Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Sat 26th Jul 2008 16:08 UTC
Humor Weekend fun for the OS junkies. A collection of some interesting quotes from the three influential figures in the history of Operating Systems. Some of the quotes are controversial and some of them are just shockingly funny. Personal favorite: Steve Jobs' quote about Bill Gates "He'd be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once or gone off to an ashram when he was younger."
Order by: Score:
move along... nothing to see.
by Chezz on Sat 26th Jul 2008 17:10 UTC
Chezz
Member since:
2005-07-11

.Boring.

It just reflicts how kiddish the mindset of that blogger is. He just picked up the most ridiculus quotes for Bill Gates to present him as a stupid guy who doesn't have a vision or knowledge.

Clearly he is an Apple fan boy, no wonder he picked up strong Steve Jobs words. Nothing wrong with that if he picked same quotes for the rest.

As usual, for Linus, the blogger showed him as a cheappo with ego.

You should fix the teaser to "Weekend junk for OS flam0r l33t kiddos!"

This is far from weekend fun!

Edited 2008-07-26 17:13 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: move along... nothing to see.
by amjith on Sat 26th Jul 2008 17:35 UTC in reply to "move along... nothing to see."
amjith Member since:
2005-07-08

Well.... I didn't really think about analyzing the blogger. But I think the collection of quotes epitomizes Jobs' and Torvalds' character. I have to agree that it works against Gates for the most part... but come on, this is supposed to be a light-hearted post. Are you sure it didn't bring even a smile on your face?

Reply Score: 10

RE: move along... nothing to see.
by TBPrince on Sat 26th Jul 2008 20:16 UTC in reply to "move along... nothing to see."
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Was thinking the same.

These guys are so narrow-minded... to a point they don't try to hide they're silly anymore.

I would have asked Torvalds where's desktop Linux is or Jobs how come he got some 1% marketshare in 8 years. Maybe they have some quotes about that ;-)

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Uh.. OS based on Linux have been running perfectly for many people as desktop installs. The mythic "Desktop Linux" arrived years ago.

For "desktop Linux", let's give up the "year of the linux desktop" crap; it arrived a long time ago and we don't need to relive it every time some new user to Linux goes through the romantic honeymoon fase.

As for Apple's market share, that is there own decision based on corporate startegy. I can't help you there but unless your a key investor, I wouldn't worry about it much. It does not prove anything versus any other platform outside of retail popularity.

Overall, the quotes chosen amuzed me. They did paint MS with a rather dark shade but I don't think ut was undeserving. Some more evenly balanced quotes would have been ok too but the chosen quotes did represent the three people well enough.

Reply Score: 2

My Take
by Whats That There on Sat 26th Jul 2008 19:09 UTC
Whats That There
Member since:
2005-09-21

Linus is VERY tongue in cheek, and VERY funny.

Jobs takes himself too seriously.

Gates, he gets bad quotes printed as much as George Bush's. half the time they are made up too.

Reply Score: 8

RE: My Take
by raver31 on Sat 26th Jul 2008 19:11 UTC in reply to "My Take"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, Bill Gates does indeed get bad press all the time.
Like the article said, he was once the worlds richest man, and most of the potshots against him were taken by people jealous of his success.


Torvalds is a complete loon, can we have some more quotes please Linus ?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: My Take
by FurryOne on Sat 26th Jul 2008 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE: My Take"
FurryOne Member since:
2006-01-23

Yes, Bill Gates... most of the potshots against him were taken by people jealous of his success.


When I see comments like this, the first thing I think is just how ethically bankrupt the world is. You need to face the fact that Bill Gates, like Getty, and the other Robber Barons, is nobody to look up to. History will not treat them kindly because Ethical Bankruptcy isn't an admirable trait.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: My Take
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 27th Jul 2008 01:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My Take"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

When I see comments like this, the first thing I think is just how ethically bankrupt the world is.


And how does the quote you posted demonstrate ethical bankruptcy? (Waiting...)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: My Take
by google_ninja on Sun 27th Jul 2008 01:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My Take"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

Bill Gates is directly responsible for over 1.5 billion dollars a year going towards things like HIV research, Financial services for the poor, and Global libraries. Yeah, the world will defiantly remember him as Hitler 2 because he didn't do anything spectacular, like write emacs and give away the source.

