Look, us anti-smokers are all just selfish bastards.
I dunno about selfish, but a lot of you are bigots.
I started smoking in 7th grade. I smoked 3 packs a day for several years, I quit in 1976, and haven't looked back. Ya gotta be pretty dumb to smoke. A lot of things people do are pretty dumb.
But one thing I know, I've never met a smoker who was as sanctimonious an asshole as the anti smoking bigots I meet.
Sounds like your friend had a preexisting heart condition.
Nope, she's fine, just had to cut way back on the coffee.
https://www.webmd.com/balance/... [webmd.com] The causation of panic attacks and their symptoms and coffee abuse has been known for a long time.
It is odd that so many people are apologists for coffee. It is a true psychoactive drug. It can be abused. It is abused. Four grams of pure caffeine will kill an adult. As a coffee addict, I understand this well.
I always caution people who like coffee not to get on too high of a horse about cigarettes and especially vaping. As G.W. Bush said to Saddam Hussein, "You're next!"
Remember when smoking was socially acceptable and even considered healthy? You're next!
I think my favorite, though is why they cry about there being no evidence of his collusion with Russia, even though everyone in his inner circle is being indicted over it.
Yeah, the linked article can't even manage to be factually accurate at the most basic level. For example, Men are a majority now? Nope.
There is no institutional bias against men? The author of the article has apparently never heard of schools, or universities, who literally advertise that they don't accept men for everything from scholarships to groups and centers paid for by male student fees.
Oh man, and is this ever causing a problem. Males are a marked minority among college students https://www.theatlantic.com/ed... and getting worse.
Very little attention ois being paid to this at the college level, I suspect that it is considered a little less of a problem for the victims - but it is the beginnings of a real problem. The path chosen for modern women is to get a degree, then work until your mid 30's early 40's, then find a husband and immediately start fertility treatments in order to have a child.
But these ladies are having a problem finding a male that meets their expectation. To Google "where have all the good men gone brings up a plethora of results. Most often posed by women, discussed by women, and solutions proposed by women. And usually with a fine smattering of misandry.
When in fact, the qualifications for a "good man" means a college education, having their own place, making more than her, and then there are the physical qualifications. Tall, handsome, ripped. Then there are the life choice demands, which are to be ready to immediately start fertility treatments in a race against the clock.
Oh-ohhh, that college education demand. As we are nearing a 75 to 25 Percent female versus male degree status, right away we have a severe problem.
Coupled with the other demands, these women are going to have a real problem finding mates. A male that fits their demands is probably not looking for a woman of that age and is not looking to become a father at such a late age.
Even then, the article starts out: "Where have all the good men gone? These sassy, sophisticated, solvent women say they are struggling to find other halves that can measure up.
Be clear, or be called out. Sarcasm doesn't translate easily online.
Meh, people should gain comprehension skills to. Otherwise we'll be telling people "This is a joke" before telling any joke.
Now, even a literal interpretation of my statement must be taken as true. Because the writer of the obvious sexist article gets no calling out, She's probably getting high fives from her friends because she's "telling it like it is" and serving the sisterhood.
Society just accepts her bigotry, Hence when sinij wrote:
"How about some consistency in your outrage? If sexism is bad, then all forms of it are bad?"
To which I replied in the first line of my reply:
"That is not how it works and you know it" followed by an exact illustration of exactly why that isn't how it works, with a link to an article where a bigoted woman explains why it is not possible for men to experience sexism.
But hey, I'm always ready to explain things to people who might have trouble. Even ones who get a bit of an attitude about it.
Let me know if you need it explained in more depth - I'm only too happy to type up long dissertations to help people understand.
While I'm not a Moody incel who feels affected by this, with everything being labelled as toxic masculinity, including eating meat, it's somewhat ironic that it's seems that no women are willing to listen to the male voice in response to these accusations, when one of the very actions apparently needed to combat this so called toxic masculinity is to get men to talk about their feelings.
It is a difficult situation. Even my wife, who is more of a second waver (she believes if a woman can do a job, she should be able to do it, and no one is going to stop her (strong woman model, as opposed to present day weak woman model) talking with women about "feelings" can be a real problem. I tried a few times, and she freaked badly.
Complicated as all hell. We hear that we are supposed to talk about feelings, but even when I was younger and unmarried, I had much better success with the ladies by being more aloof and assertive. The one time I tried being more sensitive and with a woman who professed to like me in a romantic fashion (according to friends), I got friend zoned pronto. From having the hots for me to "Let's just be friends." in a minute.
