Temperature control: Yes, it is the future of vaping.

Yesterday I got my Vapor Flask DNA 40, my Subtank, and temp sensing coils. I spent just over $400, what with 4 new VTC4s, a 5 pack of temp sensing coils, the tank, and the mod.

WORTH EVERY PENNY. (And I haven't even done a temp sensing build in my drippers yet.)

The clouds are not as large or dense, yes. But they are very respectable, and more importantly; everything I want in sensation is there, and nothing I don't want.

All the flavor of my RDA, warm without burning, smooth, no throat hit at all - nice easy draw. (In fact I run the Subtank on the 2 hole middle setting, and my RDAs wide open.) No drop in power as the battery fades. (Though it's only gone down about 10% since I first powered it on yesterday.)

The temperature protection is nice. The regulator chip reads the (very small) resistance of the cool coil when it's attached to the mod, then as the nickel wire heats it's resistance changes. The chip detects this in real time and adjusts the wattage being applied to the coil to reach that temperature and no higher. The default setting of 450 F will probably work for anyone who likes a warm vape, but the ten degree changes in temp limits can actually have both subtle and overt differences in vape quality.

We used to post a 'suggestions' thread every month and I don't think we've done it in a long time. But I will say - if you are considering vaping to get off the cigs and are williing to buy big, and buy once: get the Vapor Flask DNA 40, Kanger Subtank Mini, 2 VTC4s (or equivilent) and some nickel wire coil heads. It will run you right around $400, but you literally will not need any other hardware. 

Why Victim Blaming Makes Sense

Alright, let’s get this out of the way in the first sentence: When I say that victim blaming “makes sense” I do not mean that it is right, or morally justified, or anything like that. What I mean is the behaviors associated with victim blaming follow a logic that is widely accepted and taught to our children. To make that argument, I don’t need to go into the nitty gritty of individual events in which victim blaming occurs. Quite the opposite. What I need to do is to outline a cultural context in which this type of behavior is considered acceptable… and it won’t be the context most people expect.

RE: Use of "Flower Shell" Product in Fairfax county

Find below the text of an e-mail to Fairfax County Police about using the Flower Shot (linked) product, and their reply.  I have removed the individual officer's specific information because this IS the internet, after all.  

[This email message was generated from a Web form submission by a Fairfax County website user at https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/contact/]

 

Message:Out of sheer curiosity, how would one use this product in suburban Fairfax County without getting to meet our fine officers under less than ideal circumstance?

 

http://laughingsquid.com/flower-shell-lets-you-plant-seeds-with-a-12-gauge-shotgun/

 

You may have seen this on Facebook, as it's making the rounds.  I was browsing and came across this and immediately imagined myself walking around my front yard, shotgun in hand, in the lovely spring sunshine planting round after round of seed into my flowerbeds.  This sounded like fun initially, until I looked out the front window and was reminded that I live in a very suburban area and planting the flowers in my really, quite lovely flowerbeds in this manner would likely cause no end of consternation amongst my closer neighbors, not to mention my wife.  Further, I imagined the frankly tense conversation I would shortly be having with one or more of Fairfax County's finest.  At that point, I began wondering how said officer would react to my calm explanation that this was no longer a firearm, it was now a gardening utensil and should therefore be no cause for alarm; the flowerbeds will be lovely.

 

Deciding that rather than ruin a perfectly wonderful pre-spring afternoon having this conversation and not getting on with planting my flowerbeds was less than ideal, I pose the following questions:

 

1:  Does use of a shotgun to plant seeds in this way turn the shotgun into a gardening utensil (and thus not a firearm) for law enforcement purposes? 

 

2:  Would use of this product in the suburbs of Fairfax County be lawful/legal? 

 

3:  I am operating under the assumption that planting seeds in my flowerbeds with this product is a monumentally bad idea, so I WILL NOT be doing this.  Promise.  But I am compelled to ask; what course of action would be recommended for someone who was planting their flowerbeds this way when Fairfax County Police arrive to ask why they are doing so?

RE: Use of "Flower Shell" Product in Fairfax county

Officer  

To: "BLOG@.com" <>

Please note, the officer may issue a summons if he/ she believes a crime was committed. The

conclusion I draw from the information you provided lends me to believe the action is unlawful not

withstanding a few exceptions listed in County Code 6­1­2.