You and I have a different view of ethical bankruptcy. I don't care how capitalistic a guy is or what he did in the IT sector, if he devotes his life to being a source for good in the world, that is laudable. And to think that silly things like IT politics outweigh that is kind of sick.

Edited 2008-07-27 01:28 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE[4]: My Take
by evert on Sun 27th Jul 2008 05:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My Take"
evert Member since:
2005-07-06

Uh, Gates' illegal business practices have much to do with how he got his money in the first place. Giving some of that money away to purify his soul does not convince me of his high ethical standards.

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: My Take
by Moredhas on Sun 27th Jul 2008 07:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My Take"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

Donations to charities can be claimed back on the massive amount of tax he pays. Essentially, it's the American tax payers who're giving the lion's share of what Bill is credited for.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: My Take
by polaris20 on Mon 28th Jul 2008 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My Take"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

Bill Gates: Damned if you, damned if you don't. So if he gives all this money away, he's a bad guy because he's clearly got another motive, i.e. tax breaks in return, etc. I say "clearly" because he is evil incarnate, right? :/

If he doesn't give any money away, then he's a greedy evil bastard.

I'm wondering what would make everyone happy? Do tell!

Reply Score: 2

typical Robber Raron behaviour
by unclefester on Sun 27th Jul 2008 08:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My Take"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

If you learn some history you will find that very many corporate crooks give extremely generously to charity AFTER they make vast fortunes ripping of the public. They do it to create a legacy of generosity and charity. This is so future generations forget what scum they really were. The fact that Gates does it so blatantly and with so much publicity shows his real nature.

Bill Gates donations are the moral equivalent of an ordinary person donating $5 to charity. In fact $5 is a greater real sacrifice for most people than donating $1.5 billion is to Gates.

Reply Score: 14

RE[4]: My Take
by porcel on Sun 27th Jul 2008 10:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My Take"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

Want to know why Gates is totally morally bankrupt?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,...

That article clearly shows how the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is far from a philanthropy or non-profit and is actually a money-making operation that invests in the same companies that pollute the environment and create the breeding ground for the diseases that they are actually claiming to be fighting such as malaria and polio.

Don't just dismiss my post. Read the eight-page article at the L.A. Times and then come back and comment.

When you have as much money as B. Gates does, you can make sure that articles such as the one I am pointing out do not get much airplay in radio or television which is how most people get their news.

Get informed. In every thread about Microsoft, you jump to its defense and makes you look like an uniformed Microsoft apologist.

Has Microsoft or B. Gates ever done wrong, according to you?

With the mountains of evidence available, it is hard to see how anyone could actually come to B. Gates' defense.

Edited 2008-07-27 10:55 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: My Take
by google_ninja on Sun 27th Jul 2008 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My Take"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

That article clearly shows how the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is far from a philanthropy or non-profit and is actually a money-making operation that invests in the same companies that pollute the environment and create the breeding ground for the diseases that they are actually claiming to be fighting such as malaria and polio.


That article is attempting to make a story where there isn't one. There is a move in charitable organization to do investment screening, the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation are one of many who aren't doing it yet.


Don't just dismiss my post. Read the eight-page article at the L.A. Times and then come back and comment.


I read the first two pages, and skimmed the rest. It is a terrible article, my one paragraph pretty much fully contains the breadth of the whole thing.

Get informed. In every thread about Microsoft, you jump to its defense and makes you look like an uniformed Microsoft apologist.


There are two kinds of people, the kind who love using technology to do things, and dont really care what they are using, and the "+5, Informed" crowd who get all religious about one thing or another. That mac up there in my avatar delivered to this day the best computing experience I have ever had. I have been using linux and loving it since it was a couple of floppies with a photocopied manual wrapped around it with an elastic.

I am very informed, and keep myself informed. So why do I defend microsoft so much? Cause nobody else does. The microsoft community lives in their bubble, and the linux guys live in their own bubble, and both are convinced the other bubble doesn't exist, or have any validity due to various reasons, all of which I disagree with. I am just as vocal in the microsoft community about linux and open source as I am on predominantly linux sites about how microsoft aren't made of pure evil, by idiots.

Has Microsoft or B. Gates ever done wrong, according to you?


Microsoft has done plenty of things which were wrong. So has Apple, Sun, and IBM. Out of the bunch, IBM was probably the worst, they are the ones where I start questioning my stand on using technology for technologies sake.