Despite being told the opposite, I'm convinced that in so many ways, women by nature like guys that take charge. I'm not talking about cruel or violent, but assertive and never clingy.
And now there is this weird "incel" shaming business. We shouldn't shame involuntary celibates. There hardly is such a thing, perhaps some guy who was in an accident and can't get it up any more.
It's a problem of mixed and contradictory signals, exacerbated by social media judgements. It has made many males simply unsure how to approach women who have been raised to hate men. Despite the gender studies bigoted rhetoric, most men would never harm a woman, respect her, and are usually just looking for love. And sex of course. But when the signals get too weird, they pull back.
LOL...You link to a sexist article as evidence that men can not suffer from sexism? There is literally no proof provided in that article, only opinion.
Whoosh! Way to not get the point.
Of course that is a sexist article. It is a horribly sexist article, and tries to turn men into evil monsters, yet the very same actions can be taken against males, but it somehow becomes good and just.
The part I was being dead serious about was that society accepts that as truth.
Actual truth is that if someone stereotypes or pre-judges anyone on the genitals between their legs, they are sexist bigots. The writer of that article, one Kat George, is a horrible sexist bigot. On the level of people who think that chocolate people are not humans.
One does not get a free pass that a woman can spew any amount of hatred she desires and get a free pass unless one believes that women are not capable of saying intelligent things. This is why I believe that modern feminism is simply trying to make weakness a virtue.
Holy fuck, you left out summary and immediate execution.
Such measures should not be necessary.
The idea is to bring real world consequences for a person's choices, and the fact that they are a minor should not factor into it.
And the severity of the measures I've described would probably prevent repeat offenders as well... those that did repeat could find themselves on pretty darn hard times in the years to come... but again, that's a path that they *CHOSE* to go down.
Killing them would eliminate repeat offenders. As well as sparing the government the expense of incarceratingf them. Sincce children who offend, probably have parents the same, we can eliminate crime by just killing them too. The CHOSE to not abide by all aspects of the law, therefore in the interests of a crime free society, excess in the culling of the undesirables is no vice. One strike, and you cease to exist. Summary execution the standard punishment - no repeat offenders.
But hey, you can always try and get your Diploma later on when you realize that you actually really do need it to survive in modern society.
Either that, or you can eventually find yourself in jail for committing property crime that you've had to resort to just to survive once your parents kick you out the day you turn 18.
The habit of incarcerating as many people for as long as possible - largely to help the for profit prison system has worked out pretty well.
You are the one reaching too far. We currently do much of what is described for persons caught drinking before age 21 (thanks feds) and so if vaping is illegal for young'uns, then there should be similar penalties.
I support making all vaping by prescription only. If you want to get off tobacco, it can't be that hard to get a prescription. Heck, plenty of people lined up for Marijuana prescriptions.
Nearly all caffeine users have little difficulty keeping their use in the "good" range. But for nicotine, there is no "good" range, and it is far more addictive.
Perhaps I work in the wrong crowds. Nearly everyone I have ever worked with has been told to cut back on their caffiene use, and most have suffered withdrawal symptoms. Several, including me, have hit the 10 cups per day mark that is considered too damn much.
As well, the puritans who are shitting their pants because the tobacco users have found a loophole in vaping
Nonsense. We are only shitting our pants over kids getting ahold of vaping devices. Adults can do what they want.
Perhaps we might keep the children out of the bars, if we only care about them, and have no intention of impeding adult use. I mean - bar bans if we are interested in keeping vaping devices out of the hands of kids, thry must be hanging out in bars.
Do you really think that putting a highly addictive and harmful product into the hands of kids is acceptable? They are too stupid and naive to understand the consequences.
I think that there are some fairly simple ways to attempt to keep them out of the hands of those who have not achieved the age of majority. But if I might cite my own and my friend's experience. I and most of my friends started smoking when we were in 7th grade, which for me was 13. Why? Forbidden fruit. Smoking was something "adults" did. So we were playing adults. We had no trouble getting cigarettes or tobacco. Teenagers are indeed capable of taking stupid risks, but they can also be very very capable. Some of us were pretty good at shoplifting tobacco, who didn't have parents that smoked.
Today? Tobacco is harder to get, but I assume I would be as precocious now if I was in junior high. I'd simply make my vapor device. Probably something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Mine would be a lot better, but its simple, and my homebrew version would make me look even more adult to my silly friends.
Ideally, a starter curriculum should start away from an OS. That you picked one just shows you have a bias, no more.
