blankslate

Also, change in technology may find itself outstripping society's ability (or willingness) to integrate it. In fact, I'd say it already is, and has been for quite some time.

We have the technology already to facilitate incredible intelligence - it's just extremely unevenly distributed, and stifled by lack of political will and social inertia.

Everything microsoft attempts is so desperately uncool that the very concept of Microsoft doing social is futile.

There is literally no way they could make this work. It's another Ballmer "car crash in slow motion" initiative.

/popcorn

The author's based his career around the ability to pervert search results - and apparently he's frustrated because this fucks up the results for everybody so badly that Google have to change their algorithm.

Sympathy? Not really. I hope he stubs his toe so hard they have to amputate his foot.

I'd guess they've outgrown the capacity (or desire) to keep answering support emails themselves, for one thing.

Say I create a follow-protected twitter account, which only I follow, write a couple lines of ruby to retweet stuff randomly to myself and a crontab entry for it ... did I miss anything?

As a motorcyclist, the sound of traffic is almost entirely a non-issue; I can wear canalphones with music at a volume where I can't hear any traffic noise, and still negotiate peak hour inner city traffic.

But then, as a motorcyclist I pay more attention than just about any driver (including myself when I'm behind a wheel). For example, I'm never surprised by a vehicle suddenly appearing in my rear view mirror on a bike, because I move my eyes in a reflexive pattern between the road and both mirrors every few seconds.

If you're really paying attention, sound is almost a non-issue on the road - but that puts you in a very small minority of road users.

Sadly, the article completely fails to mention the amazingly useful innovations made by tiling window managers like wmii, ion3 and xmonad.

Granted, they're not as new as Unity et al, but they offer a compelling, complete and fairly radical departure from tradition, and one that I really do miss on OS X.

And thirdly, and probably most importantly, because piracy is so convenient it's usually my first port of call when I'm wondering what an artist sounds like. I can spend less than a minute typing a search into $COOL_PRIVATE_TRACKER, and in a few minutes be listening to high quality mp3's in my choice of media player.

It's only after I actually decide that I like (and will ever listen to) the music that I would wish to give some money to the artist.

> I have taken it in the middle of the day, in the sun. I have taken it at night, in a dark room. I have taken it at a party (despite people saying its not a party drug).

I was kinda hoping you were going to run with that and turn that into a "green eggs and ham" tribute poem.

If he's not a Mormon anymore, I'd call it a net win.

The real question is: is he happier now?

I should point out: when artists do sell their music as direct downloads, I buy them.

Perhaps the simplest restatement of this idea is simply a directory / store which sells DRM unencumbered digital media, passes as close to 100% of the profits to the artist as is possible, and falls back to displaying search results for alternate editions if they're not represented.

A couple of reasons. Firstly, because in a traditional record label deal, not much of the money actually finds its way into the artists' pockets.

"In a typical deal, the band gets thirteen or fourteen percentage points. We’d have to give a few of our own points (four perhaps) to the producer of our record (producers typically get a fee and points). Then we’d be down to ten points. Before calculating the value of those ten points, however, Electra would subtract a large percentage of the gross sales to account for free goods, records given away for promotional and other purposes. Thus, the amount on which our 10 percent was calculated would be reduced by 20 to 25 percent. So we’d be down even further, perhaps 10 percent on 75 percent of the wholesale album revenue. If our CD was sold in stores for fifteen dollars, the band’s share of the revenue might be something between fifty cents and a dollar per CD. Would we get to keep it? No! ..."

source: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1...

A more optimistic (and modern) document which contrasts options such as the iTunes store (which gives the band perhaps 60% of the proceeds and the customer a DRM encumbered copy of the recording):

http://www.bradsucks.net/archives/2007/05/22/where-your-musi...

Secondly, because digital distribution of unencumbered music is in many ways a better experience for the consumer than purchasing physical CDs or DRM encumbered tracks.

Ok, since it seems there's remarkably little interest in this idea as it stands: why not try it out as a Bitcoin startup?

I'd be surprised if PayPal didn't see Bitcoin as some form of competition - so, this is fairly unsurprising. Most companies prefer not to facilitate their competitors.

And may even reduce you to ranting and muttering to yourself ...

