Thx mon. If your daughter ever needs a dispassionate shoulder, mine's here for her. Does she want to learn perl programming?:-)
Being 18 months old right now, she's still working on "words" and "sentences" before we move on to programming;) But if she does want to learn; her ol' Dad will be happy to teach her.
What makes you think your daughter will, in her teens, rationally consider your words and think "yes, he's right?"
While I can't guarantee that she will, I think she's more likely to if she's been raised with the attitude of brushing things off rather than taking them to heart.
It sounds like this girl was suffering from massive depression.
From watching the video of her holding up the cards; I'd say she was extremely depressed, however I'm NOT of the opinion that it was a medical depression caused by a chemical imbalance or so - it was a "justified" depression (as in, she was depressed because of the events that occurred. As opposed to, being depressed due to dopamine receptor problems; then bad situations happening to push her over the edge).
So, assuming that's correct, had she had a totally different attitude towards the events, she wouldn't have taken it as badly.
If you think you could work against something like that by "just being nice" you're sadly mistaken. I'm not calling your parenting into question - just stating that there are things that are very much out of your control.
I don't disagree, but I wasn't advocating "niceness", I was advocating "not giving a crap".
I was bullied pretty relentlessly as a kid. I was fat and weird (I have Asperger's (yes, diagnosed, unlike a lot of others who say that here on Slashdot)), and so was an easy target for the kids in a lot of ways. It wasn't just at school either. One common taunt was that I walked like I had a carrot up my arse; then someone put a carrot with a condom over it in to our letterbox.
I think because of my Asperger's, I've had to learn about human behaviour differently to the way others do. Others seem to instinctively "get" interaction and behaviour; whereas I learned it by studying. I don't want to say I'm necessarily better, but I do think studying it the way I have gives some advantages - the natural system doesn't always seem to work as well as many people assume. Misunderstandings are common and so if everyone just acted like they had Asperger's and asked "could you explain the subtext of that?" more often, they'd likely have far fewer misunderstandings.
The point of this in relation to the topic is that had this girl sat down and really tried to analyse the situation objectively, she probably wouldn't have ended up committing suicide. Yes, she flashed her tits to a stranger. Yes, he made them "public". That was a bad choice on her part; but objectively, not really a major problem and something that would've just gone away on its own in a short enough time (a few years). From looking at her story, the serious problems were caused by her reaction to these events - that is, the alcohol and drug abuse; the sleeping around; the getting beaten up for being a slut (related to the sleeping around, not the flashing of tits); and so on.
Parent is NOT a troll (currently at -1 Troll at the time I post this)... it is an opinion that tends to be unpopular for some reason (I know, because of the flak I get for voicing the same opinion) but "Troll" != "Disagree".
I intend on raising my daughter exactly this way. Hopefully she won't end up doing something dumb like posting her breasts online for all to see; but kids do dumb things, so I'm sure at some point I'll need to have a talk with her and the "hey, don't worry about it - they're all dickheads" approach is way better than her feeling shame to the extent that this girl did.
If you can't decide between the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, you probably shouldn't vote for either... they are pretty much polar opposites as far as the government's overall influence in many areas.
However, oddly that doesn't discount one agreeing with the general core ideas of both.
I don't live in the US, so the current elections there aren't something I have any say in. However, since what happens there does tend to have some influence on the entire world (whether we like it or not), I do keep myself somewhat aware of what's going on.
Last time I described my politics here on Slashdot, I got flamed badly, so I expect that to happen again to this post. I describe myself as being strongly liberal in many ways and strongly libertarian in other ways. I don't see these as conflicting with each other since I don't consider either side to be an "all or nothing" approach.
For example, I am liberal in that I consider it important to have a strong government that will take money from me (and everyone else, fairly) in the form of taxes so that the common good can be maintained. I don't want to have to pay a different toll for every road I drive on - I want the govt to take care of that for me. This also applies to education, defence, "necessity of life" utilities; and so on ("and so on" being the sticking point for many people - it's hard to agree on what IS a "common good" and what is better handled by private industry).
On the other side of the coin though, I am against a government that interferes in my private life when it has no effect on others. They should stop me killing, stealing, and being a public nuisance (e.g. having an obnoxiously loud party in a suburban area that keeps people awake in the middle of the week when they have to work the next day); however I believe they should have no business telling me what drugs I am allowed to consume; whether I wear a bicycle helmet or not; what I can and can't do with information that I bought (e.g. ripping my own CDs to my computer as MP3s); and so on.
Here in Germany, the party that most closely aligns with my beliefs is the Pirate Party (I do disagree with them on some points though - for example: I'm in favour of continuing and improving nuclear energy use until we've got the infrastructure to cut over to "green" power. I am strongly against the idea of shutting off the reactors with no sensible replacement plan (and I consider coal to be a non-sensible replacement)). Were I in the US however, I would indeed have a hard time choosing between Green and Libertarian (I'd PROBABLY go with the Greens, but I'd be unhappy about their leftist nanny-state policies).
Depends very much on your employer; but mine has no problem with easter eggs as long as they're fully documented as a part of the spec in case of a security review at a customer who cares deeply about that sort of thing (which is next to none; but just in case).
Every app I write has a dedication - multiple to my daughter just after she was born and also a few to my mother just after she died. Usually in the form of "display a picture and some text when a particular sequence of events takes place that is ridiculously unlikely to happen by chance".
As an example, one app we sell is to set "screensavers" on MFP devices automatically (with possibility for automatic rotation through a list; etc etc). If you create a screensaver named exactly my daughter's full name, instead of your own content, it'll display a picture of her on the MFP display. Since there's no sensible reason to expect someone to type my daughter's full name as a screensaver, this is considered acceptable.
Another example is in a shared component that is now out at thousands of individual customer sites in different applications. I wrote a small FTP server DLL to re-use in multiple projects (with the primary purpose of receiving scan data via "Scan to FTP" from an MFP device). The FTP protocol states that responses to commands have a number and a text string. All my text strings are reasonably "silly" since it's never intended to be used by a human (however they ARE still human readable and understandable, make sense for what's happening, and there's no profanity or anything like that since I expect people will come across it if doing network traces or so on (example: "Data xfer started! Thundercats are go!")). But beyond that, I handle one "unknown command" differently to others - if you send my wife's name as a command (her name by the way does not conflict with any standard FTP commands and so should never be sent by a client except when done manually) the response text espouses her beauty (the code is of course still correct though).
