Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

82 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

wow (3, Interesting)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 4 years ago | (#32050444)

I love Phil Dick's books. I've read the majority of them and even the bad ones are masterpieces in their own way. I have to say that I have mixed feelings about the Exegesis being published, because as interesting as it will be to read I think it is going to further tarnish his reputation. Phil Dick was the kind of person that was so smart that it caused mental disorder and he had some absolutely crazy beliefs. The Exegesis will probably underscore that.

Re:wow (2, Interesting)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 4 years ago | (#32050572)

It didn't help that he and many of his friends were heavy drug users, so much of PKD's strange visions were most likely the result of drug use.

That's not to say it won't be interesting of course.

Re:wow (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32050822)

Most profound work that is imaginative is related to drug use.

Re:wow (2, Interesting)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 4 years ago | (#32051060)

Most profound work that is imaginative is related to drug use.

While I not sure that's a good generalization, a lot of interesting work has come from people who actively used drugs. For example take a look at all the work done at SRI during the 60's: bit-mapped displays, collaboration software, hypertext, precursors to the graphical user interface and the first "mouse". According to the book, "What the Dormouse Said: How the 60s Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer " the team there all experimented with drugs. Basically it implies the modern PC and how we interact with computers is the result of drug use.

Re:wow (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32051802)

It gets more interesting when you watch the documentary (BBC?) about how many inventions came from Star Trek ... And then realize Star Trek was created on amphetamines.

Re:wow (2, Funny)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32052170)

If they experimented with latin cuisine would modern personal computers be the result of tacos?
I think that there is a flaw in your logic.

Tacos (2, Insightful)

dontbgay (682790) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054530)

I don't know, does the latin cuisine have hallucinogenic properties or the ability to alter someone's perception of reality?

Well, aside from the spicy part. We all know about that.

drug use degrades cognition, it does not enhance (-1, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32051786)

that being said, a little noise in the system, a little lowering of inhibitions, a slight variation in waves, and an already great mind might go to a new and wonderful place. but that's rare. in fact, many great minds have been destroyed by drugs, and many great minds will tell you they did their best work in spite of the drug use, not because of it. that is, if they used less drugs, they'd do more brilliant things

in other words, for 99.99% of people, and 99.99% of the time for the remaining 0.01%, drug use is just a path to loss of quality of life

drugs do not enhance life, they degrade it

cheap empty devotion to drugs such as with your thinking is just a pathway to a less fruitful life, for you and any fool naive enough to take you seriously

most drug use in this world is done by people trying to fill a void in their life and only making a greater void, the idea is to fill your void in your life without resorting to drugs, because most of the time you are simply left with more problems than whatever problems drove you to take them

the glamorization of obliteration is ignorant. i'm sick of the wasted empty lives on drugs. what those people could have been and might have done had they not turned into zombies

so fuck you and your ignorant attitude towards drugs, which really are up there with religious fundamentalism, totalitarian government, war, poverty, and disease in terms of wasted human lives in the entire history of mankind

some people just have to glorify this brain deadening chemistry. fucking losers in the most literal sense of the word. and that means you too and your glamorization of drugs, asshole

Re:drug use degrades cognition, it does not enhanc (1, Flamebait)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32051964)

Coming from someone that I marked as a foe [which I haven't done in a few years], it's nice to know that Slashdot knew in advance to remind me to not give a shit about comments from assholes like you. :)

BTW, I hope you don't drink coffee or alcohol.

i drink coffee (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057034)

i've done psilocybin, marjiuana, and alcohol. all should be legal and none of which i mind, because they don't produce addicts aggressively (alcohol, and to a much lesser extent marijuana, are only moderately addicting)

but what i don't tolerate is the idea that the use of any of this, including coffee, somehow enhances your life, somehow enhances your pleasure. your pleasure is maximized when you lose all drugs in your life. complete abstinence is the ultimate drug

and furthermore, the highly addictive and inebriating drugs (not nicotine: its highly addictive but not inebriating, so you dont lose your job and relationships) mean you lose your job and your relationships: they must be waged war on forever, because it is not my job to take care of freeloaders. im talking about heroin, cocaine, meth: the on those drugs will never end

Re:drug use degrades cognition, it does not enhanc (2, Insightful)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32051978)

p.s. Life is about having fun and enjoying life, not about achieving your maximum throughput as defined by your rankings. Insects are made to strictly produce; sentient species like humans have the added ability of being able to have fun. You might want to try it sometime.

yes (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057004)

and to do it at other people's expense, to risk becoming a zombie addict unable to maintain a job and keep a relationship, is not something i will allow, because i and many others don't want to support the useless zombies. we'd rather prevent them from becoming zombies: its cheaper

freeloading is not an option

Re:yes (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057150)

Nancy Reagan called. She wants 1980 back. Watch out for those crack babies!!

that's right (0, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32060414)

just dismiss me with a clownish characterature

there's no real substance to my concerns is there?

everyone is always wonderfully responsible with brain altering addictive substances, there's no danger or downside whatsoever, its all unicorns and rainbows

ignorant irresponsible asshole

Re:that's right (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32063878)

Mr. Mackie called. He wanted to let you know that drugs are bad, mmm'kay?

recreational drugs (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32065556)

have been used since antiquity, and recreational drugs will be continued to be used forever

lsd, psilocybin, and marijuana should be legalized, because the war against them is more costly than their cost in use

but for heroin, cocaine, and meth, the costs to society of use is greater than the costs to society of war on them

i suppose your position is that heroin cocaine and meth are wonderful lifestyle accessories with no downside whatsoever

everyone is a responsible thoughtful human being, even with substances that destroy responsibility and thought!

and everyone's desire to use these substances always comes from the most noble of instincts! never are they used in a ploy to destroy oneself, to plug pain with relief (that always bottoms out to yet more pain), a slow motion suicide, that also consumes other innocent individuals along with the user, the family, the friends, communities, and society as a whole

do you deny the costs of use you fucking ignorant twatstain?

i've known them. i've known them probably better than you, like any blissfully ignorant freeloading user who thinks they have a right to be supported while they consume themselves in an ignorant choice

right? naaahh.... you've got me pegged, i'm just a cartoon character from another era. there's no validity or points to what i am saying at all, right?

