eating fries at a [9]

lunchbox123 · 19 days

ezu132 · 19 days

AngryEnt, while you may consider yourself unlucky to reside in Iowa, you can at least take comfort in the fact that you have Carl Olsen on your side. He is currently a party to several lawsuits (one against the DEA, the other against the state of Iowa). You may be interested in his weekly vid-cast, Carl's cannabis corner.

Stay tuned on both cases. His arguments have not received very much (if any) mainstream media coverage, but if you listen to his argument or read the legal briefs, you may very well find it interesting.

jcriddle4 · 19 days

You do realize that Google reimplemented the Java language from scratch, right? They did this to avoid having to obtain a license from Oracle/Sun to use the code owned by Oracle/Sun.

At issue here instead is whether the structure of the Java APIs (i.e. package names, class names, method names, expected arguments of said methods) as a whole are covered under copyright. Apache Harmony and the Wine project are two different open source projects that could be significantly affected by this decision.

Also, please bear in mind that Judge Alsup, not the jury, has the final say on the central question of API copyrightability. You can also be reasonably certain that whomever loses in this court will appeal, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court.

hutcherino · 23 days

Love the colors. Is a 256-color theme in development?

The reason why I've used wombat and solarized is because of their 256-color support. I honestly like this one better than solarized, but I use lxterminal, which unfortunately only supports 256 colors.

sprinktron · 24 days

What do you think about the ADHD-I vs. ADHD-H distinction? Since the two manifest drastically different behaviors, wouldn't these be better categorized as two separate conditions altogether instead of both being grouped as ADHD?

sprinktron · 24 days

What drugs are being researched which are showing potential as the possible next generation of medications for ADHD?

sprinktron · 24 days

Is there any prospect for finding biomarkers for ADHD in the near future? Can we expect a blood test or other objective method of detection to replace or supplement a questionnaire?

walrus0 · 25 days

What type of OS/mediabox software do you run?

jimmyisright · 25 days

MAAN, I'M NOT GONNA LET YOU POISON ME. I THREW IT ON THE GROUND.

DrJulianBashir · 1 month

Wrong. Those people are the stockholders. They call it "limited liability" for a reason.

nyzeka · 1 month

Imagine that you were building a few towers with toy blocks. Then, your annoying sister comes along and hurls a tomato at one of the towers. Even though the tomato only directly hit one of the towers, another tower still falls down.

The other tower is 7WTC, and the tomato is a plane.

BarcodeMaster · 1 month

http://i.qkme.me/3okyma.jpg

SoManySpiderWebs · 2 months

Grab your dick and double-click for porn porn porn!

kitspark · 2 months

Of course it does. I should know.

chapelhill · 2 months

Here's my terribly convoluted solution (Hillmanov's solution is the most pythonic here):

def lone_sum(a, b, c):
    values = [a, b, c]
    map = {0: True, 1: True, 2: True}
    counter = 0
    innerindex = 0

    for value in values:
        index = values.index(value)

        if values.count(value) != 1:
            for innervalue in values:
                if innerindex != index and innervalue == value:
                    map[innerindex] = False
                    map[index] = False
                    break

                innerindex = innerindex + 1

        if map[index] != False:
            counter = counter + value

    return counter

chapelhill · 2 months

The logic requested here is different than coming up with a sum of a set of the arguments. Any duplicate number must be instantly disqualified.

NickHerb · 3 months

He meant cocaine.

tictacteaux · 3 months

Heard yesterday: "You've REALLY gotta look at the cost-benefit relationship before taking ANY vaccine."

mjtribute · 3 months

That is one possible reading of it, although I think that it goes a bit beyond that as well. The DEA will need to answer to the petitioner brief which clearly spells out a number of inconsistencies in the DEA's Schedule I evaluation process.

The allegation is that they are not even abiding by their own rules with respect to Schedule I classification, and they are reading their own scientific evaluation in a heavily skewed way. Can they demonstrate that these claims are untrue? If so, a more detailed review may be sanctioned. Stay tuned.

mjtribute · 3 months

I may very well be wrong, but this is my interpretation of the situation.

As the court has ordered a briefing schedule in this appeal case, I don't see how the DEA can avoid having to justify the process that lead them to assign marijuana to Schedule I.

mjtribute · 3 months

PACER is our country's outdated electronic filing system for courts. They charge $0.08 per page downloaded, which is outrageous given that the system is so incredibly unwieldy. An account can be created at pacer.gov.

Luckily, Carl Olsen (a party to this case) is a web developer, and has been consistently updating a copy of the docket on his website.

mjtribute · 3 months

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) sets about a procedure for rescheduling drugs controlled under the act. This procedure allows for the DEA to deny petitions that are which are in contradiction with their own investigations (here, the DEA used a report from the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS).

The case referred to here alleges that the DEA has "arbitrarily and capriciously" failed to abide by the CSA's own rules consistently, and that they use a skewed interpretation of the HHS report to bolster their contention that marijuana should remain in Schedule I.

mjtribute · 3 months

The DEA already did, in fact, deny the petition. Notice of petition denial was sent to the council for the petitioners on 30 July 2011, and was subsequently published in the federal register on 8 July 2011.

No opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut the arguments offered by the DEA. So on 22 July 2011, the petitioners filed for a review of the petition denial which had not allowed for further hearings.

Now here's the crucial part: on 7 December 2011, the court ordered that a schedule be established for briefs arguing why the DEA decision should be reviewed. If I understand it correctly, the DEA must respond to the petitioner on 12 March 2012 as to why the review should not take place. In their response, they will need to demonstrate that they did not act arbitrarily and capriciously as claimed by the petitioner's brief which was filed on 26 January 2012.

mjtribute · 3 months

You are correct! I only noticed that a minute after posting, but was rather surprised that I had missed it.

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
Secret Santa 2009

mjtribute

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login