#0: Sun On The Island
Sun On The Island
#1: The Playful Sea
The Playful Sea
Jan 012016
Dec 112015
There is a chemical (Diacetyl) sometimes found in the liquid that e-cigarettes use (or e-liquid for vaping), and there is a new “scare” about it’s presence in e-liquids. Which is hardly new news to serious vapers.
Nobody has demonstrated that diacetyl is dangerous in e-liquids.
What has been demonstrated is that diacetyl (which is very commonly used in the food industry as a flavouring) can potentially cause a condition called “popcorn lung” in people working with powdered diacetyl. It is obviously a very serious condition, but is also very rare.
Finding diacetyl in e-liquids is obviously not good, but it has been known about for at least a year and most respectable manufacturers are changing to alternative flavourings. What is not mentioned in the mainstream media is that smoking results in 10-100 times as much diacetyl being inhaled – if the potential for diacetyl in vaping is bad, then the certainty of diacetyl in smoke is worse.
Should e-liquid manufacturers stop using diacetyl? It is not certain that diacetyl in e-liquids is harmful, but it makes sense for manufacturers to remove it – which is what many of them have been doing!
Should vapers give up and risk going back to smoking? Well, no of course. Even ignoring all the other health risks associated with smoking, the risk associated with diacetyl is almost certainly far greater with smoking than with vaping.
Should vapers choose e-liquids that do not have diacetyl? That makes a great deal of sense, and there are plenty of choices out there.
To use a phrase used elsewhere: The safest way to vape is not to vape at all. But it doesn’t make sense to stop vaping if that puts you at risk of going back to smoking.
Bystanders? Worry about diesel pollution first.
And you don’t have to believe me; there are plenty of others suspicious of the new study :-
- http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/14/media-bias-exposed-popcorn-lung-chemical-750-times-greater-in-tobacco-vs-e-cigarettes/
- http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/whats-new/whatsnew-2015/236-da2
Dec 102015
You have a a column of numbers that you have produced in some manner such as :-
$ awk '/clean message/ {print $(NF-1)}' mail.info.log
...
100935
12197
3606
84653
4498
99110
4762
3001
10889
12611
12249
12245
136599
49097
6668
And you want a quick and dirty way of finding the largest number. Well there is a way but it is perhaps the least efficient way to do it, and that is to sort the numbers into numerical order and use “head” to display the first one :-
$ awk '/clean message/ {print $(NF-1)}' mail.info.log | sort -rn | head -1
5476168
But frankly there must be a better method. And yes there is if you happen to be using zsh (or possibly others, but this has been tested with zsh). Simply iterate over the values assigning the current value to the “max” variable if the current variable is larger :-
$ max=0; for x in $(awk '/clean message/ {print $(NF-1)}' mail.info.log); [[ $x -gt $max ]] && max=$x; echo $max
5476168
You may be wondering why I don’t simply use the ability of awk to perform calculations. Well that is certainly possible, but I may not always be using awk to produce the numbers in the first place, and this is supposed to be a generic recipe.
Dec 102015
So Donald Trump wants to ban muslims from entering the US does he?
Perhaps he really is not only a vicious racist but also as gormless as he looks in the photo (apologies for those of a sensitive disposition). There are others who have covered why banning muslims from entering the US is morally wrong, and if you do not understand why that is so, then explaining here is not going to make things any clearer.
But in addition to being morally wrong, it is also dumb in the extreme. There are two important question to ask when looking at a policy …
Is It A Practicable Policy?
No.
Islam is a religion and is not apparent from someone’s appearance. There is no label on their forehead!
So a policy of restricting muslims would be limited to either asking them. Which would lead to a situation where you were excluding muslims who do not lie about their religion, or in other words you are letting in the kind of muslims that you should perhaps be excluding, and excluding the muslims there is no reason for excluding.
Or you could do some sort of racial profiling, which amounts to not excluding muslims, but excluding light-brown skinned people. Again this will exclude the kind of muslims you do not want to exclude, whilst allowing through ones up to no good.
Will It Accomplish The Mission?
It really depends on what is intended by excluding muslims. If it is intended to portray the US as an intolerant country blundering around with incompetent measures that do more to annoy than to protect, them yes it can be said to accomplish the mission.
If however it is intended to make the US safer from terrorists, then no. Terrorists are more interested in accomplishing their own mission than telling the truth, and will go out of their way to avoid being identified is muslims if they think that this will help in their mission.
There is one small category of terrorists that this may protect against – those who are initially ordinary muslims but who later become radicalised whilst in the US. However having said that, the likelihood that this measure will protect against those vulnerable to becoming radicalised is pretty low.
Nov 282015
Waking up this morning, I find news of a terrorist incident in the US; except that it was not called a terrorist incident. It was announced as a mass shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic. For those who are not aware, in the US, Planned Parenthood clinics sometimes perform abortions.
There are those who protest about the abortions using methods up to and including murder. And whilst leaping to conclusions is not something to be encouraged, this incident has all the hallmarks of being a "pro-life" terrorist killing.
(Image from the Casper Star Tribune)
Given that the media is quite happy to label as terrorist incidents other killings, what is special about this incident?
Perhaps it has something to do with who the perpetrators are – they are not wild-eyed revolutionaries, nor are they islamic fanatics; they are christian fanatics. And it seems that christian terrorists get the benefit of the media not labelling their outrages as terrorism. Why?
And look at some of the twitter spew :-