Re:recreational drugs (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32065594)

You've drawn a line in an imaginary place that doesn't exist. "These drugs automatically ok, these drugs automatically bad."

Individuals don't exist! Only "macro" statistics. By your logic, driving should be banned, since it kills far more people than illegal drugs. Oh wait. They help us produce for the hive, therefore they're okay.

sorry for the shorthand, here's the logic: (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32065760)

low addiction, low inebriation: caffeine, legal

low addiction, high inebriation: lsd, psilocybin, legal

high addiction, low inebriation: nicotine, legal

moderate addiction, moderate inebriation: marijuana, alcohol, legal

high addiction, high inebriation: meth, heroin, coke, illegal

the reason is that these substances themselves, no social policies, destroy lives. a human being cannot take a substance which significantly alters days and hours of their lives while at the same time locking them into hard pharmacological cravings... and maintain a relationship and a job at the same time. so they become freeloaders, because they are destroyed lives unable to feed and house themselves. nicotine is as addictive, but you are lucid while an addict. lsd is as inebriating, but its not addictive, so you can take it and forget about it

but a chemical that blots out hours and days of your life and constantly interrupts your thoughts "need more", "need more": you've turned a functional human being into a zombie

thus, certian substances are more costly to society than the war against them costs. other substances, like lsd and marijuana: the war is more costly than actual drug use, so they should be legal

the idea meanwhile that all substances should be treated the same is a sort of hamfisted naivete. drugs are different, so drugs need to be treated differently, duh

Re:sorry for the shorthand, here's the logic: (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32066108)

wait - alcohol is moderate inebriation, and coke is high inebriation? BWAHAHAHHAHAHA. Anybody who knows better is going to laugh at your post. I sure am.

You might want to look up the government's own addiction statistics on crack and cocaine. I have.

you're forgetting cocaine tea (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32066358)

used in the andes by bolivian indians for centuries. at low concentrations, more similar to nicotine addiction than powder cocaine or crack

absolutely: concentration and delivery method (rate of acceleration in the bloodstream) has an affect on addiction rates

but you're not arguing about that are you? what are saying is that yes, cocaine and crack have different addiction rates... ok, that means what? that means they should both be legal? in other words, you point to differences, but use that to argue for equivalent legal status? huh?

if you admit there is a difference in drugs, then why can't you admit that they deserve different legal status? show some logical coherence

here, i'll help you get started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg [wikipedia.org]

you're ignorant and naive in your attitudes, to yourself and any fool who listens to you

drug addiction is serious, and it destroys lives. completely independent of any social or legal policy. recognize the fucking obvious, or be a complete fool

Re:you're forgetting cocaine tea (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32066872)

Because they all should be legal, and most of the arguments of prohibition [and costs of prohibition, even to non-drug users] apply to all drugs, not just an individual drug. For example, legalizing marijuana isn't going to take drug profits away from organized crime; they'll just sell more hard drugs. In fact, legalizing marijuana without legalizing cocaine is almost certain to increase the availability of cocaine, as they'll pedal more of it with the marijuana income gone. It's all or nothing.

"drug addiction is serious, and it destroys lives. completely independent of any social or legal policy. recognize the fucking obvious, or be a complete fool"

Recognize your own foolishness. You claim it's independent of any social or legal policy, yet then go on for great lengths about how different drugs should have different legal policy. It's almost like there's two of you, and one isn't listening to the other.

You do realize cocaine was only made illegal due to anti-black racism, in the same way that marijuana was mostly made illegal due to anti-hispanic racism, in the same way that opium was made illegal due to anti-asian racism. But hey! Let's pretend alcohol and nicotine should be legal, because they are the white man's drug. Let's go on a fishing expedition and make up tables to show how right we are that our own race's drugs are the best.

i stopped reading here (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067946)

"For example, legalizing marijuana isn't going to take drug profits away from organized crime; they'll just sell more hard drugs"

this is low iq crap. you're root problem is your just not a very bright person

but you keep on believing the policy is the problem, not the substance itself. go on with your bad self. you're not the first moron who draws breath and spouts nonsense, you won't be the last. when it comes to drug policy, you're an idiot, and you hurt yourself and those around with your ignorant beliefs

Re:i stopped reading here (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32071470)

No, the root problem is that I don't agree with you. I IQ test at 150 and have studied the politics of the drug war pretty intensely for about 18 years. You basically just denied what I said and threw in an ad hominem attack.

You think the drug cartels are just going to lay down and stop operating if marijuana is legalized? Haha, good one.

The simple fact of the matter is the drug war does far more to hurt more people than any amount of drugs themselves. You do know we are the highest incinerator on the planet, and aruund half our prisoners are non-violent drug offenders. Meanwhile, California is out of money, and is letting murderers out of jail instead of pot smokers [stopthedrugwar.org] , and the drug war led the charge at erasing civil rights, setting up the stage for the war on terror to continue. But hey. Blame it all on the substance. When police lie and set people up [dallasnews.com] , something that happens every day, ignore the freedom that is taken away, and whine about the other bees in your hive not producing as much honey as you think they should. Your ignorance on the matter becomes more apparent with each passing comment. I suggest you catch up on the last 15 year's news [delicious.com] , and maybe read the DRCNet weekly news letter for a decade.