The term "rite of passage" is very fitting.

I've been thinking about this stuff all day, and trying to figure out how to reconcile the potential rewards with the dire risks involved; should I recommend dabbling with this crazy mojo, or should I tell people to leave it the hell alone and not to risk it?

I suspect some of the appeal for those of us who've been down this path, especially when young, was the risk itself; because "we are a generation of men raised by women," and we wanted to test ourselves against every boundary we could find - even the borders of reality itself, if we could find them - and to be tested ourselves.

I suppose the socially accepted alternative is to get as drunk as you can and pick a fight.

I'm very suspicious of the use of the word "quantum" as a crowbar to pry open respectable science and fill it with new age bullshit.

I can definitely sympathise with the flavour of insight you're talking about though, and this guy seems to hold some credentials, but phrases like "make brain circuits of positive emotions" trip my hippie detector.

Having read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology) , a few thoughts ...

Classical psychedelics like LSD tend to impart hallucinations which are reinterpretations of familiar objects: hearing a song in the sound of flowing water perhaps, rather than a disembodied voice dispensing commands; seeing a cloud as an intricate organism dripping with lacework skirts drifting in the eddies of an invisible current, rather than a creature standing in the middle of the room with no basis at all in reality.

Furthermore, it's generally pretty obvious to those involved that what they're seeing is an "hallucination"; the deliriants, such as scopalomine, are another story, and an altogether more terrifying class of drug.

Bicameralism's emphasis on bona fide auditory hallucinations, especially disembodied voices issuing commands, is quite distinct from the subjective experience of most psychotropics; the inhibited self-awareness and metareflective capacity described by the article - the "zombie mind" - is almost the opposite of a trip, where every perception seems saturated to the point of overflow with deep, often autobiographical, meaning.

What you're suggesting bears some similarity to the writings of Aldous Huxley:

""One explanatory model for the experiences provoked by hallucinogens is the "reducing valve" concept, first articulated in Aldous Huxley's book The Doors of Perception.[7] In this view, the drugs disable the brain's "filtering" ability to selectively prevent certain perceptions, emotions, memories and thoughts from ever reaching the conscious mind.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen#Psychedelics_.28cl...

In summary, I'd suggest that it's quite possible that inter-hemisphere communication is increased, but certainly so is the way the entire brain functions.

Interesting idea. As I understand it, most of these drugs take the place of existing neurotransmitters like seratonin, or modify their action on receptor sites.

Let me put forward a metaphor: you're currently experiencing reality indirectly, through an imperfect lens which throws into focus an internally coherent system of perceptions we might colloquially call a "seratonin hallucination". You could think of the changes that occur after taking e.g. LSD as replacing that lens with another one.

Is it a less accurate one? Almost certainly it's one less valuable in helping our ancestors adapt to the evolutionary pressures they faced than our normal neurochemistry; in terms of representing an "objective" reality though, there may be some ways in which it affords a more faithful depiction.

Or perhaps not; it's hard to say. I think the value lies not in the affordance of new and more authentic powers of perception, but in shaking up the assumptions we make about how objectively truthful our "normal" experiences might be.

Me too, though I prefer dexamphetamine.

I've given dex to other programmers on occasion; they're often amazed at how much it helps them concentrate and get things done.

It's kind of like coffee that WORKS.

Hence my favourite programming beverage: grind your beans, sprinkle finely powdered amphetamine on the top of the basket, and make yourself a nice motherfuckiato.

While I'm ranting: if your interest lies in becoming more productive as a programmer, these are not the droids you're looking for. Some people have put forward anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but I personally can't see it being either likely or worthwhile (taken in isolation).

Good sleep, meditation, regular exercise, a good diet, vitamin or fish oil supplements, possibly responsible use of some stimulants (caffeine, dexamphetamine, methylphenidate, etc - I do NOT advise using methamphetamine), quiet work spaces, trying different tactics (e.g. pomodoro technique) for minimising disruption and improving your concentration, fostering dedication to your craft - all of these are much more likely and FAR less risky candidates for making you a better programmer.

And as others here have alluded to, psychedelics yield diminishing returns. One or two trips could change your life and transform your outlook, hopefully for the better; using a psychedelic experience to collect and align your energies up to a few times a year could be a positive influence. Taking them more often than that qualifies as abuse, and will not help you.

