boot partition, probably the C: drive - if you initialize it, you'll never get the data back on that disk because it will be erased, make sure you're working only with the 'unallocated' disk =D

friendly word of caution

I would also like to say that while difficult to fund, it's equally as difficult to pay 25 million every time the pirates want to board a ship

Can we possibly train our body to go without sleep or would that kind of be classified as evolution

Doubtful, sleep let's our bodies complete necessary functions, or healing in some instances. I can't think of any instances where missing sleep would be a good thing - for example, in college, I used to get less than 18 hours of sleep a week, and in one instance stayed up for like 8 days - started falling asleep mid-sentences, and like I_A said, was actually hallucinating while I was awake

I agree, and you can't really train and arm the ships crew either, which is kinda stupid - so then the best option starts to be to try to find an alternate route that would be more difficult and unattractive to pirates.

It would be equally as unfeasible though to just carry on from here forward as we always have, I have doubts that pirates would just roll over

Are you talking about insomniacs? No, they can't stay awake forever - I can say from experience that they actually have it worse than others in some respects, it really becomes hard to tell when you're tired if you're tired all the time, and you're more prone to randomly falling asleep during something like, say, driving

Sorry my sources keep coming from CNN but I don't have time to read anything else =D

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/13/somalia.pirates.revenge/index.html

did pirates essentially just declare war on the U.S and France? That sounds ridiculous... I'm all for keeping armed escorts for ships, or setup some convoy to transport groups of ships or something, like a ferry!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/12/somalia.pirates/index.html

NICE!

I don't generally say this but I'd be willing to eat some teargas to voice my disfavor on this.

 

It's absolutely appalling in my opinion, not sure what else can be said.

Nice! If you find a way from eating tear gas to make your opinion voiced, let me know and I'll join you my friend.

To be honest, I'm not passionate enough about this to argue with a one-sided crowd. This issue is really just opinion for me - actually, in the 'anti MJ' crowd, I'm usually the one throwing all these points at them - the main thing that ticks me off is the availability to teens and underaged kids, who then start cutting things into and dying off. That, or it gives them this need for a 'greater high' - which I happen to know for myself, I've already labelled 'official studies' as propoganda in this thread.

This is all based on opinion, but I have reason to be fairly confident that my personal experiences are pretty commonplace.

On top of that the possibility of the same punishment for smoking pot underage as you have for alcohol should prevent some from smoking. Loosing your drivers license or being unable to get one if caught until you are 21 can be a powerful incentive. Sadly it's not enforced for alcohol the way it should be either.

And honestly, I was actually making that point, but I'm at work, got a call, hit 'preview post' and saw that you'd made it - I agree completely.

Absolutely not. I'm saying that arguing that opponents are hypocrites because alcohol is legal and MJ is not is logical, but has the least chance of being effective in changing opponents minds. Opponents will not see themselves as being hypocritical. Hypocrisy is hard for ANYONE to spot in themselves, so it is almost always ineffective. It's just human nature.

But you didn't answer the second part of that. If it's logical that Marijuana should legalized because it only damages the user personally, why are we stopping with something as harmless as MJ? Using the bases of this argument, I don't see why other, more hardcore drugs wouldn't be able to use the same argument

I really see the lack of responsibility and accountability in the U.S totally disturbing, and I think that's got an impact on my opinion as well.

Alcohol can kill you out right, many people are treated for alcohol poisoning every year.

So your argument, is that when used right, Marijuana doesn't kill people. But when alcohol is abused, it does kill people?

Alcohol does (and probably will) happen to a greater degree, but it's a shame how many of you keep touting MJ as completely safe to all degrees - I understand it's important to press your points good sides to the best effect, but denying anything dangerous about this particular drug is pretty uncool.

And even if it couldn't be developed or used in a dangerous way, people who are addicted to Marijuana have proven pretty outright that they'll go to much more dangerous, and societally...or societically? I dunno - disturbing means to get to it.