You do realize over 20,000 people have been killed in the drug war in Mexico since Calderon took office. But hey! It's the drug's fault! Everyone knows drugs make you murder! Gosh!

marijuana should be legal (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32071974)

obviously

why? because of the psychopharmacology of that particular drug

but, dear "genius", why the FUCK do you think something like heroin cocaine or meth should be legal?

you do realize that simple exposure to highly addictive+highly inebriating substances is enough to spiral lives into ruin, to turn your average human being into an addict?

in your supposed massive high iq intellect, you DO understand the biochemistry of addiction, don't you?

and if you are actually as smart as you suppose yourself to be, you're probably in denial. perhaps an addict yourself. its amazing what the average addict asshole will rationalize to avoid the truth of their predicament

try this factoid on for size, "genius": what class of doctor is most likely to become an addict? answer: anaesthesiologists. the guys who handle highly addictive substances. deduction: simple exposure is all that is needed to create addicts. intelligence and education is no defense. doctors are obviously incredibly bright well-balanced and educated individuals. so how come they are prone to addiction? because there is no defense against addiction save one: less exposure

so if you make certain highly addictive+inebriating substances legal, you increase exposure, and you get more addicts. its that simple. if you make a drug illegal, meanwhile, the committed suicidal assholes will still of course still get the drug, but the casual idiot won't. and that's all the difference the world for that casual idiot to have a fulfilling life and one as a fucking freeloading zombie. yes, you also get all of the prohibition effects as well. and i agree and acknowledge every single one of those effects: stronger mafia, addicts alienated from sources of help, etc. and, with most drugs, such as alcohol and marijuana, the prohibition effects obviously argue for legalization. however, some drugs: cocaine, heroin, meth, are such potent life destroyers that simple exposure to these substances is WORSE than prohibition effects

Re:marijuana should be legal (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32072112)

You really need to revisit researching specific drugs and their effects on people, including statistics on addiction. "Simple exposure is enough to spiral lives into [badness]" is about as logically valid as "simple exposure to a bicycle is enough to spiral a life into a fatal motorcycle accident". Take your gateway theories and return them to the 1970s where they belong. Plenty of individuals can use something poorly [40,000 car accidents a year, for example], while others cannot. Even the government's own statistics -- that I looked up myself in the Virginia Tech library -- state that only 30% of crack users become addicted. It's actually much higher with nicotine -- which kills a greater number of people as well. And cocaine overdose? 1/3rd the per-capita rate for daily cocaine users than the overdose rate of daily alcohol users. Heroin does zero bodily damage: It's a fucking brand name. Meth is just another stimulant. You ever done stimulants? Either you're an addictive type who likes them all, or they are all just something to do that doesn't fill you with any desire to do them repeatedly. Your doctor quote is pretty meaningless, it's like saying truck drivers are the profession most likely to get in a car accident. More addicts if it's legal, really? If crack was legalized, you'd go out and smoke it tomorrow? No, didn't think so. Some more people might experiment, but if drugs were legal, more treatment options would there -- instead of treating a medical problem like a criminal problem. Funny thing how there are even drugs in prison. It's unwinnable, but idiots like you want to continue taking away our resources and freedoms chasing what is basically a prejudiced idea. Trans fats addict [new research] and kill more people, for chrissakes.

LOL (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32072386)

this is your argument:

"i'm a (self-declared) superman who can drive 100 mph all the time and never crash. therefore, nobody needs speed limits"

so you're telling me addiction to HIGHLY ADDICTIVE substances is a minor issue

(face palm)

in a way you're right: nobody is an addict. until they become one. and then they spend their time like you hopelessly insisting they really aren't. sound familiar?

you're ignorant. you could have an iq of 250, you're still ignorant. you can read every study of drugs that ever existed. you're still ignorant. much like a highly intelligent, highly educated anaesthesiologist... addicted to his own drugs, that he's studied at phD levels, and is fully aware of the threat of

there is no defense against addiction save one: a serious and sober (pun intended) assessment of the genuine and real threat of addiction from the use of these drugs

all your words above amount to is "addiction isn't a big deal, it isn't a threat". highly laughable, highly ignorant, unbelievably naive, incredibly irresponsible

you're words are absurd as saying gravity isn't real or the tides won't rise and fall tomorrow

but i've encountered types like you before, so earnest and eager to insist addiction isn't the threat it obviously is. this belief says nothing about reality. but it does say volumes about your own problems

you'd be a pitiable character if you weren't so dangerous to the rest of us in your massive case of denial

good luck on dealing with your problems. stop believing your problems reflects reality. they reflect your own failures. some of us have successfully escaped the trap you are in and wish others not to befall your plight, and will continue to make sure they don't wind up like you

get help fool

Re:LOL (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32072472)

Let me fix that for you:

i'm a (self-declared) superman who can drive 100 mph all the time and never crash. therefore, nobody should be banned from driving. Instead, prosecute people for the actual crimes they commit.

Your post is quite funny when read in the Michael Jackson from South Park voice. "You're being ignorant." He kept exclaiming it over and over again, but without evidence to back it up, it was just ridiculous.

wow, i feel the power of your genius now (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32072648)

why do we have speed limits, dear einstein?

because the price people pay for speeding is death and dismemberment of innocents. the price is too high. so instead, we save the irresponsible and suicidal assholes from themselves, and save us from them: we post speed limits

understand reality, oh great high iq yogi?

if you speed, you increase the chance you will kill someone. if you use the most highly addictive+inebriating drugs, you risk becoming a useless zombie who can't house or feed themselves, and then we have to take care of you. well guess what: we don't want to take care of zombies. we want to prevent people from becoming zombies. got it, asshole?

tell me again, oh great swami, how addiction isn't a threat, how no lives are wasted by a previously intelligent mind reduced to a twitch: "need more fix, need more fix, need more fix..."

tell me again, oh great zombie, why we should have no speed limits and just somehow get irresponsible suicidal assholes to raise the dead and repair the severed spines

you are truly one ignorant irresponsible moron

Re:wow, i feel the power of your genius now (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32072736)

You do realize the majority of addition is to legal prescriptions, right? You need to get off your anti-illegal-drug high-horse crusade. You're a laughable relic.

that's a point that supports my position, moron (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32072880)

exposure to the most highly addictive and inebriating substances is all you need to create addicts. that's my fucking point. thanks for supporting my fucking point

yes, hillbilly heroin is a problem. what is your point? we make hillbilly heroin legal? ok, so more people will take it. then what? less addicts?! is that your position? what the hell is wrong with you, "genius"?