So you are going to teach someone to program when they have zero idea how a computer works? any mention of an operating system must be avoided. I don't think so.
You have to start somewhere. And it makes sense to start simple. A Pi is about as simple as it gets, an Arduino is simpler, but I don't think it is a good learning device for group activities.
The whole process is charming, from downloading the NOOBS Linux OS to putting the system together, to booting and running. That terminal is Linux is merely what you use to get around some things in the computer.
Your method apparently is based on writing the code on paper, then someone takes it away to a mysterious secret OS computer, then telling you if it worked or not.
Sorry, but since all the software based computing devices I know have an Operating system, you have to choose one.
Side note: You can get W10 for IoT devices on Pi, and a couple others, like RISC OS, (non Linux), or even an OS that boots to BASIC https://www.raspberrypi.org/do...
No matter what happens, there will always be trolls on/. burning up brain cells trying to find a way to blame the victim.
Don't worry - all he has to do is show his receipt, and he'll get all of his money back, probably plus interest. It's all covered, and rather than stupid, he showed mad investment skilz here.
I'm hoping he goes on the investment counseling tour, and maybe writes a book so we can do the same thing he did.
I noticed similar on my phone, somehow Chrome was eating up even more data than YouTube. The WWW has truly gotten to a sad state when loading a few pages of text and images uses more bandwidth than streaming video for the same amount of time... It's barely any better than ActiveX plugins and Flash. Somewhat less likely to get you installed with a rootkit, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, us anti-smokers are all just selfish bastards.
I dunno about selfish, but a lot of you are bigots.
I started smoking in 7th grade. I smoked 3 packs a day for several years, I quit in 1976, and haven't looked back. Ya gotta be pretty dumb to smoke. A lot of things people do are pretty dumb.
But one thing I know, I've never met a smoker who was as sanctimonious an asshole as the anti smoking bigots I meet.
Sounds like your friend had a preexisting heart condition.
Nope, she's fine, just had to cut way back on the coffee.
https://www.webmd.com/balance/... [webmd.com] The causation of panic attacks and their symptoms and coffee abuse has been known for a long time.
It is odd that so many people are apologists for coffee. It is a true psychoactive drug. It can be abused. It is abused. Four grams of pure caffeine will kill an adult. As a coffee addict, I understand this well.
I always caution people who like coffee not to get on too high of a horse about cigarettes and especially vaping. As G.W. Bush said to Saddam Hussein, "You're next!"
Remember when smoking was socially acceptable and even considered healthy? You're next!
No. CIA.
No, FDR.
It is just another manifestation of most of humanity's deep seated need to control the behavior of others.
FTFY
Yeah, six of one, a half dozen of the other.
That's a good one, too!!
I think my favorite, though is why they cry about there being no evidence of his collusion with Russia, even though everyone in his inner circle is being indicted over it.
Ad Rudy G asks, Is crime even a crime?
Hillary and her faction are right-wing Corporate Progressive nazis - NOT liberals.
Everyone but the extreme farthest right is a liberal these days.
Yeah, the linked article can't even manage to be factually accurate at the most basic level. For example, Men are a majority now? Nope.
There is no institutional bias against men? The author of the article has apparently never heard of schools, or universities, who literally advertise that they don't accept men for everything from scholarships to groups and centers paid for by male student fees.
Oh man, and is this ever causing a problem. Males are a marked minority among college students https://www.theatlantic.com/ed... and getting worse.
Very little attention ois being paid to this at the college level, I suspect that it is considered a little less of a problem for the victims - but it is the beginnings of a real problem. The path chosen for modern women is to get a degree, then work until your mid 30's early 40's, then find a husband and immediately start fertility treatments in order to have a child.
But these ladies are having a problem finding a male that meets their expectation. To Google "where have all the good men gone brings up a plethora of results. Most often posed by women, discussed by women, and solutions proposed by women. And usually with a fine smattering of misandry.
When in fact, the qualifications for a "good man" means a college education, having their own place, making more than her, and then there are the physical qualifications. Tall, handsome, ripped. Then there are the life choice demands, which are to be ready to immediately start fertility treatments in a race against the clock.
Oh-ohhh, that college education demand. As we are nearing a 75 to 25 Percent female versus male degree status, right away we have a severe problem.
Coupled with the other demands, these women are going to have a real problem finding mates. A male that fits their demands is probably not looking for a woman of that age and is not looking to become a father at such a late age.
Probably the best article about the problem is https://www.dailymail.co.uk/fe...
Even then, the article starts out: "Where have all the good men gone? These sassy, sophisticated, solvent women say they are struggling to find other halves that can measure up.