The holocaust was run on IBM machines. IBM made money hand over fist from both sides during the war, but to this day has never admitted doing any wrong. IMO the worst thing MS has ever done is the way they killed Be. The two are simply not comparable.

I'm not bringing that up to marginalize the stuff that MS has done, but more to put it into perspective. If you choose to look at things the way you seem to want to, you need to realize that every company of any size has some pretty dark spots in its past, it is all a matter of degree, and how much has changed since those things happened.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: My Take
by sbergman27 on Sun 27th Jul 2008 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: My Take"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

There is a move in charitable organization to do investment screening, the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation are one of many who aren't doing it yet.


That's certainly vague: "There is a move"? (Beware of passive voice.) "Aren't doing it yet"?

What motivations do the charitable organizations actually have to publicly flag or reject large donations due to any donor's ulterior motives?

Edited 2008-07-27 19:59 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: My Take
by google_ninja on Sun 27th Jul 2008 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: My Take"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

That's certainly vague: "There is a move"? (Beware of passive voice.) "Aren't doing it yet"?

What motivations do the charitable organizations actually have to publicly flag or reject large donations due to any donor's ulterior motives?


There isn't, other then logic, but for the most part charitable organizations are run just like any other corporation. I'm not saying this is a good thing or anything like that, but the previous poster linked to a seven page article basically implying that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was a hotbed of evil because of it.

I was kind of surprised by the explosion that came from bringing that up. People are so intent on hating Bill Gates that they are willing to do mental gymnastics to try and spin him having started the largest charitable organization in the world to be a bad thing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: My Take
by FurryOne on Sun 27th Jul 2008 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: My Take"
FurryOne Member since:
2006-01-23

IMO the worst thing MS has ever done is the way they killed Be.


While I'm still a BeOS user, the people who ran STAC might argue that they were screwed much worse than Be - Microsoft actually stole Stac's code and wrapped their own around it. When Stac sued, Microsoft counter-sued and drove Stac out of business before the case could be settled. It was pretty obvious what Microsoft had done when Stac produced Microsoft's uncompiled code with Stac's own comments in it. And while we're on the subject, there's that operating system called OS/2, but let's not get into that right now.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Ah IBM. Installed the best computers of the time for managing data and running a business. Of course, those computers and remote terminals all had to be serviced by an IBM tech; each and every detachement "camp" visited.

The scary consideration; would any other "company" turn down a lucrative government contract to setup a national information system? After meeting many of the "Gross Profit is God" crowd, I don't think many companies in IBM's possition would have turned down the chance to bid.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: My Take
by tomcat on Sun 27th Jul 2008 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My Take"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

That article clearly shows how the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is far from a philanthropy or non-profit and is actually a money-making operation that invests in the same companies that pollute the environment and create the breeding ground for the diseases that they are actually claiming to be fighting such as malaria and polio.


The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is called a FOUNDATION for a reason: it's designed to be a self-sustaining organization that targets social and technological problems around the world. In order to be self-sustaining, the Foundation needs to invest its funds somewhere. Many, if not most of the people on this forum have a 401K invested in mutual funds. Ever stop to look at who your mutual fund invests in? You're going to find that most mutual funds -- unless they're specifically targeted at a particular industry or sector -- diversify their funds across a variety of sectors; that means technology, energy, financial, manufacturing, agriculture, commodities, etc. Meaning, many of you are investing in the same companies that the previous poster claimed to despise. It's VERY difficult to invest for growth in SUCCESSFUL companies without also investing in companies that some people consider socially irresponsible. Gates isn't involved in selecting the investments and, as the article points out, there is a "firewall" between the philanthropy and investment arms of the Foundation. I know it pains some FOSS advocates to admit that Gates is using money earned at Microsoft to improve the lives of people around the world -- but calling him "unethical" is just the height of arrogance and hypocrisy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: My Take
by porcel on Sun 27th Jul 2008 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: My Take"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

No, hypocrisy is to claim that you want to eradicate certain diseases, while you invest in the companies whose practices are making it very hard for the doctors on the ground to make any progress.

These companies pollute the water, the air and so forth. And the article was very specific and thorough so I have a hard time seeing how people can dismiss it so easily.