there will ALWAYS be addicts. some people in this world are just hellbent on slow motion suicide. they are pitiable and pathetic. there is always a hardcore tragic few who are eternally beyond salvation

but i'm more interested in saving the casual idiot who, if it were harder to get a certain drug, won't wind up wasting their lives away (and me and my tax dollars having to support the useless zombie). that's my simple, obvious point

and i'm a relic? for pointing out simple motherfucking rock of gibraltar obvious cause and effect of exposure to highly addictive+inebriating substances? that now YOU YOURSELF WITH YOUR LAST COMMENT MAKE THE SAME POINT OF? pffffffffft. what a moron

yeah, just call me nancy reagan and *poof*, everything about the obvious truth of the most highly addictive+inebriating substances just magically disappears from your need to address what i am saying and your desperately rationalizing, massively denying self. yeah, i'm just a relic (snicker). drugs are unicron rainbows! no downside! no threat of life destruction! even with heroin, cocaine and meth! yay!

what a blind twatstain

the truth is you're in massive denial. your words say volumes about your own problems, and nothing about reality

Re:that's a point that supports my position, moron (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32073008)

I love the "if it's legal, more people will take it" basis for your arguments. You state it like it's such an obvious tautology that one would have to be a fucking idiot to not realize it. Yet one has merely to survey 18-21 year olds in nations where the drinking age is 18 (Europe) to know that no, something being legal doesn't automatically lead to increased use. Hell, the teenage marijuana use is higher in American than the Netherlands! But hey, keep ignoring that reality is not so black and white, and keep spouting out your 20th Century political buzz[*]-statements.

[*]No pun intended.

You even admit there will always be addicts. Yet jail solves this better than medical measures how? Because having to support the largest prison population in the world is better use of our tax dollars how?

Laws to save the casual idiot. Ahh, the folly of anti-freedom crusaders everywhere. Why can't we say fuck on tv? The children. Oh yes. Everything has to set up for the worst case. Everyone has to be reduced to the level of an idiot (or child). If 1 in 100,000 people abuse something (or even 7 in 10), then the other 99,999 (or even 3) have to have their freedoms limited by the stupids.

But hey, don't read actual information or news on the topic. Simply keep spouting 20th century rhetoric.

I say 20th century, because no real drugs were criminalized prior to then [I'm fudging it a little, cocaine prohibitions began around the 1880s], and by the 22nd century, the drug war will have been given up on.

I suggest starting with the links I already gave you.

that's right! (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32073344)

if we had no speed limits, people would drive slower!

unfettered exposure to METH, COKE, and HEROIN means less addicts!

yay!

what a retard

and you want to talk history of drug use before 20th century?

ok, asshole, let's talk about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars [wikipedia.org]

there's your harmless substance. there's your more exposure leads to more addicts. in fact, when china tried to fight the scourge of opium, because THE DRUG ITSELF WAS DESTROYING THEIR SOCIETY, the drug dealing mafia forced war on them to keep being addicted for the sake of profit. that's the DESTRUCTION OF FREEDOM BY DRUGS right there, asshole

any other historical or pharmacological obvious fucking truths you need help with, mr. massively in denial?

Re:that's right! (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32073504)

You just cited a war that was caused by prohibition as a reason to have prohibition. Really? Wow. Good one there, haha! Funny thing how that war ended with the tolerance of Opium. They say if you can't remember history, you're doomed to repeat it -- but I think you're living proof that it can be repeated even if you do remember it. If you want to make a point, show me how opium was more harmful to their society than an actual fucking war

the war and the prohibition was caused (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32073618)

by the social degradation the easy availability of a highly addictive substance caused

but it's really amazing how, according to you, a legal edict can go into the bloodstream and change simple pharmacological biochemistry. quite amazing

that's your point, isn't it? that laws have a greater effect than how biochemistry works? that in a land with no laws, the addictiveness of something like heroin is different than a land with draconian laws?

hmmm. maybe if a country passes a law about gravity, we could float?

(snicker)

Re:the war and the prohibition was caused (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32073722)

Huh? Now you've totally lost me in your babble. If substance X causes existing policy A to become policy B, and policy B causes more destruction to society than substance X did in the first place, by your logic, we should blame substance X and not policy B. So let's see: If alcohol caused prohibition, and prohibition created gangsters, Al Capone, and one of the biggest crime eras in American history, then we should blame it all on alcohol and not prohibition. (Nevermind that beer was the first non-juice drink civilized mankind invented. A few idiots do something worse than the rest of us, there fore their idiocy is blamed on on their own personal responsibility, but the substance they used.)

You kind of remind me of the Christian ideal that evil itself is some tangible substance out there, and that when good people go evil, it is the substance of the evil out there by Satan that is causing it, and not their own stupid fucking decisions.

You need to watch the South Park on AA.

thank you for the red herrings and strawmen (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32073890)

the degradation to society by the most addictive+inebriating substances (heroin, cocaine, meth, etc) are more costly to society than prohibition effects. prohibition effects argue for legalization of less addictive/inebriating substances (lsd, marijuana, etc)

i've already written this. but thanks for trying to smear me with positions and attitudes i don't resemble. furiously rationalizing and denying ;-)

when britain got the monopoly on opium, and began flooding china with it, consumption of opium went from 15 tons annually in 1730 to 900 tons in 1820. my thesis is that simple availability creates addicts, because of the simple obvious biochemical facts of what heroin is and what it does to the body and brain. do you deny those scientific facts? what is your alternative thesis for why opium use skyrocketed in china?

Re:thank you for the red herrings and strawmen (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32073994)

And yet, since cocaine prohibition, availability has greatly increased, and price has decreased. This is in today's world, where transport is FAR easier than in the opium war days. If prohibition of cocaine increases it's availability, then by your logic, this should increase the addiction that you fear so much. Meanwhile, the prohibition causes those to not seek medical treatment for fear of prosecution. A prosecution whose results are often incarcerating people. Which costs $30-$50K per year per person. Yet somehow, if that person had a problem, or stopped working, he would be costing us even more than that? Then there's the freedom cost, which you continually ignore. The closure of civil rights in America more or less started when Nixon declared the war on drugs, though parts of it started in the early 1900s, along with prohibition. Are you really that blinded by your idealism?