No shit.
Be clear, or be called out. Sarcasm doesn't translate easily online.
Meh, people should gain comprehension skills to. Otherwise we'll be telling people "This is a joke" before telling any joke.
Now, even a literal interpretation of my statement must be taken as true. Because the writer of the obvious sexist article gets no calling out, She's probably getting high fives from her friends because she's "telling it like it is" and serving the sisterhood.
Society just accepts her bigotry, Hence when sinij wrote:
"How about some consistency in your outrage? If sexism is bad, then all forms of it are bad?"
To which I replied in the first line of my reply:
"That is not how it works and you know it" followed by an exact illustration of exactly why that isn't how it works, with a link to an article where a bigoted woman explains why it is not possible for men to experience sexism.
But hey, I'm always ready to explain things to people who might have trouble. Even ones who get a bit of an attitude about it.
Let me know if you need it explained in more depth - I'm only too happy to type up long dissertations to help people understand.
Men being expected to die for their country while women aren't isn't sexist. Only in your weird world.
Males are a utility.
While I'm not a Moody incel who feels affected by this, with everything being labelled as toxic masculinity, including eating meat, it's somewhat ironic that it's seems that no women are willing to listen to the male voice in response to these accusations, when one of the very actions apparently needed to combat this so called toxic masculinity is to get men to talk about their feelings.
It is a difficult situation. Even my wife, who is more of a second waver (she believes if a woman can do a job, she should be able to do it, and no one is going to stop her (strong woman model, as opposed to present day weak woman model) talking with women about "feelings" can be a real problem. I tried a few times, and she freaked badly.
Complicated as all hell. We hear that we are supposed to talk about feelings, but even when I was younger and unmarried, I had much better success with the ladies by being more aloof and assertive. The one time I tried being more sensitive and with a woman who professed to like me in a romantic fashion (according to friends), I got friend zoned pronto. From having the hots for me to "Let's just be friends." in a minute.
Despite being told the opposite, I'm convinced that in so many ways, women by nature like guys that take charge. I'm not talking about cruel or violent, but assertive and never clingy.
And now there is this weird "incel" shaming business. We shouldn't shame involuntary celibates. There hardly is such a thing, perhaps some guy who was in an accident and can't get it up any more.
It's a problem of mixed and contradictory signals, exacerbated by social media judgements. It has made many males simply unsure how to approach women who have been raised to hate men. Despite the gender studies bigoted rhetoric, most men would never harm a woman, respect her, and are usually just looking for love. And sex of course. But when the signals get too weird, they pull back.
LOL...You link to a sexist article as evidence that men can not suffer from sexism? There is literally no proof provided in that article, only opinion.
Whoosh! Way to not get the point.
Of course that is a sexist article. It is a horribly sexist article, and tries to turn men into evil monsters, yet the very same actions can be taken against males, but it somehow becomes good and just.
The part I was being dead serious about was that society accepts that as truth.
Actual truth is that if someone stereotypes or pre-judges anyone on the genitals between their legs, they are sexist bigots. The writer of that article, one Kat George, is a horrible sexist bigot. On the level of people who think that chocolate people are not humans.
One does not get a free pass that a woman can spew any amount of hatred she desires and get a free pass unless one believes that women are not capable of saying intelligent things. This is why I believe that modern feminism is simply trying to make weakness a virtue.
Trump and the #MAGAtards, more likely.
You know, cuz rugulashuns bad!!!
But her emails!!!
Such measures should not be necessary.
The idea is to bring real world consequences for a person's choices, and the fact that they are a minor should not factor into it.
And the severity of the measures I've described would probably prevent repeat offenders as well... those that did repeat could find themselves on pretty darn hard times in the years to come... but again, that's a path that they *CHOSE* to go down.
Killing them would eliminate repeat offenders. As well as sparing the government the expense of incarceratingf them. Sincce children who offend, probably have parents the same, we can eliminate crime by just killing them too. The CHOSE to not abide by all aspects of the law, therefore in the interests of a crime free society, excess in the culling of the undesirables is no vice. One strike, and you cease to exist. Summary execution the standard punishment - no repeat offenders.
Do you think that the laws which prohibit the sale or distribution of any smoking paraphernalia, including e-cigarettes, to minors to be unreasonable
Hell no. But your idea of destroying their lives for what is a silly and minor infraction is plenty unreasonable.
Reactionary and totalitarian in fact.
Yup... good luck with that.
But hey, you can always try and get your Diploma later on when you realize that you actually really do need it to survive in modern society.