1. The shotgun is still a weapon. In the video, it is used to fire a ‘projectile’ (seeds instead of pellets).

The ‘explosion’ occurs when the firing pin strikes the primer.

2. I will refer you to Section 6­1­2 of the Code of Fairfax County. You will read there are some

approved areas. Not knowing where you live makes it difficult to determine legality.

3. First, I would recommend whomever is planting seeds this way to follow the officer’s direction. While

this practice may be common for some in other parts of the US, I am unfamiliar with any such activity

in Fairfax County. Also, considering the act may be a criminal offense and absent clear officer

direction, I would advise either slinging the shotgun over your shoulder or placing it on the ground.

I have provided the mentioned County codes should you wish to read further and thank you for sharing

the video. Very interesting.

Respectfully,

Fairfax County Police Department

Public Information Office

4100 Chain Bridge Road – 7th Floor

Fairfax, Virginia 22030

Section 6­1­1. Definitions.

Firearm means any weapon that will, or is designed to, or may be readily converted to, expel a

projectile or projectiles by the action of any explosive; provided, that stud nailing guns, rivet guns and

similar construction equipment neither designed nor intended as weapons, shall not be deemed

firearms.

Section 6­1­2. Hunting or discharge of firearms in certain places prohibited; exceptions.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to shoot any gun in any areas of the County which are so heavily

populated as to make such conduct dangerous. Except as otherwise provided herein, it shall be unlawful to discharge any gun:

(1) In all areas of the County except those areas which are exempted in accordance with Appendix J

to the Fairfax County Code;

(2) On any lot of real property containing less than twenty acres; and

(3) On any parcel of land which is not posted with signs giving reasonable notice that guns are in use

on that parcel of land and that no trespassing is allowed. Such signs shall be placed where they can

reasonably be seen. However, if firearms are in use on only a portion of any parcel of land which

meets the acreage and other requirements of the term "parcel of land," as defined by Section 6­1­1,

then only that portion of that parcel of land on which firearms are used shall be posted with signs.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to hunt with a gun any bird or game animal on or within 100

yards from any primary or secondary highway. A violation of this Subsection shall be punishable as a

Class 3 misdemeanor.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to shoot or hunt with a gun on any public school ground or any

public park or on any area within 100 yards of any public school ground or public park. It shall be

unlawful for any person who is hunting with a loaded gun to traverse any public school ground or

public park or to be within 100 yards from any such school ground or park. A violation of this

Subsection shall be punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor. This Subsection shall not prohibit either (i)

the lawful possession of a firearm when such firearm is carried for purposes of personal safety or (ii)

the lawful possession of a firearm on a public highway within 100 yards of any public school ground or

public park. Nothing in this Subsection shall apply to: (i) recreational shooting on gun ranges at any

public school operated by or with the approval of that school; (ii) recreational shooting on gun ranges

at any public park operated by or with the approval of the owner of the park; (iii) shooting of a starting

pistol at an athletic event on any public school grounds or public park and which is conducted with the

approval granted by the owner of that school or park property; or (iv) lands within a national or state

park or forest, or wildlife management area.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to hunt with a shotgun loaded with slugs. A violation of this

Subsection shall be punishable as a Class 3 misdemeanor.

(e) Except for those persons who are on a parcel of land that is registered in accordance with Section

6­1­3 and who hunt with shotguns loaded with multiple ball shot, it shall be unlawful for any person to

hunt with a firearm which has a barrel caliber larger than a nominal 0.224 inches or to hunt with a gun

and ammunition combination having a muzzle energy greater than a .22 caliber rimfire cartridge. A

violation of this Subsection shall be punishable as a Class 3 misdemeanor.

(f) It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge any gun from or across any highway, sidewalk or

any public land except on a properly constructed target range.

(g) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsections (a) through (f) of this Section, the following acts shall

not be violations of this Section:

(1) Hunting with a shotgun, when such shotgun is loaded entirely with ammunition consisting of

multiple ball shot on a parcel of land for which the land owners, tenants in possession or agents of

such landowners and tenants have been issued an approved registration pursuant to Section 6­1­3

and when such hunting is carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of such registration

and this Chapter; provided, however, that such parcel of land complies with the requirement to post

appropriate signs in accordance with Subsection (a)(3) of this Section.