And no, Mono is not.NET the same way Wine is not Windows.
I hear this kind of statement a lot; but I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me a real world programming task they've done in C# where mono couldn't be used.
C# is my day job (mostly - there's a little C++, Java, and Python from time to time) and I've never run across any problems using mono with production code (primarily Linux server environments (not web stuff either))
By far the biggest difference I see is that today, everyone is walking around connected to the internet through their pocket-computers and in near-constant communication with their friends, family and co-workers. In 1995, most people I knew didn't own a cellphone and the idea of using one for anything other than making phonecalls was pure fantasy.
My desktop computer monitor in 1995 was 15 inch. I knew a fair few people with 17 inch monitors, but those were outside of my budget. Today, I consider 19 inch widescreens to be annoying small. (sure, that's just evolutionary rather than revolutionary; but it's significant when talking about the 1.5 metre screen described in the fantasy)
Today, when I want to buy something, I type what I want in to a search engine of some kind (either specialised like eBay, or generic like Google); click around a bit and then it turns up on my doorstep a day or so (or maybe up to a week in some cases) later. Back in '95, I'd probably pull out the yellow pages; look around for a business that sells the type of thing I want; if I was lucky enough to find it, I'd go visit the store to see if they have the item I want (MAYBE call them, but that would be an exception more than a rule, for specific types of items only); then pay for it and either take it home, or wait for delivery.
In '95, any coding I did of significant size would take hours to compile on my desktop computer. I'd set it compiling, then go away and do something else for awhile. If I'd screwed something up, then when I got back to my desk, I'd have to start the process from scratch again in a lot of cases. These days however, my largest project is a 10 minute compile, and most are in the range of seconds. I can compile after every little change and make design decisions based on how the code is actually running in front of me instead of imagining it in advance. This has lead to software becoming vastly more user friendly considering the excessive extra complexity that it now has.
These days, if I want to watch a movie, I browse through my library of files on my media server, pick what I want to play and play it on any screen in my apartment. If I want something new; I can download it (legally or otherwise, depending). In '95, I still had a VCR hooked up to my CRT TV; and my movie collection totalled about 20 tapes that I was totally bored with; so would have to travel to the local video rental store to get something new.
That's just a few of the fairly major differences between now and '95. They might not seem so much in isolation; but together it really adds up to a totally different world. I'll fully agree that some people's lives haven't changed greatly, but I would say that's by their own choice and not due to the revolutionary changes not being available.
Here in Germany, in nicer apartments it's relatively common to have a separate water heater with electronic temperature control in the bathroom (crappy apartments don't have them; but I'd say the majority I've seen do).
It's common to simply set the max temperature to what you want to shower at, then when you jump in the shower, just blast it on full hot and you won't have to worry about it.
Sadly, no way to program different temperatures for different people, but the concept is there and pretty widespread.
You won't find Miller Lite being sold anywhere in Germany today as required by law.
Actually, you can buy it... they're just not allowed to call it "beer".
The Reinheitsgebot (Purity Law) is no longer a valid law on the books; however there are still laws about naming things according to what they are. The rules for what "beer" is are basically a (slightly) relaxed form of the Reinheitsgebot and so most mainstream American brews aren't allowed to be labelled as "beer" here; but there's nothing stopping you selling them as a "beer flavoured mildly alcoholic drink" or similar.
A decent micro-brew should run you around $7 at a restaurant, depending on location and your definition of decent.
And that's where this price comparison falls down. I've had a couple of decent micro-brews in the US and I'll definitely say they were pretty good (certainly up there with middle of the range beers in Germany). However a middle-of-the-range German beer is 50 cents a half-litre in the supermarket (generally around 3 euro per half-litre in the pub).
I get the feeling the "beer is cheaper in the US" statement is probably only valid when talking about that horrid stuff that no-one who knows what good beer is would ever want to drink.
False, as evidence I present Erdinger and Paulaner. The latter is the Hefe by which all Hefes are judged.
Paulaner isn't bad, but if you're going to say it's the Hefe by which all Hefes are judged, I'll only agree if you call it the mid-point. Purely from my own personal tastes: If Paulaner is a zero; Erdinger is a negative five (for being too watery); Weihenstephaner is a positive four and Franziskaner is a positive five.
I love Guinness (stout or drought) as well as English brown ales and hefeweizen such as erdinger.
Out of interest, have you tried other Hefeweizen beers? I ask simply because Erdinger is about my LEAST favourite. It's drinkable, but compared to Franziskaner or Weihenstephaner, it's leagues behind (for me).
Other notable disgusting beers: Red Stripe, Sing Ha (the Chinese one, Shanghai water sucks, the Thai malt liquor is pretty good), Watney's Red Barrel, Guinness (awful stout), Heineken, All English brown ales, yeast infected beer (Hefe).
There are those of us who LOVE the taste of a good Hefeweizen. Personally, I like the somewhat thicker or heavier ones like Franziskaner and Weihenstephaner (arguably the oldest brewery still operating; at just under 1000 years). The somewhat "thinner" tasting ones like Paulaner, Erdinger and so on aren't what I'd recommend to someone trying Hefeweizen for the first time.
The important thing with Hefeweizen is to think of it as something "different" to beer. If you've spent your whole life drinking Pilseners and Lagers then compare it to those, you'll likely find it strange and unusual. If you go in thinking of it as something totally different however, you may find that you really enjoy it.
True but so is most the lager people in Europe drink. Beer is pretty good everywhere, but the most mass marketable and mass produceable is awful. and you're only going to see the beers that other countries produce in mass quantities and export. It's one of those rare cases where your lawn is always greener than your neighbor's.
It's also a matter of what you get used to. I grew up in New Zealand and spent significant time in Australia. Both have pretty poor quality beer in general (just like the US, one can find good microbreweries; but the general popular stuff is pretty bad). When I lived there, I considered Beck's to be a pretty decent drink.
Then, I moved to Germany.
Now, there's no way in hell I'd touch Beck's other than to move it out the way to get at something decent. Yet, Beck's is still very popular here and sells well. So, I could use my CURRENT viewpoint and say "bleh, everyone drinks the mass produced crap"; or I could use my OLD viewpoint and say "everyone drinks a pretty good beer".
If they do, I have doubts it works... I've never once met a smoker who feels more "personally free" because of smoking.
Advertisers love people like you, who think that if you aren't consciously affected by advertising, you aren't affected at all.
Umm... what? When did I say I am not affected by advertising?