You know what also smells? That the article is close to two years old and nothing has been done since to address the issues raised by it. And to claim that the philanthropic division is separate from the investment arm is a convenient excuse. No reasonable company or foundation would invest in companies that undermine the very programs that they are trying to run, unless those programs were there to serve as the propaganda and tax-evasion scheme of a very rich man.

Finally, there are many mutual funds that only invest in socially responsible companies. It should be one's ethical imperative to see to it that one's money is invested properly. Look for the words social responsibility and mutual funds in google or do a bit of library research and you will be able to put your money to good use with a very short time investment.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: My Take
by FurryOne on Sun 27th Jul 2008 23:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: My Take"
FurryOne Member since:
2006-01-23

Many, if not most of the people on this forum have a 401K invested in mutual funds. Ever stop to look at who your mutual fund invests in? <snip boring stuff> ....calling him "unethical" is just the height of arrogance and hypocrisy.


None of US is claiming to be philanthropic. That's where your logic sucks.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: My Take
by MobyTurbo on Sun 27th Jul 2008 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My Take"
MobyTurbo Member since:
2005-07-08

Very good, the only problem is, before the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation was started with encouragement from his wife, Bill Gates in a typical year gave 50,000 dollars in charity to the Seattle Public Library in the form of computers (running, of course, DOS and Windows) out of a billion-dollar income. When asked in an interview (paraphrasing the question) "why so little?" Bill Gates replied, "I don't have the time it takes to give charity."

So, when I hear about how charitable a person Bill Gates is, I remember the reason why the other robber barons, such as Rockafeller and Carnegie started similar foundations - to give themselves a "legacy" and a convenient tax shelter. Not because they did it out of the kindness of their hearts.

Edited 2008-07-27 14:32 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: My Take
by red_devel on Mon 28th Jul 2008 13:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My Take"
red_devel Member since:
2006-03-30

If I had infinite money, it'd be pretty easy to give a couple billion away too. I'm more impressed by the person who makes $40K a year and considers himself rich, because he recognizes impoverished state that 80% of the world finds itself in, and so gives a sizable percentage of that away. If your gifts to charity put no financial strain on you, and require no sacrifice on your part, what is their purpose other than to feel good about yourself, and to look good to the rest of the world?

Let me know when Gates is giving away 99% of his income, then I'll recognize some sacrifice on his part and take his charity seriously.

Reply Score: 1

Inflamatory article
by cmost on Sat 26th Jul 2008 22:53 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

We all know that Balmer, Jobs and Torvalds have said some pretty inflammatory things over the years. Hell, they've said a lot of plain idiotic things. These guys have cut each other down, their competition and all manner of people, places and things. So what!?! I see no reason to keep posting these quote collections. Geesh, it must be a pretty damn slow news month!!!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Inflamatory article
by merkoth on Sat 26th Jul 2008 23:07 UTC in reply to "Inflamatory article"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

From Wikipedia:

Humour or humor (see spelling differences) is the tendency of particular images, stories or situations to provoke laughter and provide amusement.

That's why. This seems to be what some commenters lack ;)

Reply Score: 6

Still funny ...
by MacTO on Sat 26th Jul 2008 23:47 UTC
MacTO
Member since:
2006-09-21

It is biased, but I think that it reflects their public personas: Jobs the visionary, Gates the businessman, and Torvalds the class clown.

After all, the team that developed the Macintosh involved Jobs. A lot of the ideas may have been stolen from elsewhere, but the target market (given the period) was visionary. After all, these were hugely expensive ideas to implement.

Bill Gates was the man who grew the PC industry by indiscriminantly chasing after business opportunities. Keep in mind, this is the guy who had BASIC interpreters on many of the 8-bit micros, went into operating systems even though they were initially a language company, and worked with companies like IBM and Apple. It takes guts to follow emerging markets rather than sticking with your original vision.

As for Torvalds, he's a guy that I have to respect. I've never really interpreted his comments as indicative of an ego, but as those of a guy who doesn't take things too seriously. And you can't take yourself too seriously when you've accomplished what he's accomplished how he accomplished it. (For someone who has an ego and takes himself seriously, see Richard Stallman.)

Then again, I don't know what their real personalities are like.

EDIT: expanded ideas.

Edited 2008-07-26 23:50 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Still funny ...
by hobgoblin on Sat 26th Jul 2008 23:58 UTC in reply to "Still funny ..."
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

you would think RMS have a ego, until you see him wear the saint ignucius costume.

http://totl.net/InstantAbsolutionOnline/

Reply Score: 4

RE: Still funny ...
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 27th Jul 2008 01:30 UTC in reply to "Still funny ..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

After all, the team that developed the Macintosh involved Jobs.