Dudde, I think it would be wise to consider the intensity of intoxication from THC. It's not argued alot, and I have no idea why. Marijuana cannot "knock you out" and leave a teenage girl helpless to the party animals. Alcohol can, and does. Marijuana does not effect your sense of balance, take over your judgement and get you running down your street naked. It doesn't take you over. All of the other fun drugs, do. You'll see a couch of lazy stoners, some of which are "passed out", but you won't see a staggering, drooling fool that can't control himself, or find the floor.

 

Marijuana is a mild intoxication, by comparison. It's effects are felt almost instantaneous. Unlike alcohol, and the other entertainment drugs, which take so long to take effect you can very easily consume too much before you realize how it's going to hit you - and then it's too late. Even iNow will pray to the porcelain god after way too many drinks...

Which is a good point that I overlooked - you're definitely right that it doesn't get argued a lot, it totally slipped by what I was thinking. Marijuana isn't as harmless as all that however - and is also extremely easy to slip substances into without notice. I've known a lot of people who had something laced into what they were smoking - it's just as easy both ways

Don't get me wrong, alcohol can definitely leave you rendered unconscious to the same degree without having anything slipped into it, but dear lord you'd have to be drinking a lot what I drink (190 P everclear) in order to need to be knocked out quite that cold. Usually when I mess with sleeping drunk people, they wake up to some extent. And trust me, I do it a lot.

That's some pretty sweet detail you got goin' on there, and it looks like you've found life!

I tried replying this morning, but my internet was being controlled by communists...

That would be decided by the market. Depending on how legal it became, we are talking about a weed that anyone can grow, virtually anywhere. How much does homemade wine and beer cost?

That's true, and I agree, but I would predict a lot more people growing this at home than making alcohol - as well as trying to sell it as a living. Which is fine I guess, I just don't want people pushing it at me or making it easier for underage people to obtain by selling it all over the street. Whether they're going to or not, we can at least try to put SOME measure of difficulty in there

The hypocrisy angle is the weakest one to me, and the one that has the least chance of changing opinions. Hypocrites don't see their actions as being hypocritical, and alcohol-only imbibers usually see everything else as only "drugs".

Is this some roundabout way of saying people against it are hypocrites? That's what I took out of it, and I disagree again, for the same reasons cited above. Just because you can do X and Y, it is not automatically assumed that Z should be legal too. That would be a bad way to regulate

Is this a sarcastic "right"?

~~

And why is non-THC hemp illegal? All the arguments about it's being mistaken have been debunked.

No, this was actually me agreeing, I just don't like when people leave out parts of my argument that I think are valid, so I return the courtesy even if I agree

Many people who would benefit from it's affects won't take it because of the stigma associated with it being illegal for everyone else.

I don't agree with this point. I know a lot of people waiting to jump on the opportunity for this to become legalized, but either

A) Don't do it because it's illegal now

or

B) Do it anyway

When it becomes legal medicinally, I doubt there'll be much more resistance to taking it than any other medicines.

I agree. The list of cons for legalizing MJ are ridiculous.

Don't play with my words - I was referring specifically to the list quoted by Mr. Skeptic. It was and was meant to be ridiculous to downplay the opposing side. Personally, I don't see the action as a move to bring down crime in the U.S nor to bring people away from other illegal substances, it'll probably just drive the drug market deeper somewhere else.

This is probably the best compromise. If making medical MJ available everywhere went hand in hand with removing it as a felony offense so we could get some otherwise decent folks out of jail, I WOULD STAND BEHIND THAT 100%.

No, that isn't what I meant. My point was to legalize it for medicinal use only, start small, and go from there. Not to decriminalize it entirely. I doubt everyone in jail for MJ possession/use/distribution was only taken in for that charge, although I'll concede there are a good many. This goes back to what I said previously - I doubt legalizing will bring down crime by a significant factor

I think maybe if we could get some regulations and enforcement in place for illegal movements into and out of the country - weapons, LSD, or otherwise, it might be the time to consider legalizing it. Making something legal just to make it easier to deal with is politically and morally irresponsible and shows great weakness in leadership - we need to get a handle on what we have before we add more. (this might go back to the previous statement that we should lessen our plate before adding more?)

waitforufo

Legalize marijuana and the profit motive for this drug deal would have collapsed

What? No it wouldn't have - I don't know if you know expensive the other drugs listed actually are.

