The difference though is that regular smoking will inevitably lead to addiction. Regular reckless driving, on the other hand, will not.
A driver can get by on luck, or even skill, and get away with driving recklessly for years without incident, but addiction is far more inevitable and insidious.
But I'll concede that you're probably right- and that's really my point. To properly convey addiction would include the inevitability of it, which these kids can't grasp. Conveying information isn't just about saying the right thing- for an idea to be conveyed, it has to be understood by the recipient. Hence my point that there isn't really a way to convey the subjective experience and dangers of addiction; if the message is not understood or is ignored, it has not been properly conveyed.
This is actually probably the closest thing I've read to describing it. The timeframes, sense of urgency, and mental disturbance are all very similar.
That could work with a little more detail. I'd describe nicotine addiction as similar to chronic diarrhea. It's ubiquitous. You relieve yourself first thing in the morning, feel ok for a little bit, then feel the discomfort, anxiety, and urgency build and build. Soon enough, you start snapping at people, and it dominates your thoughts. Then, the meeting ends and you get a chance to relieve yourself. The cycle repeats until lunchtime rolls around. Again in the afternoon, throughout the evening, until you go to sleep, then wake up again and head straight for the restroom. Trying to avoid it or repress it only makes it worse.
I don't think I need to spell out literally which parts are an allegory to smoking- the only upside here is it ultimately is possible to resist the urge to smoke, whereas with diarrhea you've got to get to the restroom eventually.
(copied partially from another reply)
"Or go a day without food and see how that feels."
It's a good parallel, but not quite as simple as that. It's a difference of degree. The longest I've gone without eating was about 6 days. It was only at that point where my cravings for food equaled nicotine cravings after going without a cigarette for a day... That said, addiction is highly subjective, and my case could simply be more severe than others. I've also known individuals who could stop smoking for a week with no outward signs of withdrawals, and go back to smoking a pack a day afterwards.
"The real problem is that kids won't believe it can actually happen to them until it does..."
This is kind of what I'm getting at- that belief arises from a lack of experience. If you tell them that driving at 120MPH down a back road is stupidly dangerous, kids think "It's fine for me, I'm a good driver, I can handle the vehicle..." If you tell them that unprotected sex leads to unwanted children and STDs, kids think "Oh, I can just pull out, and I trust my girl [who happens to have inherited something from her parents, or a random encounter that was deemed not to 'count']" And if you tell them the dangers of addiction, they think "Oh, he's just [weak minded/stupid], I'm strong enough to beat addiction..."
If there was a way to truly convey the subjective experience of addiction in its entirety, there wouldn't be room for that fallacy.
It's a good parallel, but not quite as simple as that. It's a difference of degree. The longest I've gone without eating was about 6 days. It was only at that point where my cravings for food equaled nicotine cravings after going without a cigarette for a day... That said, addiction is highly subjective, and my case could simply be more severe than others. I've also known individuals who could stop smoking for a week with no outward signs of withdrawals, and go back to smoking a pack a day afterwards.
Actually, I didn't see many 'jocks' smoking as compared to nerds. I'm not saying that my experience was any more representative than yours, but it is what it is. And makes sense, really. As I understand it, a smoking habit tends to be detrimental to ones athletic ability- And a lot of advertisement for cigarettes in years back has had the intent to make it look 'cool.' My observations have always been that the nerd who doesn't get much social attention is more likely to use smoking as an icebreaker than the jock who can break the ice with his football jersey.
As an aside, you listed 'philosophy' as one of the 'intelligent' paths? Really? University and Grad school are major commitments of resources, both time and fiscal. There isn't exactly a wide market for philosophy majors out there. And there really isn't anything you can learn (regarding philosophy) from a school program that you can't already learn elsewhere for free. Perhaps it gives you access to speak with or listen to others on a number of topics, but is it enough of an advantage to justify that level of resource commitment? That little piece of paper indicating a degree in philosophy isn't going to do much for your career- Whereas with a different major, not only is the piece of paper valuable, but access to laboratory facilities (or their equivalent) is an important part of learning as well...
