Ex-Microsoft man plans brand of consumer marijuana 'fine cigars' An ex-Microsoft executive plans to establish a chain of retail outlets serving premium marijuana across the US, both to get rich and - apparently - to undermine drugs traffickers. James Shively is reported to buying up medical marijuana dispensaries in the states of Washington and Colorado and boasted the business will produce …
Highly disappointed on not seeing an Eadon Pavlovian response.
Here goes
"Anything Open Smoke is far superior, the desktop is cleaner and makes for easier skinning.
Even without usual skins the basic set-up of a hollowed-out carrot makes for a better user experience."
But I'd argue against as OpenSmoke has products that are poorly hashed and over-seeded with a need to build up a list of reliable vendors of quality product. Prices do not necessarily mean quality and OEM can be hit or miss.
As usual there are plenty of so-called 'experts' with home-grown systems but few have the nous or patience to produce a quality product. So much merchandise is rushed out before being properly tested and ready, it is a bit of a gamble. The Chinese produce container-loads of alternative products but many of those have a hidden payload.
borg them into the mother ship to quash competition, fire the staff and hire some HB-1 visa holders to do the transition work for cheap, grab a bunch of patents for its new conquests, slap some corporate paint on 'em, and introduce them as the latest Pelican offerings to come standard as part of the package. They won't work as well as the original pre-Pelican versions, but since you can't get the original anymore there's no point bellyaching. Many customers shrug "oh well" and use the Pelican version, more discerning customers go (or rather, grow) open source and either DIY or support small scale developers. La plus ca change, la plus c'est la meme chose.
Good.
I f*ckin hate the hippy arsebags that fight *against* legalisation because it will let the corporations take over. Maaaaaan.
Sure, perpetuate the useless, expensive, senseless war on drugs because 'the man' is somehow keeping you down even when he legalises your favourite herb. Muppets.
This post has been deleted by its author
When you are concentrating on 'The Big Bong Theory,,, Smoke MindEx Classic! More Bong for your Buck!'
Or; Chillum Green.
The problem with legalising drugs is too many people who think they can handle it will go out driving while stoned and using a mobile phone or Ipad followed by wiping out bus queues or causing multiple pile ups.
For you younger dudes; dope dealers originated the smiley badge in the sixties to indicate they were carrying.
>The problem with legalising drugs is too many people who think they can handle it will go out driving while stoned and using a mobile phone or Ipad followed by wiping out bus queues or causing multiple pile ups.
As opposed to those driving while on opioid scripts? Pretty much everyone who drives around stoned already does. And if the report the Canadian Senate made way back is correct, it is unlikely to make a difference, that touchscreen device on the other hand is a big problem.
<Now where did those keys go?
Shame we're not ahead of the curve here.
Because once his brand is established, if it has the right image, it will no doubt spring up immediately in any area that has recreational marijuana legalised, pushing anyone else out.
No, never smoked it, no particular interest. But it definitely seems like a good business opportunity.
but given that even in my 'rastafarians are non-smokers' phase I couldn't smoke a whole plant in a year I'd bet there's not a lot of profit to be made from anyone with a window.
Which is one of the ideas behind legalisation - take away the profit motive and you take away the crime.
We're going to have bleary eyed developers wandering around looking for coffee and snack food. They'll sit about all day at their desks producing quirky random code...
Hang on, are we sure that developers aren't on pot already?
We're going to have bleary eyed developers wandering around looking for coffee and snack food. They'll sit about all day at their desks producing quirky random code...
Hang on, are we sure that developers aren't on pot already?
Those are the ones who can't tell their Sativa from their Indica. ;)
I thought we all agreed by now smoking is bad for you. I can understand people using weed for medical purposes, where the herb is a lot less harmful to ones health than some of the farmaceutical grade pain medication. But smoke vs. not smoke for a healthy individual ? I don't think so.
