venomai

Bongs may help reduce certain gases, but at this point it seems a little premature to say that they reduce the harm in smoking. The vapour is not 200°C as it enters the lungs -- and although a bit of heat may not be great, it certainly is better than carcinogenic tar. PS: Eating cannabis results in a more psychoactive high. No components are lost in a smokestream, and the liver converts the THC into a more psychoactive compound (11-hydroxy-THC). This results in a more "psychedelic" experience for many, and the risk of bad trips becomes more of an issue. (Coupled with unnecessarily high doses, no doubt.)

Hey folks, Some of you may remember my old Paint mockup program. The project went dead for a while, and my host stopped working. Well, I've recently decided to start it up again. The library itself is about complete. The next part is the actual application design and layout. That's where you guys come in! What is the goal of Picto? To create a free, simple and lightweight application that is practical for digital painting, particularly for learning with. It will allow for up to 6 different brushes and 4-5 different layers, and it will also include opacity and tablet pressure support, an eraser, an eyedropper and 10-50 undo/redo states. It will be very simple and to the point -- and will not be bloated with any unnecessary features (eg. no shape/path tools, copy/paste, crop, etc). I Need Your Input! Picto is in its early stages. I'd love if it ended up being a "community" effort -- so don't hesitate to help out! What features do you consider essential for digital painting? How should the buttons be layed out? How should the program be designed? What do you hate/love most about current digital painting programs? Here is my initial sketch of the design. Comments? Questions? What would you like changed? How would you have done it differently? Beta Testing Right now the beta test consists of a very simple program -- this is just to make sure it works for everybody. If you have any issues at all, please post them. Here's a screenshot of the current beta test: Known Bugs: - Tablet pressure cannot be toggled on/off right now. - Using the tablet to change settings (e.g. pressing "OK" buttons) is really buggy. I'll fix this before the final release. Web Start: Here is the web start for those wishing to beta test it. I'll update this as new betas come around. Needs Java 1.5 or higher. Project Homepage http://code.google.com/p/picto/

I don't agree with much of the legal system, and as it's the job of a police officer to enforce the law regardless of how "just" it truly is, I don't think it could ever be my profession.

Sativa is generally said to get you "high," while indica is said to get you "stoned." Is there any actual evidence to support either of those claims? When cannabis is eaten, the effects are much different. Eating cannabis is not a good substitute for smoking it. When eaten, the effects take about an hour to "kick in" and the resulting high, which is often very strong, continues for many hours. Many consider it a much more "psychedelic" experience, and the risk of having a bad trip becomes more serious (set and setting should be taken into consideration). If you wish to get a normal high without the toxins and tars of smoked cannabis, use a vaporizer. Vaporizers have shown to be "safe and effective." http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7240

Great work on getting it back, guys. Shame somebody would backstab us like that.

Yep, sure will take a while. I'm glad I save most of my big posts on WordPad. :) I now tend to use Volconvo for debating. Hopefully TIF returns to its fullest again soon, though!

Marijuana is not harmless. But used in moderation, it becomes relatively harmless for most individuals.

I'm generally against the idea of machinery designed to kill people, or any sort of warfare, but nevertheless I've always had a subtle interest in firearms. Who could resist growing up with James Bond and other great action films? :) I'm a sucker for silenced weapons. If being a pacifist hippie doesn't work out for me, I'd probably move on to a contract killer. :D My favourite is probably the silenced MP5.

IMO I think it's time the members of Project Chanology drop the whole terrorist act and distance themselves from the group Anonymous. At this point, with all the hype going on, it's too difficult to distinguish between the true CoS protestors and the immature and violent terrorist-like citizens who call themselves "Anonymous." What I mean by this: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_3driiEerYI http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ArHlW1b0vNM http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJ ... re=related http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RFjU8bZR19A&NR=1

Maybe he's an agnostic theist? Or he's just speculating as a devil's advocate.

I'm not talking about marijuana. ;) I mean LSD, mescaline, magic mushrooms, DMT, etc. Slanted discussions on marijuana, alcohol and nicotine are relatively commonplace in my school as well, and punishment is little to none for supporting (or even using) such substances. My school is more strict about cell phone use than cigarette use.

For one, I tend to avoid topics of psychedelics and drug laws/freedoms in real life conversations. This isn't because I'm afraid of speaking about it, but rather because I'm afraid of the consequences. Society, as we all know, looks down on users of any sort of illicit mind-altering drug as if they are the mentally insane. Students would label me as a nutcase or an addict. If I was openly promoting responsible LSD use and drug law reforms, the school wouldn't hesitate to kick me out. Parents of other students wouldn't expect anything less. It's really difficult to voice my opinions about drugs in real life as most people tend to be extremely ignorant about drugs and their effects. On the forums, I can speak without interruption and provide sources to support my claims.