And again, if we legalize and bring the MJ market under control, drug cartels are going to find something else to push at us, I don't know we're giving them enough credit here...

It would certainly be nice to see a public debate about it.

Pros:

* less hypocrisy (alcohol, tobacco,...)

* spending --> profits (law enforcement, jail costs, prosecution, etc. --> tariffs)

* less crime (one less thing illegal, cheaper pot so users don't need to steal to finance their habit, less decent people going to jail and learning to be a hardcore criminal, less people already doing something illegal so not minding doing other illegal things, less money to drug cartels)

* more freedom (less laws, less nanny state, more personal responsibility)

* can grow non-THC plants again

* medicinal marijuana

 

Cons:

* changing status quo

* "its for your own good"

* people scared of potheads

* lawyers and law enforcement would lose some of their jobs

 

I'm sure I'm missing a few, but I don't think that a debate about marijuana legalization could come out on the side of keeping it illegal without use of plenty of emotional appeal.

I see a lot of conclusion jumping in this post - have we already decided a price for it if it were legalized?

* less hypocrisy (alcohol, tobacco,...)

I don't agree - I see nothing hypocritical about it. You can't merely say "well because I can smoke X and drink Y, both of which give me an altered state of mind, Z should be legal too" - I can't speak from experience, but a lot of people say that it's nothing like drinking or smoking anyway

* spending --> profits (law enforcement, jail costs, prosecution, etc. --> tariffs)

Agreed.

* less crime (one less thing illegal, cheaper pot so users don't need to steal to finance their habit, less decent people going to jail and learning to be a hardcore criminal, less people already doing something illegal so not minding doing other illegal things, less money to drug cartels)

Another set of conclusions. Some of the above points hold merit I'll admit, but others do not. I've never known anybody I respect who also uses MJ to steal to feed their habit, it's the same as anything else they do. I doubt you'll get rid of people stealing by a huge portion by legalizing it.

- I also disagree with 'decent people going to jail and learning to be hardcore', but it's really just an opinion, so that's all I'll say

- I know of a lot of people who don't really care about what they're doing for themselves, and do it purely because it's illegal. I'm not saying they're the majority, but don't think because you never look for anything heavier that nobody else will. I don't know 10 people collectively who've smoked MJ who haven't done or want to find a way to do one of the other illegals to see what it's like.

-"less money to drug cartels" I can't completely agree with - don't think for a second that once we legalize, they're not going to cut something into it to make it look more attractive, or some other way to keep their customers.

* more freedom (less laws, less nanny state, more personal responsibility)

This may be my problem - I've always viewed more personal responsibility to Americans as something of a joke.. at least for now. We're getting better.

* can grow non-THC plants again

Right

* medicinal marijuana

They've already got this. Not everywhere, but there isn't any point in pushing medical if it's just plain legal? Please tell me if I've assumed incorrectly as to your meaning on this.

I'm not going to quote your cons, as they were obviously meant to be ridiculous. I think if we tried to edge it in a little at a time or something, like legalizing medical use everywhere first, or let a few states test it out or something, we might have some better effects. I doubt just passing a bill to decriminalize it will have the above-quoted benefits for quite a long time, and will result in a lot of trouble in the meantime.

No, it's to make moderation easier.

 

Lower standards = less work.

And this, my friend, is why you're smarter than I am. Please, allow me to introduce you to my boss

You can probably also figure something out using the water supply - whether it be mixing it with the sprayers at wal-mart, or finding a hugely known water theme park

I don't know which one's funnier - the thought of those two trying to set themselves up a lynch mob, or that picture.

I have to agree with iNow for that one - the post quoted above does little to explain why their account would be suspended for any means, I make fun of Oprah all the time. I don't see how it violated their user agreement...it probably did because youtube is stupid sometimes, but I haven't read the agreement so I don't know.

