Jump to content

SomeDude

Senior
  • Content Count

    583
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About SomeDude

  • Rank
    Technical Advisor

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    BANNED FOR SPAMMING CHAT

Recent Profile Visitors

826 profile views
  1. Nice to see you on site.

     :fith:

  2. http://www.king5.com/news/marijuana/Lawsuit-challenges-states-authority-to-tax-marijuana-258779791.html
  3. SomeDude

    pest problem solver

    good resource for plant and pest problems http://www.planetnatural.com/pest-problem-solver/
  4. Earlier this month, my great home state of Illinois joined the party and legalized medical marijuana, becoming the 20th state in the nation to do so. With most of the rest of the thirty straggling states now trying to push forward some kind of legislation, and with Washington and Colorado both taking the unprecedented step to outright legalize it, and with CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta officially climbing on board the Green Express by saying that he believes it has legitimate medicinal properties, the nationwide legalization of marijuana is less of a hope and more of an inevitability. At some near point in the future, most likely one that takes place in our own lifetimes, the use of marijuana will be as prevalent as cigarettes, alcohol, and aspirin. And, as anyone who's ever stepped foot in a bar or liquor store or hospital knows, that means big corporations jockeying for your money. As this report from CNBC makes clear, there's tons of money in pot. It's the so-called "largest cash crop in California" for a reason: the cultivation of marijuana plants in Mendocino County alone is theorized to reach roughly $1.5 billion a year. Seeing as no one has a perfect understanding of just how many plants are being grown up there, that estimate may actually be low. And with that much money hanging around, corporate interests are sure to follow. What the CNBC report surmises, then, is that what has happened with the coffee/beer/wine industry is going to happen to the marijuana one: Small artisan growers get a jump-start and make big profits for a few years before large corporations buy them out, create partial monopolies, and dominate the industry from that point forward. Legal commercial production in the U.S. is currently handled by a patchwork of small farmers. While there have been rumors for years of big agricultural firms buying up land ahead of legalization, it would still take time to develop a mass production product, and even more time to build a Maxwell House-like brand that would come to dominate that market. Dominate they will, unless something drastic changes with the state of the country's fundamental economic philosophy. That's just the current way of our world. But there's actually a distinct possibility that those artisan developers aren't even going to get their handful of glory days before big business takes over. And the swift market domination may come from one of our favorite genetic-engineering corporate supergiants: Monsanto. The move certainly makes sense on a logical level. At its core, marijuana is an agricultural product. It's a crop. And that's a system that Monsanto, as detailed time and time again in these parts, specializes in gaming. As far as the "technological advancements" they're working on in order to put themselves ahead of the game: The company is investing millions of dollars into this new technology dubbed "RNAi." With RNAi, it is possible to manipulate everything from the color of the plant to making the plant indigestible to insects. With medical marijuana, RNAi could be used to create larger, more potent plants effectively cornering the market and exceeding the legal demand for the plant. Picture the future: Marijuana-laced edibles being sold at Ralph's -- behind some kind of glass case, of course -- that have not only been made with GMO-infused peanut butter and Rice Krispies and flour, but the marijuana itself has been raised with genetically-modified seedlings. That kind of product doesn't seem like what cancer patients and other ill individuals will be looking forward to digesting to dull the pain. (We're talking about medical marijuana here, after all.) Which means that maybe the main issue we'll be eventually dealing with is not whether we should have access to medical marijuana at all, but whether we should have easier access to medical marijuana that's organic and GMO-free. http://www.kcet.org/living/food/food-rant/monsanto-to-take-over-the-weed-industry.html
  5. NEIL CAVUTO: What do you make [of Obamacare]? Obviously, a lot of people have been focusing on the law but not really cognizant of the privacy part of the law, and how hackers could have a field day with it. Is it that bad? JOHN McAFEE: Oh, it is seriously bad. Somebody made a grave error, not in designing the program but in simply implementing the web aspect of it. I mean, for example, anybody can put up a web page and claim to be a broker for this system. There is no central place where I can go and say, 'Okay, here are all the legitimate brokers, the examiners for all of the states and pick and choose one.' Instead, any hacker can put a website up, make it look extremely competitive, and because of the nature of the system, and this is health care, after all, they can ask you the most intimate questions, and you’re freely going to answer them. What’s my Social Security number? My birth date? What are my health issues? McAFEE: Well, here's the problem -- it's not something software can solve. I mean, what idiot put this system out there and did not create a central depository? There should be one website, run by the government, you go to that website and then you can click on all of the agencies. This is insane. So, I will predict that the loss of income for the millions of Americans who are going to lose their identities -- I mean, you can imagine some retired lady in Utah, who has $75,000 dollars in the bank, saving her whole life, having it wiped out one day because she signed up for Obamacare. And believe me, this is going to happen millions of times. This is a hacker's wet dream. I cannot believe that they did this. CAVUTO: So once the government gets up and running, and we trust it is up and running again, it not as if any of these large agencies, now health care, are any less inclined to still snoop, still hack, still encourage other hackers? McAFEE: Of course not, they are going to continue to do this as long as we give them the power to do so. And ObamaCare itself is the loosest of all. You can imagine the type of information -- medical records, personal issues, psychological issues. I mean, the government’s going to know everything in the world about everyone very soon. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/03/john_mcafee_on_obamacare_this_is_a_hackers_wet_dream.html
  6. http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_24198989/john-mcafee-reveals-details-gadget-thwart-nsa
  7. SomeDude