Cigarette advertising very much makes me want to smoke; and the branding makes me aware of particular brands of cigarettes; but I don't associate any brand of cigarette with any particular feeling (including "freedom"). Smokers (after becoming addicted) smoke to get rid of the craving for a cigarette; or to be social with their friends who are smoking; or to reduce the uncomfortableness of being in a smokey room (yes, that actually works...). I've never met a smoker who has smoked for more than 2 years that smokes because it's cool, or because they think they're somehow "better" for it (lots of people start smoking for those reasons however).
Cigarette advertising works; but for the most part not on current smokers (and I highly doubt the general advertising is even targetted at current smokers) - it works on non-smokers to get them to start (and hopefully with the brand being advertised; since smokers tend to be very loyal to a brand and don't change without good reason (for me, moving country to somewhere where my preferred brand was hard to find is what it took for me to change - and when I did, I'd try a bunch of different brands until I found one I "liked" the taste of, then stuck with it until moving country again))
I don't doubt that cigarette advertisers are trying their best to figure out how to get existing smokers to switch brand; but beyond "making them more easily available than other brands"; I doubt there's very many successful tactics (again to reiterate: the "freedom" style of advertising definitely does NOT work on existing smokers). One recent one that did work as far as I saw was the introduction (by several brands in close succession, so I can't say which did it first) of "additive free" cigarettes (theoretically, just tobacco, paper and filter; without the chemical washes used on the paper and tobacco in "normal" cigarettes). They don't burn as well (due to some of the additional additives being to improve the burn) and specifically say on the packet and in advertising (in the smallest print possible) that they're no less harmful than other cigarettes (although really, they probably are; but not by any significant amount), but they've nevertheless become quite popular, indicating that people have switched away from other cigarettes to them. I've seen more people smoking the additive-free Gauloises than I ever saw smoking Gauloises before; so I do assume that some people switched from other brands to them and not just "Gauloises normal to Gauloises additive-free" or "non-smoker to Gauloises additive-free".
Because the civilian illegal actions you are referring to are specifically proscribed activities with stated penalties. Whereas the government illegal actions can be things they are not allowed to do, while not being activities that are specifically proscribed with stated penalties.
Hence remedy is limited to reversing the action, plus sometimes an apology to grease democracy. But the government is also usually now exposed for a civil case for the specific damages caused.
Just, you know, if you were seriously asking.
AC parent is entirely correct. The highlighted is my own.
Would it not make sense to start considering voting in laws to give penalties to illegal actions that do not currently have penalties stated? This is especially in the case of laws stating a governments responsibilities and limits of power - if they fail to perform their responsibilities or step beyond their limits of power, there needs to be defined penalties for the individuals responsible for the government doing so.
I've been trying to get some discussion going on this, but it's a royal pain in the ass to use slashdot with tor and privoxy enabled. Would anyone like to discuss it here in this thread? The message will most likely go viral if posted on facebook and twitter:)
Hints on how to get your message across better:
1) Stop spamming your link in multiple messages, it turns people off.
2) Explain some basics about your ideas in your (single) comment about it; and reflect it back to the topic so it's clear you're not just spamming it on any old story.
3) Re-write your webpage so that it's not just a pile of links with some poorly written text in between. I recommend separating out the topics to each point as a kind of paper and then, if you feel the need, write an overarching paper that links them together to show the relationship that appears to be missing to the readers of your current page.
The reason I'm taking time to reply is that SOME of the points on your page (from the glance that I gave it) seem relevant, interesting and important (such as the core point that nuclear power is not as dangerous as most people are led to believe and can be managed safely and efficiently, giving a strong net benefit to everyone). However the way you're trying to get the message across is exactly the same as that used by crackpots, idiots, conspiracy theorists and so on. Noone will take you seriously in the slightest.
While I agree with you that the GP is an idiot; I do feel like I should point out that computer science most certainly is a science (assuming you consider practically applicable mathematics to be science). General "computing" or whatever it is that's taught in most schools is most certainly not a science, but computer science is.
Remember: "Computer science is as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes".
So you think the purpose of a school is to limit parents' influence on their children. I think the purpose of a school should be learning and the parents should be free to decide more-or-less everything because they're rightfully free citizens, not government subjects.
But the children are members of society and not slaves to their parents to be shaped to their will.
As a parent myself, I WANT society to step in and bitch-slap me hard if I start acting against her best interests. Then if I don't change my ways, I want society to step in and take her away from me.
The tricky part is to determine what is her "best interests". This is something society needs to get together and agree on as a whole.
Note that I don't advocate children becoming mindless drones following the rules of society and never thinking outside the box. That would be a terrible state of affairs. No, I rather advocate that children grow up to understand their society and are capable of living within it without being totally fucked when they are forced to interact with it. They can disagree with it if they so choose (perhaps even because the parent has influenced them in that direction), however they'd better be ready to handle society's reaction.
I guess the main point is that from my point of view, my daughter is an individual person and like any person, has to interact in different circles of life. One is that of her parents (my wife and me); and another is of the city of Hannover, Germany; yet another is the subcontinent of Europe; and yet another is the planet Earth. Each of these circles is a society of a kind and it behooves us all to understand the societies we are in and be capable of interacting with them in the best possible way. Children that do not pass through a formal school system, instead being taught purely at home by their parents or a hired teacher, are usually unable to deal with several of the larger circles that exist and often have large gaps in their knowledge due both to a lack of interaction with others that have opposing viewpoints and a lack of simply being told certain things that the kids who do go to school get taught.
I'm against schools indoctrinating viewpoints; but I'm very much for them explaining viewpoints. I feel very lucky to have attended school in New Zealand, where the system, while not perfect, is a far sight better at this than many other countries I've seen.
here is a good reason for this, which you may or may not be aware of, which is that tobacco smoke contains MAO inhibitors (commonly used as anti-depressants, and known for producing a calming effect)...e-cigs don't (at least, in all cases I've seen).
While I was aware of the MAOI effects of tobacco and it likely being a strong cause of the addictive properties of the nicotine in it, I had never really thought about that with relation to the e-cig; it does however make a lot of sense.
I've not played around enough with some workarounds I have in mind, but it may be worth your while supplementing your e-cig use with a cup of Yerba Mate, which contains naturally occuring moderate amounts of Mateine, which is an MAOI, and comparing the satisfaction between e-cig sans mate, and e-cig with mate. I strongly suspect it'll provide a noticeable difference.