(2) Recreational shooting with any gun by any person who has an approved registration from the Chief

of Police and who is shooting on a parcel of land in accordance with that registration.

(3) Shooting or discharge of any gun upon a lawful target, trap or skeet range, or hunting preserve,

when such shooting is in accordance with the provisions of any approved registration.

(4) Shooting or discharge of any gun by any law enforcement officer acting in the performance of the

duties of a law enforcement agency. For the purposes of this Section the term "law enforcement

officer" includes any person defined as a law enforcement officer pursuant to Virginia Code § 9.1­101

and any animal control officer acting in the performance of his or her duty.

(5) Discharge of any gun in an entirely indoor target range, provided that adequate provisions are

made to retain within the structure all projectiles discharged.

(6) Discharge of any gun for the purpose of protecting any person from death or great bodily harm.

(7) Discharge of any firearm or starting pistol loaded with a blank cartridge, or other ammunition, not

resulting in the expulsion of a projectile or projectiles.

(8) Discharge of any gun pursuant (i) to an approved registration issued by the Chief of Police or (ii)

pursuant to a permit issued in accordance with Virginia Code § 29.1­529 and with an approved

registration issued by the Chief of Police, if the discharge is on a parcel of land that contains at least

five acres and is zoned for agricultural use; or (iii) pursuant to authorization issued in accordance with

4 VAC 15­40­240 by the Director of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.

(9) Shooting or discharge of a gun by any representative of the Virginia Department of Game and

Inland Fisheries in the performance of duty for scientific collection or wildlife management purposes.

(5­19­60, § 2; 9­14­60; 9­5­62; 9­7­66; 10­26­66; 6­25­69; 8­4­71; 1961 Code, § 28­2; 2­74­28; 8­

83­6; 43­93­6, § 1; 21­94­6; 39­96­6, § 1; 24­04­6.)

The Republicans will never outlaw abortion on the Federal level

Over at RedState Erick Erickson wrote an op-ed titled "The Pro-Life Movement Must Stop Being Whores of the Republican Party".  It is full of whining and complaining that the Republican politicians who promise to ban abortion don't.  In this specific instance, the angst is from the fact that a Republican opposed the latest attempt at kinda-sorta banning abortion because it did not include exceptions for rape.

"I know there are many angered by the title of this post, but the truth hurts. I cannot tell you the number of times I have been to political events where a politician kisses babies and talks Jesus so the pro-lifers in the crowd get thigh sweats and send the politician to Washington. When the politician takes up with his mistress or pays for an abortion or, as Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) did, undermines the pro-life cause, they are just horrified."


I don't understand why pro-lifers are surprised at this.  I've only been paying attention to politics since just before 2000, and I knew within a very few election cycles that at the Federal level, the Republican party will NEVER seriously attempt to give pro-lifers what they want.  (A total ban on all abortions, ever, period.)  Why would the Republican Party give up it's SINGLE most effective tool to get it's base to the polls to vote against their own interests?

"In short, the pro-life movement must stop being the whores of the GOP. The Republican Leadership knows the pro-life movement is in its pocket. They have nowhere else to go. They have no one else to vote for. As much as Republicans look at black voters and tut-tut that they are being taken advantage of by a Democratic Party that knows black voters will not go anywhere, the Republicans are doing precisely the same to pro-life voters."

Except the Dems don't treat minority voters like that.  Mr. Erickson thinks they do, because almost all Republicans seem to be projectionists.  Since the Republicans do it, the opposition MUST be playing the game with the same underhanded tactics they use.

"Our shared agenda will never advance if they keep serving as agents of the GOP. National Right to Life, among others, must stop working so hard to give seals of approval to the GOP and must start fighting the GOP. The pro-life cause must stop being a job protection racket for otherwise failed political consultants and must be a child protection effort willing to fight those failed political consultants and the politicians they back."