I've played chess under the influence of psilocybin with a sober friend. I was massacred.

There are creative aspects to programming, and you might gain some insights that are applicable, but I'd save the implementation till you come down unless the dose was rather small.

There are probably some people reading these discussions and considering taking an "hallucinogen" for the first time.

If you're thinking about it, please, do your homework. Thoroughly. As others have cautioned, drug use can catalyze psychosis, the permanent emergence of bipolar disorder, etc. Consider these risks as they relate to you in particular (your family history, etc) very carefully, and if you decide to go ahead, be sure you prepare with as much care, consideration and thoroughness as it deserves.

And if you do, I'd consider avoiding LSD unless you can guarantee its legitimacy and purity. Mescaline is readily producible from common cacti (San Pedro, et al), has a long history of safe use by e.g. native americans §, and will likely provide you with a more helpful experience. It's also much harder to take too much of than e.g. psilocybin or LSD, which are very easy to consume a psychiatrically dangerous dose of.

There is a wealth of information out there - some of it spurious, but much of it helpful. I would encourage wider use of psychedelics, but I strongly qualify this encouragement. Not everyone should try them: some people are irreparably damaged by their first trip, and I don't claim to be able to say why; nor will they reward being treated without the utmost respect.

That said, after almost a decade of abstinence from tripping, I discovered mescaline, and I intend to continue to use it up to a few times a year. Thus far I've found it to be an extremely rewarding and positive force in my life; I'm an atheist, but you could say it's my replacement for religion.

§ http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/11/69477 - "Peyote won't rot your brain"

It's worth noting that Timothy Leary espouses some silly shit, and I'm not sure he improves the perceived legitimacy of psychotropics, despite his intentions.

I respectfully submit that caffeine is geek oxygen.

If we're casting around for a "wonder" drug, I'd suggest looking at dexamphetamine sulphate, modafinil, etc.

There's a lot of truth here, but I think you're neglecting to give yourself the credit due for correctly assimilating it.

To me one of the more present dangers of the "acid experience" is that the tripper latches onto the alternate state they experience and devolves into crapping on about chakras, energy fields, or little elves that live in their garden; the real lesson, as you've rightly identified, is not that the new experience is objectively real - it's that our "normal" daily experience is entirely subjective.

It's not necessarily the most natural conclusion, however, and I suspect that maintaining this kind of scientific (read: sane) outlook becomes increasingly difficult with frequency and intensity of use.

I've taken enormous (read: irresponsible) quantities of psychotropics over the course of my life: psilocybin in particular, but I've had experiences with everything from pure LSD to exotic molecules without names.

The intensity and resonance of those experiences are such that it's sometimes hard to reconcile with the small fraction of the population who have known them. It's an essential part, to me, of the human experience.

That said, when I was younger I didn't always treat them with the respect they deserve, and it's difficult to determine in retrospect the effects they've had on my life - in part because I was still not yet fully formed when I began. I don't regret the path I've taken, but in retrospect it seems a fluke that I've arrived where I am with my sanity (arguably) intact; or even that I've arrived at this age at all.

To me, these are incredibly powerful tools, with amazing potential for both creation and destruction - but the infrastructure to support their responsible use didn't evolve at a pace to match their sudden explosion into mainstream awareness in the 60's, and the results were terrifying to many; alcohol can be an amazingly destructive drug, but societies have had thousands of years to grow comfortable with its effects, and to learn to mitigate its worst excesses.

As a result of this (perhaps rightly deserved) fear and confusion, we've collectively overreacted, not only banning them outright, but elevating their status to one of our most fiercely prosecuted taboos. I sincerely hope that this will change at some point, and that it will coincide with an evolution of the knowledge and wisdom required to use them responsibly.

To me it's evident that there are strong positive outcomes to be gained, from personal and artistic growth to effective treatment for psychiatric afflictions - but more than any other substances I know of, these drugs are chameleons that can change form entirely in response to one's approach to them. They rarely reward foolishness or irresponsibility.

Now, as ever, cultists are everywhere; I put my trust in science. And I hope that as the stigmas attached to these substances subside, our governments have the sense to entrust the exploration of this potential to scientists.