Either that, or you can eventually find yourself in jail for committing property crime that you've had to resort to just to survive once your parents kick you out the day you turn 18.
The habit of incarcerating as many people for as long as possible - largely to help the for profit prison system has worked out pretty well.
You are the one reaching too far. We currently do much of what is described for persons caught drinking before age 21 (thanks feds) and so if vaping is illegal for young'uns, then there should be similar penalties.
I support making all vaping by prescription only. If you want to get off tobacco, it can't be that hard to get a prescription. Heck, plenty of people lined up for Marijuana prescriptions.
Go back and re-read.
"People's health depends on it!"
perhaps use the more modern "for the children"? that seems to be the preferred method of whipping up hysteria.
Heh... Won't anyone think of the children's health?!!
That's just it, this is only sold age restricted. Who is putting it in kids' hands?
Hillary and the liberals?
In moderation though
Nearly all caffeine users have little difficulty keeping their use in the "good" range. But for nicotine, there is no "good" range, and it is far more addictive.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-h...
Perhaps I work in the wrong crowds. Nearly everyone I have ever worked with has been told to cut back on their caffiene use, and most have suffered withdrawal symptoms. Several, including me, have hit the 10 cups per day mark that is considered too damn much.
As well, the puritans who are shitting their pants because the tobacco users have found a loophole in vaping
Nonsense. We are only shitting our pants over kids getting ahold of vaping devices. Adults can do what they want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Perhaps we might keep the children out of the bars, if we only care about them, and have no intention of impeding adult use. I mean - bar bans if we are interested in keeping vaping devices out of the hands of kids, thry must be hanging out in bars.
Do you really think that putting a highly addictive and harmful product into the hands of kids is acceptable? They are too stupid and naive to understand the consequences.
I think that there are some fairly simple ways to attempt to keep them out of the hands of those who have not achieved the age of majority. But if I might cite my own and my friend's experience. I and most of my friends started smoking when we were in 7th grade, which for me was 13. Why? Forbidden fruit. Smoking was something "adults" did. So we were playing adults. We had no trouble getting cigarettes or tobacco. Teenagers are indeed capable of taking stupid risks, but they can also be very very capable. Some of us were pretty good at shoplifting tobacco, who didn't have parents that smoked.
Today? Tobacco is harder to get, but I assume I would be as precocious now if I was in junior high. I'd simply make my vapor device. Probably something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Mine would be a lot better, but its simple, and my homebrew version would make me look even more adult to my silly friends.
Ideally, a starter curriculum should start away from an OS. That you picked one just shows you have a bias, no more.
So you are going to teach someone to program when they have zero idea how a computer works? any mention of an operating system must be avoided. I don't think so.
You have to start somewhere. And it makes sense to start simple. A Pi is about as simple as it gets, an Arduino is simpler, but I don't think it is a good learning device for group activities.
The whole process is charming, from downloading the NOOBS Linux OS to putting the system together, to booting and running. That terminal is Linux is merely what you use to get around some things in the computer.
Your method apparently is based on writing the code on paper, then someone takes it away to a mysterious secret OS computer, then telling you if it worked or not.
Sorry, but since all the software based computing devices I know have an Operating system, you have to choose one.
Side note: You can get W10 for IoT devices on Pi, and a couple others, like RISC OS, (non Linux), or even an OS that boots to BASIC https://www.raspberrypi.org/do...
No matter what happens, there will always be trolls on /. burning up brain cells trying to find a way to blame the victim.
Don't worry - all he has to do is show his receipt, and he'll get all of his money back, probably plus interest. It's all covered, and rather than stupid, he showed mad investment skilz here.
I'm hoping he goes on the investment counseling tour, and maybe writes a book so we can do the same thing he did.
why do people still DO this?
Metal poisoning. It's all the aluminum in the air.
Chemtrails.
How am I the snowflake, Sinji? I'm not the incel being triggered by someone being called a "bro."
Incels, snowflakes? Have I stumbled upon the comments section of Youtube?
I noticed similar on my phone, somehow Chrome was eating up even more data than YouTube. The WWW has truly gotten to a sad state when loading a few pages of text and images uses more bandwidth than streaming video for the same amount of time... It's barely any better than ActiveX plugins and Flash. Somewhat less likely to get you installed with a rootkit, though.
The internet is sick - very sick.
except that your life's savings are on a thumb drive buried with some rando tech-bro.
Even the dimmest tech-bro has backups. That there was what we refer to as a Tech-No.
Play crypto games, get crypto prizes.