Or maybe you could put actual LIVING women first, by providing them the ability to truly be free:  free-to-the-end-user birth control, anonymously and widely available, evidence based sex ed, and yes, abortions on demand and without apology.  THAT would truly reduce abortion rates to nearly zero.  Why, in 2015 is there a single woman in the US who is pregnant without wanting to get pregnant before hand?  Because of shit like this.

"The pro-life cause must stop acting like the Republican Party’s whore and must, instead, show New Testament grace to the world and Old Testament vengeance to politicians."

 I'm not even sure what to say.  Perhaps you could start using evidence, reason, empathy and compassion to women facing difficult choices, instead of trying to punish women for daring to have sex in any way other than YOUR personally God-approved preferred circumstance?

Are Internet Atheists assholes?

I've been an atheist on the internet almost as long as there has been an internet.  I have written, literally, hundreds of thousands of words on the subject of religion, god, and morality.  Online discussion forums, chat rooms, private messages, Facebook.  Hell, I was arguing about religion on AOL, back when that was the only way I could get internet access at home.

One thing that I noticed almost from the beginning:  Internet atheists are assholes.

Before anyone gets all self-righteously annoyed, let's define some terms and I'll explain.  By 'internet atheist' I mean someone who spends their time (free or otherwise) arguing and/or having the discussion about religion with others on the internet.  The people who care enough about truth to try and explain to other people why religion isn't true.  The atheist zealots.  Me.

When I say 'Internet atheists are assholes' please understand this is not the value judgement I am making.  This is the value judgement the religious are making.  Spend enough time publicly speaking out about the fact that religion is false and you'll get called an asshole.  (Or a rough equivalent.)

It doesn't matter what you say or how you say it:  just pointing out that there is no good rational justification for religious belief makes you an asshole - to the believer.

The internet atheist has long had a reputation for being rude, snarky, insulting, etc.  And some are, without a doubt.  But there are many out there who take great pains to be polite, not use value heavy language, not insult, not belittle or be condescending.  And it doesn't matter - believers will still call them assholes.  (Or some other milder term that is a less vulgar way of calling them an asshole.)

The simple fact that an online atheist has to learn to live with - you will be called horrible names by the religious if you have the gall to voice your opinion.

SO, as an outspoken atheist, you are caught in a trap:  if you express yourself, you will be told, repeatedly, that YOU are the person with the problem, and you are the person who needs to change they attitude, tone, language, etc.  (Usually while at the same time being threatened with eternal torture, threatened with imminent physical harm, told you have no capacity for morality, etc.)

It gets old, fast.  Especially if you are trying very hard to be polite and kind to the believers you are engaging.

But the question comes up; why are there some internet atheists who truly ARE (or seem to be) assholes.  They literally do meet every comment, question, or religious meme with a venom and invective much more suited to responding to some vile villain in a mid-day melodrama.

There's a few things everyone needs to understand about the online atheist phenomena:

1:  This isn't small groups anymore, isolated, alone and in hiding.  There are literally hundreds of websites devoted to hosting the argument being had.  The single largets and most used is probably reddit's r/atheism discussion forum.  With just over 2 million subscribed readers it covers every topic imaginable, nearly daily.  The subreddit devoted exclusively to arguing about religion r/DebateReligion has over 25,000 members, and generates over 300K pageviews each month.  (With the unique pageviews being in the low 50K range monthly.)

2:  It isn't just that I refuted this argument 6 years ago. I have refuted it at least once a week, every week, for the last several years.  What I mean is that every single argument in favor of gods has been decisively dealt with, repeatedly.  Internet atheists have written voluminous amounts on EVERY SINGLE argument religious believers make.  And that has created permanent archives, widely available.  But the believers keep presenting the same (bad) arguments every day.  Referring again to reddit:  Pascal's wager is posted nearly once a day as a challenge that atheists can't answer.  (Obviously, it's been answered repeatedly.)

3:  I would wager that your average preacher does not deal with the as much adversarial discussion of these ideas during their career as the average internet atheist does in a year.  Yes, I am SERIOUS about this claim, even though I have no data I can present to back it up besides my own anecdotal experience.  The average religious person will NEVER have to defend their faith in a rational, logical manner.  The average internet atheist defends their position damn near daily.