They're hardly the first to talk about something high profile however

EDIT: I filed a complaint last night anyway

GutZ

I really don't care if other people dislike it, or hate the smell, or whatever, that's a stupid reason to take away someones freedom to choose.

You forget that not everybody is as responsible for you. There are a lot of people not eating, or stealing from someone else, in order to get money for drugs - not strictly MJ, but a good deal of them. I think once U.S citizens grow up a bit maturity - wise, it won't be a problem legalizing it. I don't see 'bad smells and people not liking it' as the only reason not to legalize however.

jackson33

I feel they are to restrictive to change which I believe was intended by the founders.

But that's merely something you feel might have been intended, and has no bearing on the difference in the world then and now. During the days of the founders, I'm sure being fat wasn't necessarily the biggest worry in the U.S either. Not that I'm saying people using MJ are fat, but relating the difference in times - things are not the same, presumptions cannot be made.

"Regardless of what you think about the personal non-medical use of marijuana, do you think doctors should or should not be allowed to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes to treat their patients?"

I don't agree with prescription medicine personally, but that's a choice I make and I'd hardly try to use it to prevent if it's sincerely helping with certain conditions, like MS (multiple sclerosis?.) It's almost like trying to get Vicaden pushed for over the counter?

Do you already have a fully automated "recognize Dutch people system"?

I'm so puzzled by this post... not scared in a country of legalized guns, but scared by a drug which makes people peaceful and in the mood to watch a movie. Your remark here looks like: "Not scared by a lion with an attitude, but panicking by the sight of bambi."

To be fair, I never said I was scared of MJ, not in the slightest, I find it highly annoying and, as recognized, the annoyance and distaste I have for the substance comes from completely personal past encounters. (also, I hate guns, and find them pansy-ish, and wish real criminals weren't the pansies they are, so we wouldn't necessarily need them for self defense)

It just doesn't make any sense. Sorry, but I really feel like laughing at you Dudde...

Indeed, my aim is to bring more laughter and humor into this world, I'm pleased that my statements are bringing me closer to this goal!

oh, and

yeah, the smoker first thinks, then talks, while the old lady just talks and talks

I've never found this to be an actual scenario, I may need to visit another country to do that first though. I don't know how many of the people around here from the U.S are from poorer neighborhoods or more crime infested areas, but in the United States, I haven't found a lot of responsible adults or kids who have any reason they should be allowed to have this legalized. Close to none TBH

The hypocrisy of politicians never ceases to amaze.

That's a funny statement, but how true - I hadn't been watching the news lately so I haven't heard about supporting AmeriCorps - being pretty atheistic though, I've worked with them several times, I usually like what they do to help and promote...well, 4 years ago anyway.

Then you must also hate old ladies who wear too much perfume in public places. My point being this: Should everything that offends you be criminalized?

I do honestly, well I mean I don't hate the old ladies, old people are cool, but I hate most perfumes/colognes on the market today. I don't necessarily believe that everything that offends us should be outlawed - but there's a big difference between an old lady walking around with perfume, and smoke from recreational (or professional I guess) smokers

Pangloss

and asked if I could teach the freshman storytelling classes, even though we have people with English and history PhDs on campus,

I think it's probably better that way - I don't really like traditional story-telling techniques provided by English teachers, although a Historian would be pretty helpful to have around to have a credible world - even if it was fantasy or Sci-Fi based.

Good call Gutz - I haven't seen that particular anime, but I'm really tired of the happy endings all the time. There was a (mostly) chick flick a few years back called atonement - I actually hated the movie all the way through until the end. It wasn't necessarily a sad ending, but the way it ended was totally cool, and I started liking the movie immensely. - I also agree with Pangloss however in that the Japanese are sort of masters of story telling right now - most of the coolest movies I've seen in a long time have been either anime, or Japanese.

However, I don't know about the world being shallow - I mean it is, but it's right on the spot for the intended audience I think. I'll admit to reading I think 6 of the books, the first 6, and personally I like Rowling's style of progressing the story - the way she develops characters is pretty cool, and adds a certain level of re-readability to the books.