Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:second hand e-smoke (Score 2) 314

Congratulations on getting off the addiction wagon. I'd certainly say "less is more" when it comes to things people put in their bodies. That said, after 20 years of smoking and switching to e-cigs myself, the most important advice I have to those interested in pursuing vaping is to use quality equipment and e-liquid. The cheap, disposable e-cigs found in many gas stations and their cheap rechargeable counterparts available online will disappoint most people. The quality control in the cheap products is nonexistent, leading to poor results in many cases.

After wasting a bunch of money on cheap crap, I listened to a few of my coworkers and bought one their mods, a ProVari v1. No, I am not being compensated by Provape; I have no association with the manufacturer, not even as a direct customer, having bought this mod from my friend. After adding a Kanger T3S tank and filling up with various tasty flavors from my local vape shop, I'm extremely happy. The difference between this and the cheap crap is absolutely night and day.

Comment Re:second hand e-smoke (Score 1) 314

Indeed, if anybody is inhaling ethylene glycol (aka antifreeze), they won't be doing it for long. After 20 years of smoking cigarettes, pipes, and cigars, I'm very happy with my ProVari v1. I'm inhaling a few thousand less chemicals, and even went so far as to discuss it with my doctor, who noted that there is absolutely no evidence of any significant risk to my health from vaping. The biggest "risk" is simply the continued intake of nicotine, which carries approximately the same risk as caffeine consumption. People with high blood pressure should stay away from both.

Comment Re:OUCH (Score 1) 479

If one chooses to subscribe to the view that God is whatever exists outside of our necessarily limited perception of space and time, and believes that hell is the permanent separation from the light of a higher existence that might deliver one's essence from those bounds, and that heaven is the condition in which the shackles of constructs we presently live in, in terms of space and time, are lifted to transcend to a less restrictive plane of existence, then necessarily one must believe that heaven would not be equal to hell in terms of restraint.

Comment Re:So it has come to this (Score 1) 531

With this reply, you just agreed with everything I wrote in my last reply, aside from side-stepping the point that you erred when you previously claimed that a "well-regulated militia" is a "standing army." It is not a standing army, and the term "well regulated" still means "well disciplined or trained" in this context. Please go back and read (once again) everything I've written, along with the information found at the link I previously provided, in its entirety (I refuse to believe you've done that yet) and then get it through your head that a militia, well regulated or not, is not a standing army.

I want to take a moment here to say "thank you" for standing up for the right of individuals to own firearms. There are entirely too many people drinking the revisionist attitude Kool-Aid that believe our elected representatives somehow have the power to curtail our rights to firearms ownership. All the same, it is of absolutely critical importance that you refine your understanding of the key terminology that defines these rights, because there exists an unfortunately large number of people who will seize upon any such misunderstanding as an opportunity to paint you as too ignorant to be taken seriously in any debate on the rights we hold dear.

In short, this isn't about you and me. This is about much larger things. Thanks again for caring about our rights.

Comment Re:So it has come to this (Score 1) 531

You're simply wrong on this, and thus you're making things more difficult for rights advocates who engage in honest debate on the topic. While the general militia was regarded to consist of every man, the ready militia did not predominantly consist of men whose primary occupation was soldiering; these were men who gathered on an intermittent basis for drill and readiness purposes, but held other full time occupations. There was, and is, no requirement or intended meaning of a standing army in the amendment verbiage, nor the writings of Madison as they pertain to this topic.

Again, in the context of the language of the period, the term "well regulated" meant "disciplined or well trained." Both discipline and training in combat maneuvers were, and still are routinely accomplished by groups of people who do not make the military their career. The term implies substantially different meaning in modern usage, as its most commonplace meaning in modern language alludes to laws and other statutory requirements. If you doubt this, please consult a linguist for further guidance. Additionally, please carefully review the information I provided once again.

Comment Re:So it has come to this (Score 3, Insightful) 531

I'm a firm believer in individual gun rights, and therefore I am most assuredly not speaking against our shared core beliefs on this topic, but I believe that historical accuracy is critical when discussing these matters. The term "well regulated" does not imply a standing army. Instead, in the context of the language of the period, it means "disciplined" or "well trained."

Comment Re:This shouldn't be news (Score 4, Informative) 152

The prosecutors didn't suppress evidence - the judge ruled that experts couldn't testify. And that's his bloody job.

The judge is elected by and paid by taxpayers. The majority of those taxpayers will never be privy to the inner workings of the trial, whether by chance or by intent to remain ignorant of local trial proceedings. However, the judge's opponent in the next round of elections will take any opportunity (s)he can to paint the incumbent as incompetent or lenient on criminals, which might be enough to sway the election. Do the math before you rush to such quick judgement.

I also suggest you take a few minutes to review this information.

Comment Re:Sorry, but where is the evidence? (Score 1) 478

Also, two can play at this game. Please cite your claimed sources, since you've made the bold statement of being so intimately familiar with the subject matter, and have noted that there are "plenty of studies in this field" that you must have sitting on your desk for rapid reference. Provide a BTC address and I'll be delighted to cover the costs of you shipping me a hardcopy. I'll be glad to review your studies and provide an analysis at length within fourteen days.

Comment Re:Sorry, but where is the evidence? (Score 4, Insightful) 478

It appears you've been asleep for the last ten years, and possibly the twenty years preceding it that laid the foundation for the severe civil liberties issues we're facing now. Your UID indicates you should be old enough to understand this, unless you've led a rather sheltered life.

Comment Short version (Score 5, Insightful) 478

Bruce is right. Even if our society managed to put enough measures in place to mitigate all but the risks associated with an asteroid impact, you surely would not want to live in that society, as the term "living" would be a loosely defined term at best. It would be a society essentially devoid of free will.

Comment Re:Hey metric retards (Score 1) 187

Would you care to share your justification for submitting a story with a grossly misleading headline and story? The code analysis in question wasn't performed on software written in the Python programming language; it was performed on the Python interpreter written in C. Again, why would you submit a story under such horrendously misleading premises? You've probably caused a pile of headaches for developers who will have to explain the difference between C and Python to their development "managers."

Slashdot Top Deals

You are in the hall of the mountain king.