4:  I think Tim Minchin said it best "I think the trouble with being a critical thinker or an atheist, or a humanist is that you’re right. And it’s quite hard being right in the face of people who are wrong without sounding like a fuckwit. People go “do you think the vast majority of the world is wrong”, well yes. I don’t know how to say that nicely, but yes."  Atheists get accused of being arrogant, self-righteous, and know-it-alls, to name but a few.  And this is the root of it:  EVERY piece of evidence, every valid argument, every single experience of every human's life confirms the non-existence of god.

Atheists ARE right.  And no one is a bigger asshole than the guy who is right, and knows it.

What's Congress up to? 114th Congress edition, volume 1

Today is the new 114th Congress' second day on the job.  As you know, the mid-term elections improved the Republican's majority in the House, and gave them the majority in the Senate.  Just in case it hasn't been made clear this is NOT my preferred state of affairs.

Yesterday, Congress did a lot of procedural stuff, like re-electing John Boehner Speaker of the House.  But today, all the bills sponsored by the new members of Congress have appeared on congress.gov.  The full text of the bills is not yet available (gotta give them time, there's 239 bills to input), but the titles and numbers are all available. Today, I just want to point out the titles of a few of these bills, so you can see what kind of things your elected reps are pushing.

Religion drives the division on the abortion issue, not gender

On BigThink Orion Jones has a piece up claiming that the General Social Survey (an opinion poll of US adults going back decades) supports the idea that abortion is not an inter-gender issue.

   "The greatest difference in opinion over abortion rights exists between women at opposite ends of the political spectrum, not between men and women as is often supposed in popular culture."

I am tentatively in agreement.  (I have not had a chance to review the raw data yet.)  When I ran for Congress in 2012, I got asked about my stance on abortion more than anything else.  (The second most popular question was whether I would send my kids to public school if elected.  Yes, of course I would.)  While I didn't take rigorous notes about the people asking, my memory says I fielded this question from roughly ten times as many women as men.  And of the women who asked, almost all of them were concerned that I would work to make abortion more accessible.  (This was in a major metropolitan area too.)

The women who were opposed to abortion were, every single one, highly religious.  Most of the men who asked about abortion were also highly religious but again; I was asked about my position on abortion by at least ten times as many women.

The abortion issue in our modern day is I think mostly fought by women; highly religious women on one side, less or non-religious women on the other.

There will never be another band as big as The Beatles

Laughed at this yet?

Now, I'm not going to be all curmudgeonly and lambaste these kids for not knowing who Paul McCartney is.  The point I want to make is that it shouldn't be a surprise that they don't know who he is.

Abstract Failure

Who remembers being in grade school and being introduced to the mathematics concept of 'variables'?  For some reason, if you took a standard 2 + 2 = 4 formula and put in a blank ( 2 + _ = 4 ) then most of them were alright, but if you put in a variable (2 + X = 4 ) some of my classmates were brought tears.  They could not handle the undefined nature of the variable before the solution was found.  They needed X to have a concrete value, and will be even more confused if we try to explain that the "X" itself is arbitrary, and it could have been a "Y" or "Z". They simply never grasped the power of the algebraic concepts they were being taught.  The fact that they could very easily subtract 2 from 4 to find the value of the blank in their workbook did not magically imbue them with the understanding that they could use any symbol instead of a blank for any problem and perform the same operations. They failed to abstract the general principle, despite many concrete examples, and never became comfortable with dealing with abstracts, nevertheless sequences of abstract operations.

I've seen many examples of Abstract Failure, in all arenas of life. The funny thing is that some people will be completely capable of abstracting in their professional capacity, or in one particular subject, but then lose all ability to abstract in other domains. This can make it difficult to have conversations about important intellectual issues. Let's take a common example:

Looking for the right analogy: Part 1

Many matters are muddled by the misappropriation of metaphor. Or, to phrase it positively, one can often clarify a situation considerably by substituting alternative words and seeing if the logic still holds up. For example, when faced with a seeming mystery involving the brain, it might be useful to see whether or not the feeling of mystery remains when a different organ is substituted for "brain." This will typically (but not always!) deflate the argument pretty quickly. With that in mind, I give you: The Stomach In a Jar Problem.

(Image modified from Sinfest)

This may seem silly, but, in fact, it works surprisingly well, as you can see if you read on....