I get "just be yourself" a lot but it never seems to work out too well, so I've learnt to adapt to my surroundings pretty well. I act differently in every crowd, but I still "stay true to myself", so to say. I've adapted on the forum, too, and I try my best to stay "in character". With the anonymity of the internet and the vast expanse of resources (and spellcheckers) at our fingertips, it's pretty easy to veil yourself in any way you see fit here. :D

How can it be an absolute if it changes over time? :? How many reasons do you need? :?: Some atheists believe in the afterlife, some believe in a form of nirvana, and others believe that there is nothing after death. There is no "atheist world view". Atheist simply means no belief in God, it makes no assumption about religion, faith or spirituality. What exactly do you mean by absolute? There are many things in our world that are absolute, but the concept of evil is not one of them. Society and culture decide the what is "good" and "evil". These concepts adapt and evolve throughout history and civilization, like they always have. It seems selfish and faithless to accept God for the sole reason that there may be a possibility He exists, and it's even more pathetic to entertain the idea that He will welcome you to Heaven after you faithlessly accept Him for your own egotistical desires. There is quite a bit to lose by accepting God -- one must change their life to follow such an organized and rule-based religion. Nevertheless, the same argument you make can be applied to belief in any being, whether it be Allah or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is certainly no reason to base your entire belief system on. Excuse me? Logic is extremely important to most atheists. And, to my knowledge, much of the logic atheists use tends to be accepted by the general public (such as the Big Bang, Evolution, etc).

You should probably seek help if the concept of a greater being is the only thing keeping you from suicide/murder. Hitler believed what he was doing was right, and so did many of his followers. True "evil" is defined by the society and culture, and those values tend to evolve over time. For example, homosexuality was often seen as an "evil act" hundreds of years ago -- yet today most people would not label it as such. Morals, laws, guilt, fear, family. Many factors keep you from doing such a thing, least of all religion. Simply because there is no God to tell atheists to "love thy neighbour" does not mean that all atheists want to put bullets in their neighbours heads. :)

1. The real argument is about MSM (men who have sex with men). Some of these MSM are not "gay" by definition, per se. (for example, people of indeterminate gender) 2. Most sources tend to suggest that homosexual females are at no greater risk of catching HIV than the rest of the population. 3. AIDS is not a virus -- it's a set of symptoms that is "acquired" anywhere from weeks to years after catching HIV. Many people are able to live for years with HIV -- but when you acquire AIDS you die reasonably quickly. As for it being painful, I bet you're right. That's one of the reasons medical marijuana is gaining so much publicity. ;)

Here are some sources. MSM "19 times more likely" to catch HIV H.I.V. Rises Among Young Gay Men

People who claim that ignorance is bliss. :x

I don't really take age restrictions too seriously. :) Granted you are experienced, responsible and mature enough to use a certain substance, drive a car, watch a restricted movie, etc. then you should be entitled to that priviledge. If you are not mature/responsible enough to do such acts, then you shouldn't be doing them. :) In any case, the majority of age restrictions are ineffective at stopping underage drinking/smoking/etc. If teens truly want to do it, they will have no problem getting around the law. I'm turning 18 in a couple weeks. I'm going to Quebec with friends (drinking age is 18) and when I get back I'll probably visit an 18+ cannabis cafe in my area. :D Another related controversy is that by 18 you are old enough to kill or be killed in a war but not old enough to go to a bar with your buds back home.

Paint's probably much better for pixels. :) Here is some more progress. Recent Tests: I've recreated the old test using the new Picto engine. This test starts with an empty 500x500 project, but it can also load from a .picto archive. It contains all the major features -- layers, tablet pressure, master brush diameter, textured brushes, opacity, etc. Here is a screenshot after testing various brushes and opacities. Project Viewer: I also wrote a simple project viewer tool. I'll have a similar tool for brush pack files later on. But most likely these won't be very useful to non-developers. Source Code: http://picto.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/Picto/src/ I'll have webstarts soon. :)

It's interesting to note that the vast majority of murders, genocides, wars, executions, etc. were ordered and carried out by males. Many Western males are brought up in a manner that makes them laugh at thoughts of love and sharing. At an early age, males are taught to destroy their opponents for honour and victory. Aggressive war-like sports such as American football and the Ultimate Fighter tend to reinforce these testosterone-driven sentiments. The argument is that with world peace there would have been no war in the first place, so no need for America to "step in". Although it is a natural desire, most evident in males, that does not mean it cannot change. Humans evolve -- we do not live and think the same as our distant prehistoric ancestors. The real problems with world peace are: its improbability, economic losses, overpopulation and drawbacks to science (ie: no more discoveries provoked by warfare). I'm a bit of a hippie myself, and as much as I would like world peace, I know that the consequences we have to endure to reach it are not those that the rest of the world would be willing to accept. "Our own planet, in which philosophers are apt to take a parochial and excessive interest, was once too hot to support life, and will in time be too cold. After ages during which the earth produced harmless trilobites and butterflies, evolution progressed to the point at which it generated Neros, Genghis Khans, and Hitlers. This, however, is a passing nightmare; in time the earth will become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will return." - Bertrand Russell