Oh, so you think you can explain addiction in terms that others can understand? You can convey the subjective experience that one could expect without any frame of reference for comparison?
I suppose you believe you can explain color to someone who was blind since birth person as well?
Don't say they are two separate things. We all know that. That doesn't change the fact that there is literally no way to communicate what addiction is like to someone who has never experienced it. I dare you to try.
Even describing it as an overriding compulsion that undermines ones will is merely an objective description. It doesn't communicate anything about what it is like, and does nothing to alleviate the 'I'm smart, I won't get addicted even if I try it, and I can resist it if I do happen to get addicted' mindset that so many have.
But go ahead, tell me what addiction is like and why it's so dangerous, and I'll tell you what you're missing, why you're wrong, and why people aren't going to take your explanation seriously.
"Smarter people know its not a good idea to start smoking."
Actually, I've observed exactly the opposite. While I admit freely that the entirety of my social circle does not amount to a representative sample of the population, most of the nicotine addicts I know (myself included) got started smoking in similar ways.
For me, it started freshman year in college- attending parties and whatnot. I had a lot of friends and acquaintances who smoked, and would always offer me one, but for the longest time I turned down the offer. It was after coming out of a bad relationship, having far more to drink than was either healthy or reasonable, and then running into the other half of said bad relationship at the same party... Well, I'll spare the details, but it was rather upsetting. Anyways, me being upset and intoxicated (nice combination there!), I was offered a cigarette. This time, I took it- didn't really give a shit at the time. Found that I rather enjoyed the experience.
Roll the clock forward a year. I'm in the habit of having a smoke now and then when I'm drinking. My line of thinking was something to the effect of: "I know this is bad for me, but I'm doing it so infrequently that the cumulative damage should be minimal if even measurable. I won't get addicted, I have too much willpower for that. And damn it, it feels good!"
Roll the clock forward another year, and I'm a pack a day smoker. Somewhere over the summer between sophomore and junior year, My drinking and partying became frequent enough that I started getting cigarette cravings when sober. Those of you who have never been addicted to anything can understand addiction only in an objective, clinical way- the subjective experience of it, however, is something you need to experience to understand- though I highly recommend against it.
That's the falling that most of the smokers I know have had- overconfidence. You think that you're an intelligent person, mind over matter, and all that jazz, but the reality of it is far more difficult than you can comprehend, and you don't really understand it until you're hooked. It's a song and dance that I've seen and taken part in time and time again.
As an aside, I think that's the major failing with education regarding drugs, both legal and otherwise- I don't know of any way to explain addiction in terms that a kid can truly understand. You can preach about the negative effects all day long, but since when has the average high school/college aged kid been afraid to take a few risks? The legal repercussions? Please, like the average kid's that worried. I believe that the dangers and nature of addiction need to be stressed a LOT more, but as I said, I don't know of any way to explain it in terms that can be understood by someone who's never been addicted to anything.
Just for the record, when I was born and for the first few years of my life, my parents and I lived out of the back of a van, both of them unemployed struggling to just survive. My Grandfather on my fathers side had abandoned my grandmother (who was disabled and unable to work) and father (who was only 16 at the time). My grandparents on my mothers side were already dead. Extended family was either out of contact, unable to help, or unwilling to. Nowhere to go, nobody to help. But you know what? My Dad found work, then my Mom found work, they worked their way up, and they eventually got out of that hole.
There is a distinction, but it's a moot point- if we're talking about things that carry monetary value, whether they are tangible or not, then that value can be transferred.
Saying that any monetary value that an idea has is lost when its creator dies is the same as saying that when I die, any stocks that I hold lose their value and are folded back into the market, leaving me with nothing to leave to my kids. Both are intangible, and yet both represent worth. One's stock portfolio is not what holds the worth, it merely represents a largely intangible figure. Holding a piece of paper that states I own X stocks is no more tangible than holding a piece of paper that states I own the rights to X work.
Everything EVERYONE has only exists because of the actions of their predecessors. We wouldn't have microprocessors without first having transistors, for example.
And as far as inheritance is concerned, just how many people today have the careers they do because of mommy and daddy forking over money for their university education?