    Thanks SomeDude and XbrPete!! Rhizobiotics Rock!!!

    right on manny... glad it all arrived in good shape! that other product is yield booster (triacontanol) -- just use 1 drop in the enclosed spray bottle!
  8. SomeDude

    The hornets of your nightmares

    guess we are going to need some bigger versions of those electric fly swatters now
  9. The DEA Thinks You Have “No Constitutionally Protected Privacy Interest” in Your Confidential Prescription Records By Nathan Freed Wessler, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project at 10:00am The Drug Enforcement Administration thinks people have “no constitutionally protected privacy interest” in their confidential prescription records, according to a brief filed last month in federal court. That disconcerting statement comes in response to an ACLU lawsuit challenging the DEA’s practice of obtaining private medical information without a warrant. The ACLU has just filed its response brief, explaining to the court why the DEA’s position is both startling and wrong. We represent four patients and a physician in Oregon whose confidential prescription records are contained in a state database that tracks prescriptions for certain drugs. The database, called the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), was intended to be a public health tool to help physicians avoid drug overdoses and abuse in their patients. Despite a state law requiring law enforcement to obtain a probable cause warrant from a judge before requesting records from the PDMP, the DEA has been requesting records using administrative subpoenas, which do not involve judicial authorization or probable cause. Our clients object to the DEA’s warrantless access to the PDMP because their prescription records reveal deeply private information about their health and medical history, including their gender identity (two of our clients are transgender men taking testosterone as part of their transition from female to male sex) and mental illness (one client takes medication to treat anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders). In July, we explained to the court why people have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their confidential prescription records and the medical information those records reveal. (Under the Fourth Amendment, if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in an item or location, law enforcement can generally conduct a search only if it first obtains a warrant). In support of our arguments, we submitted sworn declarations from medical privacy experts, including a scholar of medical ethics and a physician who explained that maintaining the confidentiality of doctor-patient communications is vital to the successful practice of medicine, and an authority on the history of medical ethics who explained that principles of medical confidentiality were well established at the time of the writing of the Fourth Amendment and would have been relied on by the Amendment’s framers. In its latest brief, the DEA ignores these points and instead argues that the mere fact that our clients’ prescription records are held in a database maintained by a third party—the State of Oregon—means that they have somehow given up their privacy interest in the records. Courts have found that no warrant is required for information contained in some kinds of business records like electricity consumption records held by a power company or room registration information held by a motel. This is because, in theory, people have voluntarily given up their privacy interest in information when they turn it over to a third party. We disagree with that principle, called the “third party doctrine,” in many situations, because when people provide sensitive information to a third party for a specific purpose, they typically do not intend for law enforcement to have unfettered access to it. The principle is particularly offensive in this case. Even accepting the third party doctrine on its own terms, the DEA’s position that confidential medical records should be treated the same as electrical consumption records or banking records is absurd. The information we share with our doctors and the medical treatment our doctors prescribe constitutes some of the most deeply private and sensitive information about us. Just because we trust our doctors and pharmacists with our medical information doesn’t mean the DEA should be able to easily access it too. Telling your doctor that you have an anxiety disorder or HIV is nothing like letting the power company read your electricity meter. The information communicated is exponentially more private. And the decision to visit a physician or pharmacist to obtain urgent medical treatment is not voluntary in any meaningful sense. We need to disclose our medical information to our doctors because our physical and psychological ailments require it, and foregoing care because of privacy concerns can leave a person debilitated or dead. We shouldn’t have to choose between protecting our privacy and protecting our health. The DEA’s position insults the rights, and the intelligence, of everyone who will ever seek treatment from a physician. The DEA seems to think the Constitution doesn’t apply to its investigations. This case provides the court with an opportunity to push back, and to ensure that overzealous law enforcement agencies do not erode the longstanding protections of the Fourth Amendment. https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/dea-thinks-you-have-no-constitutionally-protected
  10. bunch of lightweights.... Washington... As seen from PDX OMMP camping pic...
  11. SomeDude

    weed metal?

    lol... 6' under is from spokane IIRC
×