I would argue that the reason the US and UK cultures are different is, for one reason, because of the laws and strict rules surrounding the use of alcohol, especially for youth. I said that responsible drinking at a young age has often shown to be benefitial. You are saying that binge drinking at a young age can be detrimental. I agree with you, but your points do not relate to my statement of responsible drinking, regardless of what the culture is in the US. On the subject of responsible drinking, most studies I've seen tend to show that, at least in the UK and Australia, where drinking causes many issues, students who drink tend to do it responsibly -- regardless of inherent cultural attitudes. A while back warri0r45 made a post about the stats behind responsible drinkers in the UK and Australia. Here's a snippet from his post: [hide=click to reveal snippet] Source: http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co ... -ETAL-2000[/hide] Yes, it does list that quite clearly. What I suggested is that the paper does not make a clear enough distinction between responsible use and irresponsible abuse. My argument is theoretical. :) However, the paper's claims say nothing about the cultural differences: This claim is culture-indepdent and should be applicable to any culture. Yet the moment we attempt to apply it to other cultures, such as France and Spain, we see that it does not hold true. Either the paper should make a clear reference to cultural differences, or the paper should make claims that can be applied universally. To pass their current claims off as universal fact would be misleading and, in my opinion, unprofessional. Yes, this is quite a clear statement and I fully agree. If we can prevent teens from drinking until they are 21, then there would be a significant decrease in drinking, and therefore a significant decrease in alcohol dependence. The same can be applied to any bad habit, whether it be caffeine abuse, heroin abuse, sexual addiction, etc. However, in the case of alcohol, this is something that has often proved very difficult -- and putting strict rules and laws around it only seems to make the substance more desired. About 75% of students have drunk alcohol by the time they finish high school, around age 18.[1] That percentage continues to climb until the age of 21. Those who are left are not those who are "waiting" for it to be legal -- like the paper would have you believe -- they are more likely to be those who choose not to indulge in such activities. If a student wishes to drink, the laws or rules will not stop them from doing so. Saying that those who drink before age 21 are more likely to become dependent is, in my opinion, comparable to saying that those who drink are more likely to become dependent. I agree with you -- I never said otherwise. The rest of your post is just a matter of differing opinions.

And what about drug freedoms? :P

I agree that an early onset of binge drinking will increase risk of dependence, but as I was referring to responsible use I don't see how this is relavent. Is this the paper you are referring to? If so -- I'm not sure if that's the greatest source. For one, it does not make a clear distinction between responsible drinking and alcohol abuse, a distinction that is absolutely necessary in any study regarding alcohol dependence. The paper doesn't seem very reliable; it is very one-sided and their claims seem to be moot when we consider other countries and cultures that do not show the same trends of increased risk. As I said, responsible use at an early age has often shown to result in lower levels of heavy drinking. Take France and Spain, for example, where children are often allowed wine at meals and sometimes even in school cafeterias. Surprisingly, both countries are low in terms of alcohol dependence levels. On the other hand, the US (where many parents adopt a zero-tolerance policy), even with one of the highest drinking ages in the world, tends to have extremely high rates of alcohol dependence. The UK also suffers from many drinking problems. Of course, there are other influences at play, but in general we can see that children drinking does not immediately equal higher risk of dependency -- in many cases it seems to suggest otherwise. Here are some interesting articles. I will look for better sources on the subject -- most search results so far tend to link to the above paper. :) http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/YouthI ... 48192.html http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/ZeroTolerance.html http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/articles/cqoped.html Most parents are not so ignorant that they need to be told when their children are drunk and/or high -- the smell alone is a dead giveaway, and impairment is usually quite easy to notice. However, I agree; I would want to know what my children are doing to ensure that it is responsible and not detrimental to themselves or others. However, the way to figure this out is not to snoop or prod into their personal life, which is often seen as interruption, but to give them space and openly discuss alcohol/drug use with them. Yes, they do have a right to that information. But as I've said, most parents do not need to be told that their children have drunk alcohol or smoked marijuana as it is generally easy to tell and, at the very least, statistics show it to be a very common trend in high school. Nevertheless, when it concerns illegal matters the parents are entitled to know. But in this case, the mother snooping around on other student's private profiles was an invasion of privacy (in the general sense of the term). I personally don't feel that she was right in her decision. She not only risked her daughter's high school reputation for something as minor as alcohol use but also ended up spreading a message that, if anyone was to look at statistics, is a generally obvious one. Students drinking underage -- is this really a surprise to parents? Yep, I agree. So you are saying the mother was justified in invading the privacy of hundreds of students, which lead to many suspensions, and in turn potentially destroyed her daughter's high school life? If it were a matter of a real infraction or harm -- such as murder, fraud, trafficking, substance abuse, rape, etc. -- then the situation would be entirely different. But the case here seems to be a very minor infraction, most likely a group of kids drinking beers before they have reached a certian age, or people inducing an altered state of mind by smoking a plant. Done responsibly, these are things that do not seriously harm the individual or others.

Nice lines and detail. Not enough depth or shading, though... :o Looks a little too flat.