Or even barring that, how about cosigning for their loans?
By your argument, there isn't a goddamned person anywhere who deserves anything. So what, socialism then?
Geeze, I remember that, I played it at the same age >. I remember finally clearing the marsh gave and emerging to the overworld, with 2 characters dead, one poisoned with 1 hp remaining and no spells left, and the other slightly better off and unpoisoned. Theres monsters above ground too, is it really that big of a deal to pitch a tent inside the cave?
Troll?!? What the FUCK slashdot? This is a legitimate complaint and question, not a troll. Off-topic may have been a valid mod, but troll? Seriously, fanboys, take Linus' cock out of your mouth for a few seconds and get a breath of fresh air. You guys are just as bad as the worst apple and microsoft fanboys.
Now that we have a generation of IT professionals that were born and grew up in a world with computers, I have plenty of optimism that enterprise bloatware like PeopleSoft (Microsoft *, Novell, FootPrints, Cadence, etc) will slowly but surely be replaced by modular programs that actually do a task, and do it well.
Now that we have a generation of automobile drivers that were born and grew up in a world with automobiles, I have plenty of optimism that traffic jams, drunk drivers, and general automobile idiocy will be replaced by conscientious drivers that actually obey traffic regulations and don't put themselves and other drives at undue risk.
Yeah, because the average college kid is both fully conscious of the problems with having personal information available and is NOT fully convinced that it couldn't happen to him/her. No sir, not a single college kid on myspace...
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to say, but the views of your social circle aren't necessarily representative of those of society as a whole.
Even if they are in fact representative, there are outliers to most averages.
The difference though is that regular smoking will inevitably lead to addiction. Regular reckless driving, on the other hand, will not.
A driver can get by on luck, or even skill, and get away with driving recklessly for years without incident, but addiction is far more inevitable and insidious.
But I'll concede that you're probably right- and that's really my point. To properly convey addiction would include the inevitability of it, which these kids can't grasp. Conveying information isn't just about saying the right thing- for an idea to be conveyed, it has to be understood by the recipient. Hence my point that there isn't really a way to convey the subjective experience and dangers of addiction; if the message is not understood or is ignored, it has not been properly conveyed.
This is actually probably the closest thing I've read to describing it. The timeframes, sense of urgency, and mental disturbance are all very similar.
That could work with a little more detail. I'd describe nicotine addiction as similar to chronic diarrhea. It's ubiquitous. You relieve yourself first thing in the morning, feel ok for a little bit, then feel the discomfort, anxiety, and urgency build and build. Soon enough, you start snapping at people, and it dominates your thoughts. Then, the meeting ends and you get a chance to relieve yourself. The cycle repeats until lunchtime rolls around. Again in the afternoon, throughout the evening, until you go to sleep, then wake up again and head straight for the restroom. Trying to avoid it or repress it only makes it worse.
I don't think I need to spell out literally which parts are an allegory to smoking- the only upside here is it ultimately is possible to resist the urge to smoke, whereas with diarrhea you've got to get to the restroom eventually.
(copied partially from another reply)
"Or go a day without food and see how that feels."
It's a good parallel, but not quite as simple as that. It's a difference of degree. The longest I've gone without eating was about 6 days. It was only at that point where my cravings for food equaled nicotine cravings after going without a cigarette for a day... That said, addiction is highly subjective, and my case could simply be more severe than others. I've also known individuals who could stop smoking for a week with no outward signs of withdrawals, and go back to smoking a pack a day afterwards.
"The real problem is that kids won't believe it can actually happen to them until it does..."
This is kind of what I'm getting at- that belief arises from a lack of experience. If you tell them that driving at 120MPH down a back road is stupidly dangerous, kids think "It's fine for me, I'm a good driver, I can handle the vehicle..."
If you tell them that unprotected sex leads to unwanted children and STDs, kids think "Oh, I can just pull out, and I trust my girl [who happens to have inherited something from her parents, or a random encounter that was deemed not to 'count']"
And if you tell them the dangers of addiction, they think "Oh, he's just [weak minded/stupid], I'm strong enough to beat addiction..."