You do realize that they decriminalized all drugs in Portugal. This is TODAY, with measurable effects. http://cryptogon.com/?p=9632 [cryptogon.com] ... Gee, why didn't addiction go up, if you're so smart? Show me some current, real-world examples supporting your position. Because Portugal, in the past 5 yrs, proved all your arguments wrong. I really wish I'd bothered to bring this up earlier, but then again, it's funny how I can type a sentence or two and receive paragraphs of vitriol from you, and that's been kind of entertaining.

portugal doesn't prove anything (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32074156)

except that it is slowly rebounding from a horrible situation, due to a whole number of factors, not only one dubious factor you allude to out of agenda cherry picking of your facts

furthermore, cocaine was not as widely available or historically well-known at the beginning of the timeline you cite. growth was a simple function of increased awareness and product of availability, regardless of legal landscape. again: arguing for my point about simple addictiveness of a drug being the deciding factor

but what inquiring minds want to know, is at what point do you stop living the absurdity, and acknowledge the simple obvious truth that the ADDICTIVE POTENTIAL of a substance, as a matter of simple biochemistry, is a factor. then maybe we can slowly hand hold and lead you to the next painfully obvious fact: for HIGHLY ADDICTIVE substances, availability of the substance itself is the DOMINANT factor in harm

you keep trying to draw me into wider arguments about all sorts of drugs, and paint me in ridiculous social conservative corners, when i have repeatedly told you i am for marijuana and lsd legalization, and that i stand for illegality ONLY FOR heroin, cocaine, meth, etc: only the most highly addictive+inebriating substances. for on that deep end of the pool, there is where damage to lives and society by the DRUG ITSELF is greater than damage to society by social policy and laws

Re:portugal doesn't prove anything (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32074260)

Quite simply, you don't love freedom enough, and you don't understand hard drugs except in a cartoonish manner, like the way most teabaggers are scared of socialism without really seeing it for what it is. I honestly think the 2nd paragraph in your response supports me, not you, but hey, I know you're not going to agree with that. Again, potential != realization. You don't criminalize putting anvils at the tops of buildings because some people drop them on Bugs Bunny, based on their POTENTIAL to do harm, anymore than you ban guns or cars from their potential [and reality] to do harm. And that was a pretty sad response about Portugal.

i love freedom immensely, it motivates my opinion (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32074444)

and i understand that the bars that addiction creates in your mind is more freedom destroying than the most fascist autocratic regime orwell could imagine in the furthest reaches of his imagination. you take a mind that might have explored new avenues in art, literature, music, science... and instead you have a mind that is on a constant interruption circuit "need more fix, need more fix, need more fix..." and unable to be the person they were before the addiction

in fact, the tool of the most oppressive regime possible, to rob people of their free will to the most maximum extent, would be compulsory addiction to morphine. the fight against highly addictive+inebriating substances is, in the entire history of mankind's sordid experience with drugs, on a personal and societal level, the essence of the fight for freedom

and actually, yes: if you placed anvils at the top of a building, and the wind shifted a tarp near one and knocked it off the building, you would be found criminally culpable for not recognizing the common sense danger implicit in that arrangement. why is this simple example of responsibility a strange concept to you?

tell me now again: the obvious science of addiction of something like heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.: this means absolutely nothing to you in how these substances are treated? is this your honest opinion?

Re:i love freedom immensely, it motivates my opini (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32074496)

P1: Yup. All drug users do is do more drugs while staring at the wall. Excellent summary. Fortunately we have a great deal of artistic works, unix [lsd], and all the real world inventions based on Star Trek [amphetamines] to prove you wrong. There's more to it than your vilified strawman.

P2: Too bad no dictators have tried that, eh?

P3: So the anvils are on tarps now? What about gargoyles?

Treated in what sense. Medically? Legally? Ethicly? In the end, the effects on freedom and choice are the same, and even 1 substance prohibited in an over-the-top manner is enough to be used a pretense for trampling on most amendments in the constitution. The substance doesn't even have to be known for this statement to be universally true. Funny thing how poisons aren't criminalized; it's not necessary to criminalize things that have actual harm past a truly harmful threshold.

artists do art (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32074652)

in SPITE OF their drug use, not BECAUSE of it. drug use by artists is contemporaneous with them being characters on the edge of society, which leads them to do great art AND take drugs due to various personality issues. but drug use does not CAUSE art. even artists like william s burroughs or hunter s thompson: their art was from periods of sobriety, crawling out of their overindulgence, before slipping back in. imagine what burroughs or thompson could have done if they remained drug free!

and you're saying that laws against drug use is merely a ploy to steal more rights, is that it? so there's no observance of the effects of addiction on people's lives and a desire to stop that negative effect. nah... that's completely bogus. there's only the scary bogeyman of a control freak who wants to stop everyone from having any fun... just because that's what they do

you're absurd

Re:artists do art (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32075364)

No, it's because of it. Perhaps you've never created anything while intoxicated yourself, but you can't discount that it happens. In some cases, it is in spite of, of course. But not all. I know it's convenient to think in binary.

Hunter S. Thompson and William S. Burroughs might have been something. But I doubt they'd be remembered like they are today.

Laws against drug use are a ploy to steal rights? First off, remember, most drugs were criminalized over racism against the groups using it. In those cases, it certainly was, in part, a ploy to steal rights from a specific race. But it's scarcely a ploy: A law prohibiting X takes away your previous right to do X. That's not a ploy, that's overly what a law is. Basically, some people who do X fuck up, so let's take away the ability to do X from other people as well. If drunk driving accidents increased and they banned all cars, even from those who never drank, it would be the same type of mentality. Legislation via bad apple example. If our laws have to be designed for the worst of us, we may as well put on a rubber suit and a helmet right now.

drugs and racism (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32075662)

you mean this?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars [wikipedia.org]

forcing nonwhites to become addicts for profit then waging war on them when they resists forced addiction?

stop with the red herrings asshole

it should be quite clear to you the source of my opposition to the highly addictive+inebriating substances by now, i've said it repeatedly. it is based on sound science, sound pharmacological facts of addiction. not racism. not nancy reagan

you're smearing my position because you have no logical coherence in your opposition to the simple fucking-obvious-to-a-kindergartener truth. you're grasping at straws, and you've lost the argument because you continually avoid my central thesis:

THE DRUGS THEMSELVES CREATE THE SUFFERING

address that, or you are nonresponsive and avoidant, like any stupid junkie when confronted with the truth of their terrible problem

give it up asshole. the massive wall of denial is no defense against the truth that THE SUBSTANCES THEMSELVES CREATE THE HARM

Re:drugs and racism (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32075720)

Forced? Huh? Citation please.

