Yeah, their market share is slim, but their followers are astonishingly devout. Even though the hardware is no longer unique you still have a better chance of converting a windows person to mac than the other way around.
They can make patent-able and marketable products from natural pot and still make a killing.
Like I said, I don't think that they can. I think that there is too much prior art.
Again, I don't think you're being creative enough here. Sure, they can't just ground it up into a pill and expect to patent it; that's a given. But once they do something more than that - say isolate a particular compound, or use a novel carrier with it, or a different delivery system, or compound it with an OTC medication - then they have something they almost certainly can patent.
demonstrate hundreds to thousands of years of prior art.
Again, that comes down to what they patent. They wouldn't be dumb enough to try to patent the plant (or at least a common variety of it) directly; that would fail quickly. Such a thing would be like Toyota attempting to patent the wheel. However when they do something clever with pot extracts, then it changes significantly and it is more like Toyota patenting the circuitry for the solar roof in a Prius.
Actually, it's not clear that the tobacco industry will even be the ones to get there before big pharma. There's a lot of big investors lurking around to see how this comes out.
So then who are the investors going to invest in? The investors want to put their money in businesses with solid potential, not just scattered head shops. No businesses strike me as better positioned to make money off legalized pot than tobacco and pharm, as they have the most similar products to it currently.
Well, this JE (stands for Journal Entry?)
Indeed. I guess I got so used to having JE discussions with a short list of people that I forgot I added you only more recently to my friends list. I don't remember who started using that as shorthand here, sorry for not expanding it earlier.
has certainly ballooned far past the 10 comment stage.
I noticed that is indeed the case on this one. By my experience less than 1% of JEs have that many comments.
More evidence that any mention of Trump is click-bait for trolls, I guess. Already seen sufficient.
The conservative base here responds to certain things in very Pavlovian ways. Similarly you can watch them trip over each other to scream first and loudest if you post a JE on Benghazi.
However, the "perma-hate list" also seems to be an example of the kind of interface problem that would be cured by the kind of financial model I've been advocating for a while.
To be fair I'm referring just to the foes list function for one specific user who was not only notorious for having a disgustingly long list but also for never under any circumstances removing anyone from it.
That deactivation would happen automatically as soon as the ongoing cost project ran out of money or it might happen manually when a bug or problem was detected and too few people were willing to fund a repair project.
That is a wonderfully idealized model. Unfortunately slashdot doesn't do anything about bugs any more. Features don't go away, either; they just stop getting maintained and the crew hopes nobody notices.
Still thinking of a simple solution... How about giving the owner of a journal unlimited mod points in the journal? (Again, a feature I would be willing to help fund, but I bet the implementation project for that feature would be quite small. I think that's actually a case where the first few people to spot the proposal would be able to claim credit for funding a substantial improvement to slashdot...)
Feel free to suggest it to them by email. I think someone still occasionally checks firstname.lastname@example.org. They'll likely respond with an excuse for why it will never happen, but it doesn't cost you anything to suggest it...
Worst of all would be if there's something bad in there but not bad enough to hand Sanders the nomination, that could threaten to hand Trump the win over Hillary.
I have a hard time imagining many voters who are on the fence between Trump and Hillary at this point. If the results are bad - though not bad enough to drive Hillary out of the race - I could expect it to maybe drive some people who would vote for her to vote third party instead. It doesn't seem real likely that such people would occur in large enough numbers in battleground states to flip the election to Trump, though.
You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.