If I hadn't already been successfully cold-turkey for 16 days now, I'd definitely give it a go. I even gave my e-cig away to a friend; who uses it in bad weather to avoid making his apartment all smokey. He's been making noises about quitting tobacco as well, so I might suggest it to him. Thanks for that!
Do you really think that the tobacco industry does not spend a significant part of it advertising budget on promoting the idea that smoking = symbol of personal freedom?
If they do, I have doubts it works... I've never once met a smoker who feels more "personally free" because of smoking. Most feel either neutral or "chained down" by it in my experience (depending on how long they've smoked and their general attitude).
The "active" style of the advertisements I've seen is something I've always interpreted as being something to counteract the impression of smokers as being unfit and unhealthy (thereby removing one potential reason for people not to start). I could be wrong in that, it's just how I've always seen it.
Willpower is fine and all, but it alone is NOT sufficient for most smokers to successfully quit. It's like going to a starving kid in Africa and saying "Yeh, just have the willpower to ignore your hunger". That may sound trite, since eating is (generally speaking) something to keep you alive, whereas smoking is horribly bad; but the fact of the matter is that the brain doesn't distinguish between those things. A "need" is a "need" from the brain's point of view and unfortunately addictive substances (by definition) trick the brain in to thinking it "needs" something that it shouldn't.
Willpower gets you a lot of the way, but VERY few people have the willpower to fight their base "need" feeling for an extended period of time (potentially several months in the worst cases). The most successful system I know of (the famous book by Allen Carr) doesn't work for me, since it's based on self-delusion (which is something I've never been able to do well at all - but to any other smokers reading this who want to quit - if you are good at self-delusion, I'd recommend it). So, I'm still looking for things to supplement my willpower. So far, some chemical assistance has helped (hyperforin and hypericin through St John's Wort tablets - and yes, they help a lot... if I stop taking them, my cravings increase in strength dramatically); but I'm still actively seeking other things that will help - including the possibility of self-deception through distraction (easier than active and conscious self-delusion)
There's been a general adoption of the belief that cigarettes are incredibly addictive, as part of the campaign against smoking, and I think that has had a very detrimental effect. When somebody is told everyday that quitting smoking is nearly impossible, it becomes harder. After all, stopping smoking is, in great portion, a psychological struggle, and preconceptions will color that strongly.
If people had been raised with the idea that any idiot can quite smoking if they want, it would be much easier to stop. In fairness, though, that might lead to more people taking up the habit in the first place. Regardless, the psychological arena is the one area where perception can become truth.
In fairness, I agree with the AC. Two weeks is not long enough to say that I've really "quit" yet - only stopped for the moment.
I am still suffering from extreme cravings from time to time and lesser cravings more frequently in between.
The campaign against smoking tells many lies; but the addictiveness of cigarettes is not one of them - or at least, not in all aspects. Nicotine is incredibly addictive, however not in the way most people think of addiction. It's not that smoking once or twice will get you addicted - it won't (usually). But smoking becomes "easier" once you get used to it, and after long term use, you eventually will find yourself addicted.
As a young teenager, I smoked a cigarette per DAY sometimes. There's no way I was addicted, and I could have easily stopped any time I wanted. However, when I started smoking twenty a day, I'd find myself becoming fidgety if I didn't have a cigarette every hour or two. That's when I was starting to become addicted.
There are a lot of lies told about quitting as well. The most common one I hear is "after 3 days, all of the nicotine is out of your system, and it's purely psychological after that - there is no more physical addiction." The problem with this statement is that it's half true. Generally speaking the nicotine is out of your system in about 3 days. However this does NOT mean the physical symptoms are gone. Sorry for quoting from Wikipedia, but it's easier than typing it all up myself:
Modern research shows that nicotine acts on the brain to produce a number of effects. Specifically, research examining its addictive nature has been found to show that nicotine activates the mesolimbic pathway ("reward system") – the circuitry within the brain that regulates feelings of pleasure and euphoria.
Dopamine is one of the key neurotransmitters actively involved in the brain. Research shows that by increasing the levels of dopamine within the reward circuits in the brain, nicotine acts as a chemical with intense addictive qualities. In many studies it has been shown to be more addictive than cocaine and heroin. Like other physically addictive drugs, nicotine withdrawal causes down-regulation of the production of dopamine and other stimulatory neurotransmitters as the brain attempts to compensate for artificial stimulation. As dopamine regulates the sensitivity of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors decreases. To compensate for this compensatory mechanism, the brain in turn upregulates the number of receptors, convoluting its regulatory effects with compensatory mechanisms meant to counteract other compensatory mechanisms. An example is the increase in norepinephrine, one of the successors to dopamine, which inhibit reuptake of the glutamate receptors, in charge of memory and cognition. The net effect is an increase in reward pathway sensitivity, the opposite of other addictive drugs such as cocaine and heroin, which reduce reward pathway sensitivity. This neuronal brain alteration can persist for months after administration ceases.
A very relevant sentence is that last one - "This neuronal brain alteration can persist for months after administration ceases.". That is the "physical addiction" that remains and does so for quite some tim
Take breaths like your smoking. The reason smoking tobacco (A stimulant) calms you down is that it is a breathing exercise. Take a breath and blow it out like you were exhaling smoke. you will find its a lot like 'meditation' breathing. That is what calms you down.
This is a common myth - and the reason is that it is partly true. This kind of deep breathing DOES help, however it's not the ONLY thing about smoking that calms you down. The primary thing that calms you down is the relief of the nicotine withdrawals by taking in more nicotine. Secondary to that is the dopamine rush that you experience due to the nicotine.
After quitting smoking, some people (including myself) experience extreme withdrawal from the nicotine for the first few days (for me, it lasted just over 3 days of physical pain and mental anguish). However once that's over, there's a significantly longer period of "uncomfortableness" caused by the brains inability to correctly regulate certain chemicals in the absence of nicotine.
Those chemicals include (but are not limited to) serotonin and dopamine. These chemicals being "less regulated" means a lot more mood swings, and the occasional "panic attack" (focused on "must have cigarette now!"). These become less intense with time as regulation improves (and things like St John's Wort and Vitamin B are both quite helpful).
I use an E cig. I love it. If you smoke you should try it. If you don't well, move along.
I smoked an e-cig for situations I wasn't allowed to smoke real cigarettes (handy hint: e-cigarettes may not be "allowed" on flights; but since they don't set off smoke alarms or leave a scent (as long as you use the right flavours/fluids), you can use them in the toilets without anyone knowing...). It served the purpose of giving me nicotine to avoid the withdrawal, but never really gave me the "pleasant fulfilled" feeling of a cigarette.