By your own logic, you actually should also be against alcohol being legal. It causes far more harm to society than cocaine. Snicker.

Ahh, the drugs themselves are creating the suffering. Nope. Don't agree. They're just drugs, sitting there. Neutral, like a gun or a sandwich. It takes people to mis-use them for that to happen, and most people don't mis-use most substances. In the end, you want to control the freedoms of the responsible citing the folly of the irresponsible. It's a despicable position.

so what about plutonium (0, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32076202)

howabout anthrax

who needs restrictions on those things? they're just "things", its the person who does bad things with them, not the substances, because everyone is always 100% responsible all the time

so of course, restricting plutonium and anthrax is just a social conservative control freak freak out just trying to make everyone as miserable as they are, right?

oh and speed limits: this is of course the slippery slope to social conservative control and destruction of all freedoms. we should just assume that everyone is completely responsible, that bad things never happen. even with cars going 120 mph and the most addictive substances known to man freely the hands of teenagers. if that teenager becomes an addict, well thats ok. its only the rest of his life he'll have a demon he has to suffer with. the consequences of playing games with the potential for crippling drug addiction are so mild and hardly life altering, it should just be freely released into society at large, because everyone is a superman with unlimited willpower and nobody's subject to the fact sof hard pharmacological science

pffffffffffft

you're a seriously deluded asshole

Re:so what about plutonium (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32076256)

If you show me the recreational anthrax or plutonium user, you might have a valid comparison to make.

Otherwise, you're just continuing on in the rantings of a 20th century freedom hater. You keep repeating the same things over and over: Oh my god. Someone's life can be ruined over it. Therefore it should be illegal. While ignoring alcohol, which you put in the should-be-legal category! What a laughingstock you are.

why do we have any government regulation? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32076554)

for example, the argument with wall st is: if a guy loses his cash on a bad investment, that's his problem. why intrude?

and the answer is: because the whole damn economy can go into meltdown in an unregulated marketplace, like it did in 2008

in other words, the argument that any negative consequences of certain behavior is small, or only effects the individual, is bullshit. we regulate anthrax and plutonium because the consequences of using that stuff and screwing up is death and destruction for people besides yourself. we have spped limits because the consequences of crasing is death and destruction to more than just yourself

and free and unfettered access to the THE MOST (enough with the alcohol red herring, asshole) addictive and inebriating substances known to man WILL create an army of zombies that i have to pay to feed and house. so just like the economy, the maleffects of poor personal choices do not affect only the indivudal, they affect society. THAT's the source for regulation, not some social conservative freakout

if you can understand why the economy needs regulation from a personal choice/ societal effect point of view, why can't you understand that also applies to THE MOST addictive and inebriating substances known to man? why can't you see that more access to something like heroin inevitably leads to more addicts who can't house and feed themselves, as a simple consequence of the simple pharamcological facts of what heroin does to the mind and body?

i don't want vast swaths of my society reduced to zombiehood because you somehow erroneously believe you are an island and your bad choices affects no one but yourself

Re:why do we have any government regulation? (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32077774)

P1-3: Flawed metaphor. We don't ban individual play in the stock market, while we ban individual play in the drug market. Individuals are allowed to fail all they want in the stock market. You're confusing regulation with prohibition. Stock market operations have rules: Just like liquor distribution has rules. Neither alcohol nor stock purchases are banned due to the acts of individuals. The economic crash we've had is due to corporate greed, it doesn't mean nobody should be able to play the market anymore, nor does it mean corporations don't get to play the market anymore. You're using something that was never prohibited as an excuse for prohibition. Amazing logic you have there.

P4: Alcohol is not at all a red herring. It's a drug, just like any other. In fact, it's fatal overdose rate is triple that for daily users when compared to daily cocaine users, and more people die from alcohol each year than all illegal drugs combined. Again, you selectively throw out MAJOR data points (like alcohol) and call them red herrings because they don't fit with your invalid logic.

ARMY OF ZOMBIES! LOL. We have the largest prison system in the world due to our drug war. These people aren't on drugs [except those that got them into the prison, which does happen], and we're paying over $30K/yr in taxes to house these people. EVEN IF THEY WERE HOMELESS they would not cost society that much per year. You've only served to illustrate my point further by indicating your problem is paying for it, then giving a solution that causes you to pay more. Do you have a fucking clue about how much money has been spent in the drug war, vs how much users of alcohol and cigarettes have added expenses into the medical system? The ratio is huge. 1) Alcohol. 2) Portugal. 3) Freedom costs money.

It's hilarious that you are stating this in fiscal terms, when we've spent more on the drug war than any country in the world, and spend more on prisons. You are saying "we shoudln't allow people to do this because it will cost X, so let's spend X*Y [where Y > 1] instead!" Totally idiotic logic that flies in the face of a reality that you apparently cover your eyes from.

Zombiehood! Somebody's been watching too much Reefer Madness. You sound like a 1980s PSA. You must be into some kind of false reality, where you decide things are a certain way, and ignore all information to the contrary. I started out as an anti-drug crusader too, but then I realized how fucked up my own logic was back in my online debates that I had in the 1980s. OH I SEE, you're a Christian. That explains a lot about covering your eyes and pretending in false realities. That also explains why you consider evil to be something that exists in intimate objects. It's an extension of animism and demonic possession. Shit that makes sense for Christians, but not for people who don't believe in sky fairies.

Sorry, I'm whipping the ad hominems out now. I've noticed you had a major problem with logic, and now I see you're a Christian, which explains a lot. You base your whole existence on illogic, no wonder you're scared of satan's evil zombie hoard. Jesus used cannabis, and Jesus can suck my dick.

Re:wow (1)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32052158)

There are some great creative minds who happen to use drugs, but if you don't have an imagination without using drugs, then you don't have an imagination full stop.
I'm not an anti-drug crusader, but no matter what you think it won't make you interesting.