Actually, during most of the period when the original Mac was in development, Jobs had instead focused on development of the Lisa. His only real involvement with the Macintosh in that period was his attempt to kill it off - because he saw it as a threat to the Lisa.

But once it became obvious that Job's hobby-horse was a failure, while the Macintosh was a success - he had no problems taking credit for the Mac. And thus, computing history was (re)written.

Edited 2008-07-27 01:31 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Still funny ...
by MacTO on Sun 27th Jul 2008 02:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Still funny ..."
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

Then my question would be, how far did the Macintosh get before Jobs took over?

I was under the distinct impression that the Macintosh was based on an 8-bit processor and Forth prior to the arrival of Mr. Jobs.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Still funny ...
by tyrione on Sun 27th Jul 2008 02:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Still funny ..."
RE[3]: Still funny ...
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 27th Jul 2008 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still funny ..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

<p>What a load of crap. Nothing stinks more than speculation and citation of nothing.</p>


Do you know *anything* about the history of Apple? Dear god, even 15 seconds of searching on Wikipedia will verify it.

Next you're going to tell the world that he stole everything while running NeXT, PIXAR and then back at Apple.


The appropriate response would be... "lol wut?". Which orifice did you pull that assumption out of? Or are you just flailing around randomly in an attempt to muddy the waters?

Do yourself a favor and find a hobby. Or better yet, if you think you are a true visionary, shut up and make it happen.


Uh huh. Do the words "non sequitur" mean anything to you? I'll wait while you visit an online dictionary to look it up...

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Still funny ...
by tyrione on Tue 29th Jul 2008 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still funny ..."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"What a load of crap. Nothing stinks more than speculation and citation of nothing.


Do you know *anything* about the history of Apple? Dear god, even 15 seconds of searching on Wikipedia will verify it.

Next you're going to tell the world that he stole everything while running NeXT, PIXAR and then back at Apple.


The appropriate response would be... "lol wut?". Which orifice did you pull that assumption out of? Or are you just flailing around randomly in an attempt to muddy the waters?

Do yourself a favor and find a hobby. Or better yet, if you think you are a true visionary, shut up and make it happen.


Uh huh. Do the words "non sequitur" mean anything to you? I'll wait while you visit an online dictionary to look it up...
"

It's amazing that working for NeXT and Apple I constantly see prigs spouting about facts from Wikipedia when they are statements of third parties based upon decades of stories stated from various sources that contradict one another.

Now if Wikipedia is going to be considered credible it should label such histories as "subjective."

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Still funny ...
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 30th Jul 2008 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Still funny ..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

It's amazing that working for NeXT and Apple I constantly see prigs spouting about facts from Wikipedia when they are statements of third parties based upon decades of stories stated from various sources that contradict one another.


*Sigh* To quote myself:

Dear god, even 15 seconds of searching on Wikipedia will verify it.


(Emphasis: mine)

You know what the word "even" means when used as an adverb, right? As in, "It's a detail that's so widely-known that even Wikipedia mentions it."

But if it's easier for you assume that Wikipedia is the only source of that information (instead of, for instance, the dozens of books and/or firsthand accounts from people who worked for Apple at that time), then - by all means - continue.

Now if Wikipedia is going to be considered credible


And who has suggested that?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Still funny ...
by John.Gustafsson on Sun 27th Jul 2008 09:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Still funny ..."
John.Gustafsson Member since:
2005-08-08

http://www.folklore.org

I leave the validity up to each and everyone reading that particular page, but I do think that it is a better source than a post on OSNews. Enjoy!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Still funny ...
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 27th Jul 2008 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still funny ..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06
Very Interesting
by KenJackson on Sun 27th Jul 2008 02:35 UTC
KenJackson
Member since:
2005-07-18

The first thing that struck me was the imagery at the top. Jobs and Gates look very dark, are not looking directly at the viewer and seem to be explaining themselves with hand-waving arguments. Torvalds is in the center, bright, casual, confident, smiling and looking you square in the eye. That's a statement.

Reply Score: 3

Acid??
by looncraz on Sun 27th Jul 2008 04:59 UTC
looncraz
Member since:
2005-07-24

Acid, IMHO, sucks balls.