Slashdot Mirror
Thx mon. If your daughter ever needs a dispassionate shoulder, mine's here for her. Does she want to learn perl programming? :-)
Being 18 months old right now, she's still working on "words" and "sentences" before we move on to programming ;) But if she does want to learn; her ol' Dad will be happy to teach her.
What makes you think your daughter will, in her teens, rationally consider your words and think "yes, he's right?"
While I can't guarantee that she will, I think she's more likely to if she's been raised with the attitude of brushing things off rather than taking them to heart.
It sounds like this girl was suffering from massive depression.
From watching the video of her holding up the cards; I'd say she was extremely depressed, however I'm NOT of the opinion that it was a medical depression caused by a chemical imbalance or so - it was a "justified" depression (as in, she was depressed because of the events that occurred. As opposed to, being depressed due to dopamine receptor problems; then bad situations happening to push her over the edge).
So, assuming that's correct, had she had a totally different attitude towards the events, she wouldn't have taken it as badly.
If you think you could work against something like that by "just being nice" you're sadly mistaken. I'm not calling your parenting into question - just stating that there are things that are very much out of your control.
I don't disagree, but I wasn't advocating "niceness", I was advocating "not giving a crap".
I was bullied pretty relentlessly as a kid. I was fat and weird (I have Asperger's (yes, diagnosed, unlike a lot of others who say that here on Slashdot)), and so was an easy target for the kids in a lot of ways. It wasn't just at school either. One common taunt was that I walked like I had a carrot up my arse; then someone put a carrot with a condom over it in to our letterbox.
I think because of my Asperger's, I've had to learn about human behaviour differently to the way others do. Others seem to instinctively "get" interaction and behaviour; whereas I learned it by studying. I don't want to say I'm necessarily better, but I do think studying it the way I have gives some advantages - the natural system doesn't always seem to work as well as many people assume. Misunderstandings are common and so if everyone just acted like they had Asperger's and asked "could you explain the subtext of that?" more often, they'd likely have far fewer misunderstandings.
The point of this in relation to the topic is that had this girl sat down and really tried to analyse the situation objectively, she probably wouldn't have ended up committing suicide. Yes, she flashed her tits to a stranger. Yes, he made them "public". That was a bad choice on her part; but objectively, not really a major problem and something that would've just gone away on its own in a short enough time (a few years). From looking at her story, the serious problems were caused by her reaction to these events - that is, the alcohol and drug abuse; the sleeping around; the getting beaten up for being a slut (related to the sleeping around, not the flashing of tits); and so on.
Parent is NOT a troll (currently at -1 Troll at the time I post this)... it is an opinion that tends to be unpopular for some reason (I know, because of the flak I get for voicing the same opinion) but "Troll" != "Disagree".
I intend on raising my daughter exactly this way. Hopefully she won't end up doing something dumb like posting her breasts online for all to see; but kids do dumb things, so I'm sure at some point I'll need to have a talk with her and the "hey, don't worry about it - they're all dickheads" approach is way better than her feeling shame to the extent that this girl did.
If you can't decide between the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, you probably shouldn't vote for either... they are pretty much polar opposites as far as the government's overall influence in many areas.
However, oddly that doesn't discount one agreeing with the general core ideas of both.
I don't live in the US, so the current elections there aren't something I have any say in. However, since what happens there does tend to have some influence on the entire world (whether we like it or not), I do keep myself somewhat aware of what's going on.
Last time I described my politics here on Slashdot, I got flamed badly, so I expect that to happen again to this post. I describe myself as being strongly liberal in many ways and strongly libertarian in other ways. I don't see these as conflicting with each other since I don't consider either side to be an "all or nothing" approach.
For example, I am liberal in that I consider it important to have a strong government that will take money from me (and everyone else, fairly) in the form of taxes so that the common good can be maintained. I don't want to have to pay a different toll for every road I drive on - I want the govt to take care of that for me. This also applies to education, defence, "necessity of life" utilities; and so on ("and so on" being the sticking point for many people - it's hard to agree on what IS a "common good" and what is better handled by private industry).
On the other side of the coin though, I am against a government that interferes in my private life when it has no effect on others. They should stop me killing, stealing, and being a public nuisance (e.g. having an obnoxiously loud party in a suburban area that keeps people awake in the middle of the week when they have to work the next day); however I believe they should have no business telling me what drugs I am allowed to consume; whether I wear a bicycle helmet or not; what I can and can't do with information that I bought (e.g. ripping my own CDs to my computer as MP3s); and so on.
Here in Germany, the party that most closely aligns with my beliefs is the Pirate Party (I do disagree with them on some points though - for example: I'm in favour of continuing and improving nuclear energy use until we've got the infrastructure to cut over to "green" power. I am strongly against the idea of shutting off the reactors with no sensible replacement plan (and I consider coal to be a non-sensible replacement)). Were I in the US however, I would indeed have a hard time choosing between Green and Libertarian (I'd PROBABLY go with the Greens, but I'd be unhappy about their leftist nanny-state policies).
Depends very much on your employer; but mine has no problem with easter eggs as long as they're fully documented as a part of the spec in case of a security review at a customer who cares deeply about that sort of thing (which is next to none; but just in case).
Every app I write has a dedication - multiple to my daughter just after she was born and also a few to my mother just after she died. Usually in the form of "display a picture and some text when a particular sequence of events takes place that is ridiculously unlikely to happen by chance".
As an example, one app we sell is to set "screensavers" on MFP devices automatically (with possibility for automatic rotation through a list; etc etc). If you create a screensaver named exactly my daughter's full name, instead of your own content, it'll display a picture of her on the MFP display. Since there's no sensible reason to expect someone to type my daughter's full name as a screensaver, this is considered acceptable.
Another example is in a shared component that is now out at thousands of individual customer sites in different applications. I wrote a small FTP server DLL to re-use in multiple projects (with the primary purpose of receiving scan data via "Scan to FTP" from an MFP device). The FTP protocol states that responses to commands have a number and a text string. All my text strings are reasonably "silly" since it's never intended to be used by a human (however they ARE still human readable and understandable, make sense for what's happening, and there's no profanity or anything like that since I expect people will come across it if doing network traces or so on (example: "Data xfer started! Thundercats are go!")). But beyond that, I handle one "unknown command" differently to others - if you send my wife's name as a command (her name by the way does not conflict with any standard FTP commands and so should never be sent by a client except when done manually) the response text espouses her beauty (the code is of course still correct though).