If it's a matter of personal choice, it's debatable. But AFAIK smoking regular cigarettes is still not illegal. No I can somewhat follow that reasoning. One could even argue alcohol is more harmful.
But how long will it take before the first class action suit arguing the seller of the smokes did not sufficiently inform the user of the risks involved in smoking pot ?
I can't help thinking that this is helped along by the tobacco lobby in the hope it will somehow laud a new era of tolerance for regular smoking producs.
Sommething about this smells really bad.
I generally eat weed, or bake it into cakes or something, beause somking anything, esp organic material is pretty silly. Heating any organic material up will cause all sorts of chemical reactions.
And then from the random chemicals, inhale in to the lungs ??? Madness.
Even frying food is bordering on unsensible really.
But I eat weed sometimes for fun, and sometimes as a healthy alternative to NSAIDS (pain killers like ibruprohen, voltaren).
I think the drug companies as much as anyone want weed illegal, see reasons above.
I know a clinical psychologist who had some evidence for weed causing mental illness, cos I have acces to sci papers I looked it up, and swed her the maths (which meant it was unsubstantiated). She actually became annoyed (prob cos her maths is crap level like most peoples), but the paper just looked like a smear on weed to me.
Oh lordy, I do love going through the stats on any of those "pot causes x" papers. Becasue as you rightly point out, either their math is waaay off, or the correlations are pretty weak. And never any causation either :)
The number of psych and social studies students who just don't seem to get statistics is mind boggling. All the "science" in these areas is based of data that is statistical in nature. The theories and philosophies are all nice, but there seems to be a strong desire to make the data fit the theory, rather than devolop theories to explain the data.
My favorite from a few years back was the headline grabbing "Pot makes you 3 times as likely to get schizophrenia" which was usually expressed as 300% increase in risk (since journo's hate stats even more) when the actual data was that schizophrenia in the general population was 0.9 per 100k, heavy pot smoking and schizophrenia was 2.6 per 100k. All well and good, apart from the small fact that the same study found that alchol abuse and schizophrenia where roughly 1000 per 100k, and heavy tobacco use and schizophrenia roughly 2500 per 100k. No mention of smoking or drinking being much more likely to "cause" schizophrenia*.
TL:DR - Study shows weak correlation between mental illness and pot use, strong correlation between alchohol or tobacco use and mental illness. Media only reports on pot aspect.
* Should also be noted that the study as published was only looking at correlations, and the causation attributions seems to only have been added by non scientists. Correlation is not causation, unless the result backs up your worldview :)
Pot studies, in the US, legally all require approval of the federal government, although the various states are pushing back. Do you actually think anything that did not have a well-written paragraph or two in it toeing the party line would actually make it into circulation? I read more than a few papers that looked as though a censor had been turned loose on the closing paragraphs after not having figured out what the rest of the paper actually said.
Blueberry Skunk of Derp?
Microsoft "Tokin' Ring Networking" schmoozathons?
For MS's MS patients... I wonder will this enabling technology be supplied with the OS? Give you something to do during installation and patching.
Overall I'm glad someone a little less evil (compared to monsanto, arms corporations, big pharma etc) is grabbing this. It was never going to be some dippy hippy utokia, but as long as people have the option to homegrow, then there's no harm in having a corporate option. People can weigh up the pros and cons themselves.
I fully expect old beardy Branson to follow suit, too, given his public support.
This post has been deleted by its author
One advantage of this that anti-corporates might be missing is that someone who has a vested interest in keeping the stuff legal with a high profit margin and has the wealth and national platform to back it up is going to be a powerful ally in the fight for legalization and the protection of this status where it currently exists.
He can't possibly be ex-Microsoft. Since when would a Microsoft employee invent something of their own? Oh, but wait! It was already established in the market place, he came along, stole the product from under everyone's nose, rebadged it via an arm's length sponsorship deal and then licensed it as a key component of someone else's product. Nope, I was wrong. That's Microsoft through and through. Maybe call it 3Edom...?
www.TADAG.com
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