Sure, you get a pretty decent psychedelic effect, but it is a rather uncomfortable one when considering body-effects - not to mention illegality and danger.

Be safe, choose marijuana, red wine, and maybe add some
salvia into the mix when you really just feel like being away from your body completely.

Shrooms are apparently cool, but I've never done any.

Acid just makes you feel grounded, which causes you to think you get farther if you take more ( kinda like heroin ).

Smoke some green, drink some red, when you want grounding but elation, and two hits of high-end salvia when you really want to just leave this frame of reality for a bit.

I stick with the red, maybe marijuana if it's around; I prefer being near the ground, but not actually touching it.

--The loon

Edited 2008-07-27 05:00 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Acid??
by google_ninja on Sun 27th Jul 2008 05:25 UTC in reply to "Acid??"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

+1, Educational

Reply Score: 3

RE: Acid??
by tyrione on Sun 27th Jul 2008 10:01 UTC in reply to "Acid??"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Acid, IMHO, sucks balls.

Sure, you get a pretty decent psychedelic effect, but it is a rather uncomfortable one when considering body-effects - not to mention illegality and danger.

Be safe, choose marijuana, red wine, and maybe add some
salvia into the mix when you really just feel like being away from your body completely.

Shrooms are apparently cool, but I've never done any.

Acid just makes you feel grounded, which causes you to think you get farther if you take more ( kinda like heroin ).

Smoke some green, drink some red, when you want grounding but elation, and two hits of high-end salvia when you really want to just leave this frame of reality for a bit.

I stick with the red, maybe marijuana if it's around; I prefer being near the ground, but not actually touching it.

--The loon


I don't know what you took seeing as pharamceutical grade LSD has been classified Level I and requires top clearance, since before 1970 but it certainly wasn't LSD--most likely a derivative that was poorly designed and definitely not characteristic of LSD.

LSD doesn't make you grounded.

Mushrooms don't either.

When you have friends in the right places you can try LSD and it's definitely not something that improves with frequency as the Mind/Body bond the agent out of your body after 24 hours which is one of the reasons real LSD isn't physically addictive, nor mentally. It takes months for the receptors not to recognize it blocking and forcing overfiring which counteracts our natural filters.

Shrooms can be taken quite often, but similiar to LSD it defeats the purpose if taken frequently, not to mention unless you truly have a pension for bad tea, puking the toxin out if it's the right stuff you won't become a shroom head either.

The most commonly abused drugs are what you listed. The more socially acceptable they become the more they become abused, by Society, in general.

Everything in moderation.

THC makes my chemistry get hungry and fall asleep.

Wine is nice and in moderation can be quite beneficial in relaxing the body to allow one's imagination to expand.

But none of these touch LSD on expanding one's thinking outside the box--if you have actually gotten ahold of real LSD.

Do some research and you'll discover most of the market is not LSD, but a drug that mimics much of it's properties.

Reply Score: 3

Conclusion:
by sevrage on Sun 27th Jul 2008 13:05 UTC
sevrage
Member since:
2006-06-29

Rank:
Bill: dark humor
Linus: irony
Jobs: should get a new job

Reply Score: 0

Comment by tupp
by tupp on Mon 28th Jul 2008 18:07 UTC
tupp
Member since:
2006-11-12

Here is an interesting pair of quotes.

Steve Jobs: "The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste..., and what that means is... they don't think of original ideas." ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=upzKj-1HaKw )

Pablo Picasso: "Ah, good taste! What a dreadful thing! Taste is the enemy of creativeness." (Anderson, SC, March 24, 1957)

The juxtaposition of these two quotes exemplifies the philosophical dichotomy between those who are truly creative/original and those who try to seem creative/original. I tend to side with the brilliant, pioneering artist, rather than the snobby, self-deluded CEO.

Incidentally, Jobs misquotes Picasso in the same interview: "Good artists copy, great artists steal." ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UjU0rtavE )

Picasso actually said, "Bad artists copy, good artists steal." The actual Picasso quote has a very different connotation than Jobs' misquote, and Jobs/Apple do significantly more copying than "stealing."

Of course, the huge difference in creative philosophy (and in quote interpretation) didn't stop Apple from exploiting Pablo Picasso's image in their advertising:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rdoFTy0drlA

Reply Score: 2