Sorry... bad wording on my part. I didn't mean web stuff doesn't work; just that I don't do web stuff.
And no, Mono is not .NET the same way Wine is not Windows.
I hear this kind of statement a lot; but I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me a real world programming task they've done in C# where mono couldn't be used.
C# is my day job (mostly - there's a little C++, Java, and Python from time to time) and I've never run across any problems using mono with production code (primarily Linux server environments (not web stuff either))
Think of the improvements between 1995 and today.
See the revolutionary awesome difference?
Uh, yes... very much so.
By far the biggest difference I see is that today, everyone is walking around connected to the internet through their pocket-computers and in near-constant communication with their friends, family and co-workers. In 1995, most people I knew didn't own a cellphone and the idea of using one for anything other than making phonecalls was pure fantasy.
My desktop computer monitor in 1995 was 15 inch. I knew a fair few people with 17 inch monitors, but those were outside of my budget. Today, I consider 19 inch widescreens to be annoying small. (sure, that's just evolutionary rather than revolutionary; but it's significant when talking about the 1.5 metre screen described in the fantasy)
Today, when I want to buy something, I type what I want in to a search engine of some kind (either specialised like eBay, or generic like Google); click around a bit and then it turns up on my doorstep a day or so (or maybe up to a week in some cases) later. Back in '95, I'd probably pull out the yellow pages; look around for a business that sells the type of thing I want; if I was lucky enough to find it, I'd go visit the store to see if they have the item I want (MAYBE call them, but that would be an exception more than a rule, for specific types of items only); then pay for it and either take it home, or wait for delivery.
In '95, any coding I did of significant size would take hours to compile on my desktop computer. I'd set it compiling, then go away and do something else for awhile. If I'd screwed something up, then when I got back to my desk, I'd have to start the process from scratch again in a lot of cases. These days however, my largest project is a 10 minute compile, and most are in the range of seconds. I can compile after every little change and make design decisions based on how the code is actually running in front of me instead of imagining it in advance. This has lead to software becoming vastly more user friendly considering the excessive extra complexity that it now has.
These days, if I want to watch a movie, I browse through my library of files on my media server, pick what I want to play and play it on any screen in my apartment. If I want something new; I can download it (legally or otherwise, depending). In '95, I still had a VCR hooked up to my CRT TV; and my movie collection totalled about 20 tapes that I was totally bored with; so would have to travel to the local video rental store to get something new.
That's just a few of the fairly major differences between now and '95. They might not seem so much in isolation; but together it really adds up to a totally different world. I'll fully agree that some people's lives haven't changed greatly, but I would say that's by their own choice and not due to the revolutionary changes not being available.
Here in Germany, in nicer apartments it's relatively common to have a separate water heater with electronic temperature control in the bathroom (crappy apartments don't have them; but I'd say the majority I've seen do).
It's common to simply set the max temperature to what you want to shower at, then when you jump in the shower, just blast it on full hot and you won't have to worry about it.
Sadly, no way to program different temperatures for different people, but the concept is there and pretty widespread.
You won't find Miller Lite being sold anywhere in Germany today as required by law.
Actually, you can buy it... they're just not allowed to call it "beer".
The Reinheitsgebot (Purity Law) is no longer a valid law on the books; however there are still laws about naming things according to what they are. The rules for what "beer" is are basically a (slightly) relaxed form of the Reinheitsgebot and so most mainstream American brews aren't allowed to be labelled as "beer" here; but there's nothing stopping you selling them as a "beer flavoured mildly alcoholic drink" or similar.
A decent micro-brew should run you around $7 at a restaurant, depending on location and your definition of decent.
And that's where this price comparison falls down. I've had a couple of decent micro-brews in the US and I'll definitely say they were pretty good (certainly up there with middle of the range beers in Germany). However a middle-of-the-range German beer is 50 cents a half-litre in the supermarket (generally around 3 euro per half-litre in the pub).
I get the feeling the "beer is cheaper in the US" statement is probably only valid when talking about that horrid stuff that no-one who knows what good beer is would ever want to drink.
False, as evidence I present Erdinger and Paulaner. The latter is the Hefe by which all Hefes are judged.
Paulaner isn't bad, but if you're going to say it's the Hefe by which all Hefes are judged, I'll only agree if you call it the mid-point. Purely from my own personal tastes: If Paulaner is a zero; Erdinger is a negative five (for being too watery); Weihenstephaner is a positive four and Franziskaner is a positive five.
I love Guinness (stout or drought) as well as English brown ales and hefeweizen such as erdinger.
Out of interest, have you tried other Hefeweizen beers? I ask simply because Erdinger is about my LEAST favourite. It's drinkable, but compared to Franziskaner or Weihenstephaner, it's leagues behind (for me).
Other notable disgusting beers: Red Stripe, Sing Ha (the Chinese one, Shanghai water sucks, the Thai malt liquor is pretty good), Watney's Red Barrel, Guinness (awful stout), Heineken, All English brown ales, yeast infected beer (Hefe).
There are those of us who LOVE the taste of a good Hefeweizen. Personally, I like the somewhat thicker or heavier ones like Franziskaner and Weihenstephaner (arguably the oldest brewery still operating; at just under 1000 years). The somewhat "thinner" tasting ones like Paulaner, Erdinger and so on aren't what I'd recommend to someone trying Hefeweizen for the first time.
The important thing with Hefeweizen is to think of it as something "different" to beer. If you've spent your whole life drinking Pilseners and Lagers then compare it to those, you'll likely find it strange and unusual. If you go in thinking of it as something totally different however, you may find that you really enjoy it.
True but so is most the lager people in Europe drink. Beer is pretty good everywhere, but the most mass marketable and mass produceable is awful. and you're only going to see the beers that other countries produce in mass quantities and export. It's one of those rare cases where your lawn is always greener than your neighbor's.
It's also a matter of what you get used to. I grew up in New Zealand and spent significant time in Australia. Both have pretty poor quality beer in general (just like the US, one can find good microbreweries; but the general popular stuff is pretty bad). When I lived there, I considered Beck's to be a pretty decent drink.
Then, I moved to Germany.
Now, there's no way in hell I'd touch Beck's other than to move it out the way to get at something decent. Yet, Beck's is still very popular here and sells well. So, I could use my CURRENT viewpoint and say "bleh, everyone drinks the mass produced crap"; or I could use my OLD viewpoint and say "everyone drinks a pretty good beer".
