OH GOD NO!
This is a discussion on Can we have larger avatars? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by hauzer Nothing at the moment, but I'm planing on trying weed. That's illegal. :-(...
Oh well, define illegal.
Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
Its only illegal if you get caught
>> That's illegal. :-(
Well, that depends on the locality, of course. Oddly enough, it was made illegal in the US simply because it threatened paper (lumber) interests (as new processes were being developed that would make it competitive in that market).
All things begin as source code.
Source code begins with an empty file.
-- Tao Te Chip
I think 55x55 is plenty big enough - who really wants to see a 100x100 fuzzy face with bleeding eyes??
>> Plus as a dial-up user I think CBoard is good as is, bandwidth-wise.
>> Me neither, as mine is only 1 character (and it's in the alphabet). :-)
I'm sure that's below the minimum password length limit.
I don't see why people think Chuck Norris is so awesome. If he was really as great as they say, he would be over here slamming my head into the keybsk;lah;flksalfksdnlcslcnsldk;acklsd;glfbaskfl
/* When I wrote this, only God and I understood what I was doing... Now, God only knows */
Last edited by MK27; 05-29-2009 at 06:55 PM.
Weed was not made illegal recreationally due to it's industrial issues. There are about a hundred thousand chemicals and substances that are legal in industry but illegal for the common citizen to have and/or use.
Citing the industrial side of the argument as the sole reason it was made illegal for consumers is a bit short-sighted.
>> Citing the industrial side of the argument as the sole reason it was made illegal for consumers is a bit short-sighted.
As a matter of fact, my great-grandfather (not one to entertain wild theories, either) even reached this conclusion at the time (he wasn't personally affected by the ban, as he was involved in oil speculation and fruit tree production at the time), characterizing it as as a serious strategic mistake (due to the usefulness of the plant). As agriculture was always a major concern of his (interestingly, he often warned that the lack of diversity in banana cultivation may lead to a die-out of the crop, which turned out to be quite accurate!), he was probably as qualified as anyone to correlate the events surrounding the ban. At any rate, I think the evidence is clear if you consider all of the circumstances. Hemp was being hailed as the "billion-dollar crop", which naturally worried the paper industry, who stood to lose *everything*, so they worked very hard to remove the threat (and succeeded). Incidentally, I agree that the consumption of the plant should probably be restricted, but I do think it's a shame that we aren't utilizing the crop for other (numerous) purposes.