Re:wow (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#32059864)

If I think it makes somebody more interesting, than no matter what you think, it did make them more interesting to me. You see, this whole "no matter what you think" is kind of a fallacy. Interesting is subjective.

Re:wow (3, Interesting)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32052798)

Most profound work that is imaginative is related to drug use.

Is it the profound work that is imaginative that is related to drug use?

Or drug use that's related to profound work that is imaginative?

I've often found that the truly creative/imaginative folks have a hard time dealing with reality as it is, and frequently wind up self-medicating with various substances.

Re:wow (1)

Degro (989442) | more than 4 years ago | (#32053104)

That's another big reason why our current war on drugs is such a shame (more of a shame is all the people dying over it along the us/mex border). If just cannabis and other unprocessed crops like shrooms, etc were legalized federally I think would be a huge boon for the country culturally. I know I've gotten some of my best ideas while high. I certainly don't enjoy writing code high, but I can continue to think about a project or specific problem after lighting up at the end of the day and usually gain some pretty amazing insight.

Re:wow (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 4 years ago | (#32050674)

Ditto. I just read V.A.L.I.S. and just from the parts of the Exegesis quoted in there it sounds insane and repetitive ("The empire never ended".) Even V.A.L.I.S. was sort of on the edge for me, interesting only because Dick is there to navigate through the madness with the reader and provide context and a counter weight. Can't imagine this will interesting unless heavily edited.

Re:wow (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32050952)

To be honest, for me the VALIS trilogy (VALIS, The Divine Invasion, and The Transmigration of Timothy Archer) are the least interesting PKD books. In his efforts to talk about the "pink laser" and Gnosticism, the storytelling suffered. Give me Dr. Bloodmoney any day.

Re:wow (1)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#32051054)

You may not like it - but all of it is true. Even the parts that are not.

Re:wow (2, Insightful)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32051232)

Well if it's true, no wonder it's not interesting.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32205264)

VALIS is pure genius and also pure madness. Dr Bloodmoney is not bad but in his later works (the trilogy) it ascends to another plane.
Did you read A Scanner Darkly? try that one

Disclaimer: I like even PKD bad stories though. There is a little of genius in everyone.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32204212)

Of course, you can't appreciate his betters works without a pink laser transmitting information directly to your brain. Are you mad?

Re:wow (4, Informative)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32051406)

Tarnish his reputation? Forgive me, but isn't he emblematic of the mad genius? I don't mean just eccentric, but paranoid nut-so. His work wouldn't be so great without that factor, I don't think.

And for those of you who missed it, here's [scribd.com] Robert Crumb's The Religious Experience of Philip K. Dick

Re:wow (2, Informative)

KliX (164895) | more than 4 years ago | (#32051430)

Err, it wasn't smarts, it was a whole lot of speed that sent him nuts.

very intelligent != crazy (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32051880)

"so smart that it caused mental disorder"

no, this is an exoticization and a glamorization, like "a beautiful mind"

there are smart people

and there are crazy people

then there smart and crazy people

its an overlapping of types, not a cuase or effect anywhere in there

there is no such thing as smart -> crazy and there is no such thing as crazy -> smart

the man was brilliant and gifted. he had also had paranoid schizophrenic tendencies. this was not a cause of his intelligence, or an effect, this was merely a cofactor in what made philip k dick philip k dick. obviously he would not create what he created were he not paranoid and schizophrenic. joan of arc and joseph smith also had schizophrenic visions, and the world is radically changed because of them too. but it is, in the end, a sickness and a kind of suffering

stop exoticizing and glamoring mental illness as some sort of gift. philip k dick, for one, would not see it that way

Re:very intelligent != crazy (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32053588)

He also took a shitload of amphetemines (which produced every book written before 1970) and LSD, and smoked pot daily. I'm sure that helped.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32052188)

Isn't he that coked-up faggot, though? Oh wait, that's ANDY Dick!

Movie (1)

ig88b (1401217) | more than 4 years ago | (#32050448)

When does the movie come out?

Re:Movie (2, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32050526)

Just before the animated cartoon series.

Re:Movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056368)

the 2D or 3D version ?

Against PKD's wishes? (5, Interesting)

astro (20275) | more than 4 years ago | (#32050562)

I don't have sources to cite, but I recall when Radio Free Albemuth came out post-humously, that there was a stir that PKD had specifically stipulated that he did not want his works to be published after his death / without his approval. IIRC, his son approved the publication of aforementioned book, and like I said, there was quite a stir at the time.

Is his estate profiting against his original wishes?

FWIW, RFA was a GREAT book and I am glad it was published. Just wondering about the estate's ethics here.

Re:Against PKD's wishes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32050732)

Virgil commanded his slave burn all copies of the Aenied as he was dying - but the world has come to cherish the story of the Trojan horse and the birth of Rome. Ethics aside, a work is a work.

Oh boy (1)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32050836)

I like PKD's work, but I'm getting negative vibes from this. L. Ron Hubbard "Dianetics" anyone?

Re:Oh boy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32052852)

Hell, I'd have to try that religion out and I don't even believe in the supernatural! Although, I think a trip to burning man on DMT ought to summarize the whole of the PKD Cannon.

Overrated. (1, Interesting)

porky_pig_jr (129948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32051992)

Not that I'm trying to offend Ph. K. Dick's fans, but IMHO he was just a schizofrenic. He does not offer any particular insights into the future. Yes, his writings are notably different from most of the SciFi garbage, but diferent doesn't mean better. It's OK, but would you expect any revelations from psychotic type of personality? I don't. Yeah, I read many of his books, just to see what's this all about. As I said, my only impression that he's quite delusional kind of person.

Stuff I do like: Heinlein. and S. Lem.

Re:Overrated. (4, Interesting)

thomst (1640045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32052304)

As I said, my only impression that he's quite delusional kind of person.