If there was a way to truly convey the subjective experience of addiction in its entirety, there wouldn't be room for that fallacy.
It's a good parallel, but not quite as simple as that. It's a difference of degree. The longest I've gone without eating was about 6 days. It was only at that point where my cravings for food equaled nicotine cravings after going without a cigarette for a day... That said, addiction is highly subjective, and my case could simply be more severe than others. I've also known individuals who could stop smoking for a week with no outward signs of withdrawals, and go back to smoking a pack a day afterwards.
Actually, I didn't see many 'jocks' smoking as compared to nerds. I'm not saying that my experience was any more representative than yours, but it is what it is. And makes sense, really. As I understand it, a smoking habit tends to be detrimental to ones athletic ability- And a lot of advertisement for cigarettes in years back has had the intent to make it look 'cool.' My observations have always been that the nerd who doesn't get much social attention is more likely to use smoking as an icebreaker than the jock who can break the ice with his football jersey.
As an aside, you listed 'philosophy' as one of the 'intelligent' paths? Really? University and Grad school are major commitments of resources, both time and fiscal. There isn't exactly a wide market for philosophy majors out there. And there really isn't anything you can learn (regarding philosophy) from a school program that you can't already learn elsewhere for free. Perhaps it gives you access to speak with or listen to others on a number of topics, but is it enough of an advantage to justify that level of resource commitment? That little piece of paper indicating a degree in philosophy isn't going to do much for your career- Whereas with a different major, not only is the piece of paper valuable, but access to laboratory facilities (or their equivalent) is an important part of learning as well...
Oh, so you think you can explain addiction in terms that others can understand? You can convey the subjective experience that one could expect without any frame of reference for comparison?
I suppose you believe you can explain color to someone who was blind since birth person as well?
Don't say they are two separate things. We all know that. That doesn't change the fact that there is literally no way to communicate what addiction is like to someone who has never experienced it. I dare you to try.
Even describing it as an overriding compulsion that undermines ones will is merely an objective description. It doesn't communicate anything about what it is like, and does nothing to alleviate the 'I'm smart, I won't get addicted even if I try it, and I can resist it if I do happen to get addicted' mindset that so many have.
But go ahead, tell me what addiction is like and why it's so dangerous, and I'll tell you what you're missing, why you're wrong, and why people aren't going to take your explanation seriously.
I'm waiting.
"Smarter people know its not a good idea to start smoking."
Actually, I've observed exactly the opposite. While I admit freely that the entirety of my social circle does not amount to a representative sample of the population, most of the nicotine addicts I know (myself included) got started smoking in similar ways.
For me, it started freshman year in college- attending parties and whatnot. I had a lot of friends and acquaintances who smoked, and would always offer me one, but for the longest time I turned down the offer. It was after coming out of a bad relationship, having far more to drink than was either healthy or reasonable, and then running into the other half of said bad relationship at the same party... Well, I'll spare the details, but it was rather upsetting. Anyways, me being upset and intoxicated (nice combination there!), I was offered a cigarette. This time, I took it- didn't really give a shit at the time. Found that I rather enjoyed the experience.
Roll the clock forward a year. I'm in the habit of having a smoke now and then when I'm drinking. My line of thinking was something to the effect of: "I know this is bad for me, but I'm doing it so infrequently that the cumulative damage should be minimal if even measurable. I won't get addicted, I have too much willpower for that. And damn it, it feels good!"
Roll the clock forward another year, and I'm a pack a day smoker. Somewhere over the summer between sophomore and junior year, My drinking and partying became frequent enough that I started getting cigarette cravings when sober. Those of you who have never been addicted to anything can understand addiction only in an objective, clinical way- the subjective experience of it, however, is something you need to experience to understand- though I highly recommend against it.
That's the falling that most of the smokers I know have had- overconfidence. You think that you're an intelligent person, mind over matter, and all that jazz, but the reality of it is far more difficult than you can comprehend, and you don't really understand it until you're hooked. It's a song and dance that I've seen and taken part in time and time again.