Advertisers love people like you, who think that if you aren't consciously affected by advertising, you aren't affected at all.
Umm... what? When did I say I am not affected by advertising?
Cigarette advertising very much makes me want to smoke; and the branding makes me aware of particular brands of cigarettes; but I don't associate any brand of cigarette with any particular feeling (including "freedom"). Smokers (after becoming addicted) smoke to get rid of the craving for a cigarette; or to be social with their friends who are smoking; or to reduce the uncomfortableness of being in a smokey room (yes, that actually works...). I've never met a smoker who has smoked for more than 2 years that smokes because it's cool, or because they think they're somehow "better" for it (lots of people start smoking for those reasons however).
Cigarette advertising works; but for the most part not on current smokers (and I highly doubt the general advertising is even targetted at current smokers) - it works on non-smokers to get them to start (and hopefully with the brand being advertised; since smokers tend to be very loyal to a brand and don't change without good reason (for me, moving country to somewhere where my preferred brand was hard to find is what it took for me to change - and when I did, I'd try a bunch of different brands until I found one I "liked" the taste of, then stuck with it until moving country again))
I don't doubt that cigarette advertisers are trying their best to figure out how to get existing smokers to switch brand; but beyond "making them more easily available than other brands"; I doubt there's very many successful tactics (again to reiterate: the "freedom" style of advertising definitely does NOT work on existing smokers). One recent one that did work as far as I saw was the introduction (by several brands in close succession, so I can't say which did it first) of "additive free" cigarettes (theoretically, just tobacco, paper and filter; without the chemical washes used on the paper and tobacco in "normal" cigarettes). They don't burn as well (due to some of the additional additives being to improve the burn) and specifically say on the packet and in advertising (in the smallest print possible) that they're no less harmful than other cigarettes (although really, they probably are; but not by any significant amount), but they've nevertheless become quite popular, indicating that people have switched away from other cigarettes to them. I've seen more people smoking the additive-free Gauloises than I ever saw smoking Gauloises before; so I do assume that some people switched from other brands to them and not just "Gauloises normal to Gauloises additive-free" or "non-smoker to Gauloises additive-free".
Because the civilian illegal actions you are referring to are specifically proscribed activities with stated penalties. Whereas the government illegal actions can be things they are not allowed to do, while not being activities that are specifically proscribed with stated penalties.
Hence remedy is limited to reversing the action, plus sometimes an apology to grease democracy. But the government is also usually now exposed for a civil case for the specific damages caused.
Just, you know, if you were seriously asking.
AC parent is entirely correct. The highlighted is my own.
Would it not make sense to start considering voting in laws to give penalties to illegal actions that do not currently have penalties stated? This is especially in the case of laws stating a governments responsibilities and limits of power - if they fail to perform their responsibilities or step beyond their limits of power, there needs to be defined penalties for the individuals responsible for the government doing so.
I've been trying to get some discussion going on this, but it's a royal pain in the ass to use slashdot with tor and privoxy enabled. Would anyone like to discuss it here in this thread? The message will most likely go viral if posted on facebook and twitter :)
Hints on how to get your message across better:
The reason I'm taking time to reply is that SOME of the points on your page (from the glance that I gave it) seem relevant, interesting and important (such as the core point that nuclear power is not as dangerous as most people are led to believe and can be managed safely and efficiently, giving a strong net benefit to everyone). However the way you're trying to get the message across is exactly the same as that used by crackpots, idiots, conspiracy theorists and so on. Noone will take you seriously in the slightest.
Computer science and engineering are not science.
While I agree with you that the GP is an idiot; I do feel like I should point out that computer science most certainly is a science (assuming you consider practically applicable mathematics to be science). General "computing" or whatever it is that's taught in most schools is most certainly not a science, but computer science is.
Remember: "Computer science is as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes".
So you think the purpose of a school is to limit parents' influence on their children. I think the purpose of a school should be learning and the parents should be free to decide more-or-less everything because they're rightfully free citizens, not government subjects.
But the children are members of society and not slaves to their parents to be shaped to their will.
As a parent myself, I WANT society to step in and bitch-slap me hard if I start acting against her best interests. Then if I don't change my ways, I want society to step in and take her away from me.
The tricky part is to determine what is her "best interests". This is something society needs to get together and agree on as a whole.
Note that I don't advocate children becoming mindless drones following the rules of society and never thinking outside the box. That would be a terrible state of affairs. No, I rather advocate that children grow up to understand their society and are capable of living within it without being totally fucked when they are forced to interact with it. They can disagree with it if they so choose (perhaps even because the parent has influenced them in that direction), however they'd better be ready to handle society's reaction.
I guess the main point is that from my point of view, my daughter is an individual person and like any person, has to interact in different circles of life. One is that of her parents (my wife and me); and another is of the city of Hannover, Germany; yet another is the subcontinent of Europe; and yet another is the planet Earth. Each of these circles is a society of a kind and it behooves us all to understand the societies we are in and be capable of interacting with them in the best possible way. Children that do not pass through a formal school system, instead being taught purely at home by their parents or a hired teacher, are usually unable to deal with several of the larger circles that exist and often have large gaps in their knowledge due both to a lack of interaction with others that have opposing viewpoints and a lack of simply being told certain things that the kids who do go to school get taught.
I'm against schools indoctrinating viewpoints; but I'm very much for them explaining viewpoints. I feel very lucky to have attended school in New Zealand, where the system, while not perfect, is a far sight better at this than many other countries I've seen.
here is a good reason for this, which you may or may not be aware of, which is that tobacco smoke contains MAO inhibitors (commonly used as anti-depressants, and known for producing a calming effect)...e-cigs don't (at least, in all cases I've seen).
While I was aware of the MAOI effects of tobacco and it likely being a strong cause of the addictive properties of the nicotine in it, I had never really thought about that with relation to the e-cig; it does however make a lot of sense.
I've not played around enough with some workarounds I have in mind, but it may be worth your while supplementing your e-cig use with a cup of Yerba Mate, which contains naturally occuring moderate amounts of Mateine, which is an MAOI, and comparing the satisfaction between e-cig sans mate, and e-cig with mate. I strongly suspect it'll provide a noticeable difference.
If I hadn't already been successfully cold-turkey for 16 days now, I'd definitely give it a go. I even gave my e-cig away to a friend; who uses it in bad weather to avoid making his apartment all smokey. He's been making noises about quitting tobacco as well, so I might suggest it to him. Thanks for that!