Having met him in person, that was not my impression at all. He was the guest of honor at Octocon II in Santa Rosa, CA, in 1978, and I happened to recognize him as we passed one another, him on his way back to his hotel room, me on my way to the convention floor. I stopped him by saying, "Excuse me. I hope I'm not bothering you, but you're Phillip K. Dick, aren't you?" He admitted that he was and stood there fidgeting slightly, as if impatient to get this little unwanted intrusion into his privacy over with, so he could be on his way. "Again, I don't want to impose on you," I told him, "but I've always wanted to ask you, 'Where did you come up with the plot to "Ubik"?' It always seemed to me as though you started out to tell one story and wound up with quite a different tale than the one you set out to write."

PKD's eyes lit up, he became quite animated, and his tone of voice indicated that he was actually enjoying himself, as he replied, "You're right. I set out to write about a society where psionic powers - specifically telepathy - were developed to the point that they were routinely used in business for espionage and negotiation, and what the consequences of that would be. How they'd be regulated and licensed and so on. And then, about a dozen or so pages in, the typewriter just developed a mind of its own. It was automatic writing, really. I had no idea what was coming next, or how it would all turn out - I just sat there and let the story channel itself through me. I'd never experienced anything like that before, and it was really a very odd thing to witness!"

I told him that "Ubik" was probably my favorite of his books, because it was so surreal, and so unique among his works, and he confided that it was one of his personal favorites, too. I think I mentioned that I felt John Carpenter should have credited Ubik for inspiring the scene in "Dark Star" where the acting Captain consults the frozen corpse of the ship's original Captain, and I probably could have stood and talked to him for another hour or so, if I'd cared to push it, but I really didn't want to impose on him, so I thanked him for his time and for the insight into his novel and went on my way.

That was such a great convention.

Re:Overrated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32204242)

As I said, my only impression that he's quite delusional kind of person.

Having met him in person, that was not my impression at all. He was the guest of honor at Octocon II in Santa Rosa, CA, in 1978, and I happened to recognize him as we passed one another, him on his way back to his hotel room, me on my way to the convention floor. I stopped him by saying, "Excuse me. I hope I'm not bothering you, but you're Phillip K. Dick, aren't you?" He admitted that he was and stood there fidgeting slightly, as if impatient to get this little unwanted intrusion into his privacy over with, so he could be on his way. "Again, I don't want to impose on you," I told him, "but I've always wanted to ask you, 'Where did you come up with the plot to "Ubik"?' It always seemed to me as though you started out to tell one story and wound up with quite a different tale than the one you set out to write."

PKD's eyes lit up, he became quite animated, and his tone of voice indicated that he was actually enjoying himself, as he replied, "You're right. I set out to write about a society where psionic powers - specifically telepathy - were developed to the point that they were routinely used in business for espionage and negotiation, and what the consequences of that would be. How they'd be regulated and licensed and so on. And then, about a dozen or so pages in, the typewriter just developed a mind of its own. It was automatic writing, really. I had no idea what was coming next, or how it would all turn out - I just sat there and let the story channel itself through me. I'd never experienced anything like that before, and it was really a very odd thing to witness!"

I told him that "Ubik" was probably my favorite of his books, because it was so surreal, and so unique among his works, and he confided that it was one of his personal favorites, too. I think I mentioned that I felt John Carpenter should have credited Ubik for inspiring the scene in "Dark Star" where the acting Captain consults the frozen corpse of the ship's original Captain, and I probably could have stood and talked to him for another hour or so, if I'd cared to push it, but I really didn't want to impose on him, so I thanked him for his time and for the insight into his novel and went on my way.

That was such a great convention.

Wow. My thoughts exactly. I was 7 years old in 1978, I think I started reading PKD a few years later but when I saw Dark Star many years later I thought that was pure PKD. I envy of you :-)

Re:Overrated. (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32052860)

Not that I'm trying to offend Ph. K. Dick's fans, but IMHO he was just a schizofrenic. He does not offer any particular insights into the future. Yes, his writings are notably different from most of the SciFi garbage, but diferent doesn't mean better. It's OK, but would you expect any revelations from psychotic type of personality? I don't. Yeah, I read many of his books, just to see what's this all about. As I said, my only impression that he's quite delusional kind of person.

Stuff I do like: Heinlein. and S. Lem.

So, just because he suffered from mental illness, he can't be a good author?

I've never based my reading list on who writes the most accurate prophecies... Nor who has the fewest diagnoses...

I'm just interested in reading a good book. And PKD certainly delivers.

Re:Overrated. (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32053598)

He wasn't trying to offer insights into the future. So there's your problem.

great author (1)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | more than 4 years ago | (#32052192)

He was a great author. I've read "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep" and "Ubik". I have yet to read "Scanner Darkly", "The Man In The High Castle", and his other great works.

Re:great author (1)

awing0 (545366) | more than 4 years ago | (#32052698)

I have really enjoyed a few of his books including 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.' I definitely HIGHLY recommend 'A Scanner Darkly' and 'Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said'.

On the other hand, I thought 'Maze of Death' lacked depth and was entirely predictable. I also didn't like 'The Broken Bubble', mainly I think because it deals with a lot of "human" issues and not much sci-fi. Possibly I didn't understand it.

I'm slowly working my way through all his books I can pick up at the library. After going this thread, I really want to read 'Ubik.'

Re:great author (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32064830)

You'd seem to be more of a Neal Stephenson fan though...

The Exegesis Lives (2, Interesting)

fortfive (1582005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32052448)

I love PKD works. Really love them--and V.A.L.I.S. is my favorite. I've read a few pages of the Exegesis, those published by the estate so far. They read kind of like Crowley's better works, some kind of hypnotic poetry. They help put me in touch with infinity and chaos.

Regarding astro's comments, I can't think of a better way to honor his memory than to celebrate his work--all of it.

Regarding his reputation being tarnished, well, whatever. The man was in a category by himself. The only other authors who have come even close to lighting up my cortex like that are H.P. Lovecraft and E.J. Gold--not Gibson, not Orson Scott Card, not Bob Wilson.

And of course my opinion should be of the greatest value to everyone.

p.s. best way to read the Exegesis is out loud.

Why is this important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32083916)

I would love for someone to tell me why anyone cares about this? I never likes his stuff. It was all over the map. Few of his stories had any real plot and his writing, at the detail level, is hardly literature. I have the same opinion of Neal Stephenson.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>