As an aside, I think that's the major failing with education regarding drugs, both legal and otherwise- I don't know of any way to explain addiction in terms that a kid can truly understand. You can preach about the negative effects all day long, but since when has the average high school/college aged kid been afraid to take a few risks? The legal repercussions? Please, like the average kid's that worried. I believe that the dangers and nature of addiction need to be stressed a LOT more, but as I said, I don't know of any way to explain it in terms that can be understood by someone who's never been addicted to anything.
Just for the record, when I was born and for the first few years of my life, my parents and I lived out of the back of a van, both of them unemployed struggling to just survive. My Grandfather on my fathers side had abandoned my grandmother (who was disabled and unable to work) and father (who was only 16 at the time). My grandparents on my mothers side were already dead. Extended family was either out of contact, unable to help, or unwilling to. Nowhere to go, nobody to help. But you know what? My Dad found work, then my Mom found work, they worked their way up, and they eventually got out of that hole.
Poverty only becomes permanent if you give up.
There is a distinction, but it's a moot point- if we're talking about things that carry monetary value, whether they are tangible or not, then that value can be transferred.
Saying that any monetary value that an idea has is lost when its creator dies is the same as saying that when I die, any stocks that I hold lose their value and are folded back into the market, leaving me with nothing to leave to my kids. Both are intangible, and yet both represent worth. One's stock portfolio is not what holds the worth, it merely represents a largely intangible figure. Holding a piece of paper that states I own X stocks is no more tangible than holding a piece of paper that states I own the rights to X work.
How many people get money from a third party simply because they are related to a particular mommy or daddy?
Everyone who inherits any form of non liquid asset from said mommy or daddy, then liquidates it- this can be stocks, real estate, or in this case, IP.
Oh, get off your fucking high horse.
Everything EVERYONE has only exists because of the actions of their predecessors. We wouldn't have microprocessors without first having transistors, for example.
And as far as inheritance is concerned, just how many people today have the careers they do because of mommy and daddy forking over money for their university education?
Or even barring that, how about cosigning for their loans?
By your argument, there isn't a goddamned person anywhere who deserves anything. So what, socialism then?
Geeze, I remember that, I played it at the same age >. I remember finally clearing the marsh gave and emerging to the overworld, with 2 characters dead, one poisoned with 1 hp remaining and no spells left, and the other slightly better off and unpoisoned. Theres monsters above ground too, is it really that big of a deal to pitch a tent inside the cave?
I googled that and all I got was japanese porn sites
Yeah, I knew the flamebait mod was coming. Regardless, I stand by my prior statement.
Troll?!? What the FUCK slashdot? This is a legitimate complaint and question, not a troll. Off-topic may have been a valid mod, but troll? Seriously, fanboys, take Linus' cock out of your mouth for a few seconds and get a breath of fresh air. You guys are just as bad as the worst apple and microsoft fanboys.
Whooooosh.
Now that we have a generation of IT professionals that were born and grew up in a world with computers, I have plenty of optimism that enterprise bloatware like PeopleSoft (Microsoft *, Novell, FootPrints, Cadence, etc) will slowly but surely be replaced by modular programs that actually do a task, and do it well.
Now that we have a generation of automobile drivers that were born and grew up in a world with automobiles, I have plenty of optimism that traffic jams, drunk drivers, and general automobile idiocy will be replaced by conscientious drivers that actually obey traffic regulations and don't put themselves and other drives at undue risk.
Wait...
Tuition is just a way to trim down their applicant pool. The state pays much more of your tuition than you do.
Don't you mean the taxpayers? Ie, us AGAIN?
You couldn't pay me to live down there to be honest.
Bullshit man, everything's got a price tag, its just a question of how much.
If you are Vista and you want to have sex with Linux, does that make you gay?
Vista being the hermaphrodite of OS', I'm pretty sure you're gay no matter what OS you're banging.
through astrology!
I just KNEW something was up when I noticed a meteor setting in Capricorn...
Gay, of course... because sitting fat and dateless in Mom's basement is soooo masculine.
May I volunteer for the private beta? ;)
Yeah, because the average college kid is both fully conscious of the problems with having personal information available and is NOT fully convinced that it couldn't happen to him/her. No sir, not a single college kid on myspace...