Do you really think that the tobacco industry does not spend a significant part of it advertising budget on promoting the idea that smoking = symbol of personal freedom?
If they do, I have doubts it works... I've never once met a smoker who feels more "personally free" because of smoking. Most feel either neutral or "chained down" by it in my experience (depending on how long they've smoked and their general attitude).
The "active" style of the advertisements I've seen is something I've always interpreted as being something to counteract the impression of smokers as being unfit and unhealthy (thereby removing one potential reason for people not to start). I could be wrong in that, it's just how I've always seen it.
Willpower is fine and all, but it alone is NOT sufficient for most smokers to successfully quit. It's like going to a starving kid in Africa and saying "Yeh, just have the willpower to ignore your hunger". That may sound trite, since eating is (generally speaking) something to keep you alive, whereas smoking is horribly bad; but the fact of the matter is that the brain doesn't distinguish between those things. A "need" is a "need" from the brain's point of view and unfortunately addictive substances (by definition) trick the brain in to thinking it "needs" something that it shouldn't.
Willpower gets you a lot of the way, but VERY few people have the willpower to fight their base "need" feeling for an extended period of time (potentially several months in the worst cases). The most successful system I know of (the famous book by Allen Carr) doesn't work for me, since it's based on self-delusion (which is something I've never been able to do well at all - but to any other smokers reading this who want to quit - if you are good at self-delusion, I'd recommend it). So, I'm still looking for things to supplement my willpower. So far, some chemical assistance has helped (hyperforin and hypericin through St John's Wort tablets - and yes, they help a lot... if I stop taking them, my cravings increase in strength dramatically); but I'm still actively seeking other things that will help - including the possibility of self-deception through distraction (easier than active and conscious self-delusion)
There's been a general adoption of the belief that cigarettes are incredibly addictive, as part of the campaign against smoking, and I think that has had a very detrimental effect. When somebody is told everyday that quitting smoking is nearly impossible, it becomes harder. After all, stopping smoking is, in great portion, a psychological struggle, and preconceptions will color that strongly.
If people had been raised with the idea that any idiot can quite smoking if they want, it would be much easier to stop. In fairness, though, that might lead to more people taking up the habit in the first place. Regardless, the psychological arena is the one area where perception can become truth.
In fairness, I agree with the AC. Two weeks is not long enough to say that I've really "quit" yet - only stopped for the moment.
I am still suffering from extreme cravings from time to time and lesser cravings more frequently in between.
The campaign against smoking tells many lies; but the addictiveness of cigarettes is not one of them - or at least, not in all aspects. Nicotine is incredibly addictive, however not in the way most people think of addiction. It's not that smoking once or twice will get you addicted - it won't (usually). But smoking becomes "easier" once you get used to it, and after long term use, you eventually will find yourself addicted.
As a young teenager, I smoked a cigarette per DAY sometimes. There's no way I was addicted, and I could have easily stopped any time I wanted. However, when I started smoking twenty a day, I'd find myself becoming fidgety if I didn't have a cigarette every hour or two. That's when I was starting to become addicted.
There are a lot of lies told about quitting as well. The most common one I hear is "after 3 days, all of the nicotine is out of your system, and it's purely psychological after that - there is no more physical addiction."
The problem with this statement is that it's half true. Generally speaking the nicotine is out of your system in about 3 days. However this does NOT mean the physical symptoms are gone. Sorry for quoting from Wikipedia, but it's easier than typing it all up myself:
Modern research shows that nicotine acts on the brain to produce a number of effects. Specifically, research examining its addictive nature has been found to show that nicotine activates the mesolimbic pathway ("reward system") – the circuitry within the brain that regulates feelings of pleasure and euphoria.
Dopamine is one of the key neurotransmitters actively involved in the brain. Research shows that by increasing the levels of dopamine within the reward circuits in the brain, nicotine acts as a chemical with intense addictive qualities. In many studies it has been shown to be more addictive than cocaine and heroin. Like other physically addictive drugs, nicotine withdrawal causes down-regulation of the production of dopamine and other stimulatory neurotransmitters as the brain attempts to compensate for artificial stimulation. As dopamine regulates the sensitivity of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors decreases. To compensate for this compensatory mechanism, the brain in turn upregulates the number of receptors, convoluting its regulatory effects with compensatory mechanisms meant to counteract other compensatory mechanisms. An example is the increase in norepinephrine, one of the successors to dopamine, which inhibit reuptake of the glutamate receptors, in charge of memory and cognition. The net effect is an increase in reward pathway sensitivity, the opposite of other addictive drugs such as cocaine and heroin, which reduce reward pathway sensitivity. This neuronal brain alteration can persist for months after administration ceases.
A very relevant sentence is that last one - "This neuronal brain alteration can persist for months after administration ceases.". That is the "physical addiction" that remains and does so for quite some tim
Take breaths like your smoking. The reason smoking tobacco (A stimulant) calms you down is that it is a breathing exercise. Take a breath and blow it out like you were exhaling smoke. you will find its a lot like 'meditation' breathing. That is what calms you down.
This is a common myth - and the reason is that it is partly true. This kind of deep breathing DOES help, however it's not the ONLY thing about smoking that calms you down. The primary thing that calms you down is the relief of the nicotine withdrawals by taking in more nicotine. Secondary to that is the dopamine rush that you experience due to the nicotine.
After quitting smoking, some people (including myself) experience extreme withdrawal from the nicotine for the first few days (for me, it lasted just over 3 days of physical pain and mental anguish). However once that's over, there's a significantly longer period of "uncomfortableness" caused by the brains inability to correctly regulate certain chemicals in the absence of nicotine.
Those chemicals include (but are not limited to) serotonin and dopamine. These chemicals being "less regulated" means a lot more mood swings, and the occasional "panic attack" (focused on "must have cigarette now!"). These become less intense with time as regulation improves (and things like St John's Wort and Vitamin B are both quite helpful).
I use an E cig. I love it. If you smoke you should try it. If you don't well, move along.
I smoked an e-cig for situations I wasn't allowed to smoke real cigarettes (handy hint: e-cigarettes may not be "allowed" on flights; but since they don't set off smoke alarms or leave a scent (as long as you use the right flavours/fluids), you can use them in the toilets without anyone knowing...). It served the purpose of giving me nicotine to avoid the withdrawal, but never really gave me the "pleasant fulfilled" feeling of a cigarette.