pouët.net

doomdoom information 175 glöps

• general:
• level: user
• personal:
• first name: Victor
• last name: Von Doom
• cdcs:
• cdc #1: Vi Elsker Darkhawk by Depth [web]
• cdc #2: StarCraft 2 cracktro by Razor 1911 [web]

• invitation Windows Boozembly 2009 Invitation by Accession
• What Stingray said.
• isokadded on the 2009-08-05 22:49:02
• invitation Windows Assembly 2009 invitation by Andromeda [web] & Excess [web] & NoooN
• Decent!
• rulezadded on the 2009-08-03 23:05:14
• 4k Windows Lunaquatic by BluFlame [web]
• Yeah 9500GT here. At 640x480 I'd expect a little more than 1 FPS. Is there something wrong or is it really just that slow?
• isokadded on the 2009-08-03 23:00:10
• wild Animation/Video i feel hundred years old by Flo [web] & Grey Park [web]
• They say true artists are never appreciated in their own time. Who am I to argue. ;)
• sucksadded on the 2009-08-03 22:51:28
• 4k procedural graphics Windows Smoking Kills by Loonies [web]
• Quote:

  3)
  - Do you want to go to the pub?
  - They'be smoking.
  - The disco?
  - They'be smoking.
  - The cafeteria?
  - They'be smoking.
  - My home?
  - You'be smoking.

  
  
  A) Yes, smoke-free pubs have been rare in the past, but there's a reason for that. Specifically, lack of demand, as discussed above. It's the same reason that it's hard to find a vegan restaurant - if you belong to as small a group as vegans, you'll have to do a little bit extra to find the right place to eat. What could be more natural? How else would you expect a market economy to work? When your wishes align with the mainstream, you get catered to everywhere you go. When you have niche requirements, it's a little harder.
  
  B) Same goes for discos. If you can't find one, it's because there's no demand. If you insist that there's demand but no supply, then you're either deluded, or you've stumbled on a goldmine, and I can hardly feel sorry for you for having such an amazing an opportunity. I'd say you're probably deluded because you're suggesting that you know more about the industry than people with a lifetime of experience in the industry and who make it their business to stay in touch with the market. But even if you were right, you should use this special knowledge to fill the gap in supply - not only would you be providing a (as you see it) valuable service, you'd solve the problem without taking away other people's choices, and as a bonus you'd get filthy rich doing it. How could you not want that?
  
  C) Smoke-free cafeterias were not rare before the smoking ban. Again you have the same supply/demand issue as before, but this was one area where nonsmokers cared enough to actually create demand. And because what they wanted were smoke-free cafes, then consequently there were lots of smoke-free cafes.
  
  See here for more.
  
  
  Quote:

  Pub is for drinking and eating.

  
  
  And loud music and alcoholics and the smell of piss and pulling birds and playing games. Or is that not allowed because that's beyond what your dictionary says?
  
  
  Quote:

  Club is for loud music and dancing.

  
  
  And drinking etc.
  
  
  Quote:

  Cinema is for watching a movie.

  
  
  And for secret blowjobs.
  
  Sorry, you don't get to define what business another person's business does. It's none of your business, literally because it's not your business, it belongs to someone else. "Pub is for drinking and eating" - except if the owner says it's also for karaoke, pub quizzes and bingo nights, then it's also for karaoke, pub quizzes and bingo nights. If he buys a pinball machine, you can add pinball to the list of that pub's functions.
  
  Even if for some odd reason we were to respect your arbitrary definition of what a pub is, calling for a law to enforce that definition is still bullshit. You see smoking pubs have always been in high demand, whereas nonsmoking pubs have always been in low demand - so it's natural that pub owners have mostly wanted to allow smoking in their pubs. They don't care about your definition of a pub, in fact they don't care about anyone's definition. They care about providing the service that their customers want.
  
  So if we did enact a law that legally defined the function of a pub the way you describe, the first action I would take as a pub owner would be to declare that my business is no longer a "pub", it's a "smub" - which I would then define as a place for eating, drinking and smoking. And how would you justify a smoking ban in a smub, since a smub by definition is a place where you can smoke?
  
  Do you see where I'm going with that? You're talking about a law that forbids indoor smoking in any business, arguing from definitions, even though definitions were never the issue. A pub could arbitrarily redefine itself as a smub, or even stop selling drinks and just become a "smokery", but smoking still would not be allowed since the new smoking ban - and that's what we're taking issue with. We don't mind if you have a place to go where you can drink in a smoke-free environment. By all means, go to that smoke-free pub down the road. Or open your own. But what you're trying to justify is a law that takes away other people's choice of what type of business to run, and other people's choice of what type of pub to go to, because you personally wanted them to make different choices. It's pure selfishness.
• isokadded on the 2009-08-03 22:07:14
• 4k Windows Lunaquatic by BluFlame [web]
• Framerate is just... makes it unenjoyable I think. :(
• isokadded on the 2009-08-03 10:00:05
• invitation Windows Syntax Party 2009 invite by Disaster Area [web]
• !
• rulezadded on the 2009-08-02 18:35:46
• wild Windows crinkler unpacking tutorial by #hack.se [web]
• Nice enough little tutorial, but really doesn't belong here, does it? + =
• isokadded on the 2009-07-31 16:31:39
• 4k procedural graphics Windows Smoking Kills by Loonies [web]
• Quote:

  rtype: "niche" requirements? weak demand? wtf are you on about - non-smokers are the majority by a long way, at least in this country.

  
  
  And this is why arguing for a ban is so pathetic. Don't you get it? It's perfectly possible to run tiny-niche businesses like vegan restaurants, vinyl record stores, specialist freaky sex toy shops, Lada dealerships, you name it.
  
  But what you're saying is that even though the majority of people (the biggest fucking niche you can imagine) really wanted smoke-free pubs to go to, not one business-minded individual realised it! Not one! No one stopped to think, "oh hey, there are millions of pub-goers out there desperate for someone to provide them with a smoke-free pub - if I open a chain of smoke-free pubs I'll make billions! Yay!" Not one person had this idea which, according to what you're saying, is probably the best idea ever, and certainly a very obvious one.
  
  
  Quote:

  The fact that all pubs are now smoke-free suggests that there's actually huge demand, or these laws wouldn't have happened.

  
  
  No, the fact that these pubs are now smoke-free by law proves that the demand was not only not "huge", it was far too tiny for smoke-free pubs to work. If there had been demand, there would have been supply.
  
  Moreover, if what you say were true, then the smoking ban means pubs are now catering to a larger group than they were before. So profit should be up, not down. Well guess what, it's down, way down. Pubs are struggling, closing down, people are losing their jobs or finding themselves in huge amounts of debt because the businesses they invested their lives in are suddenly no longer profitable. But at least you're happy and that's what counts. :/
  
  There's a further implication that I'm sure has already crossed your mind: if what you say about the demand for smoke-free pubs is true, then the smoking ban is no longer necessary. You see, now that pubs have realised they're catering to a much larger number of customers than before, why would most of them not keep the no-smoking policy even if the ban were lifted?
  
  You can't blame McDonalds for serving junk food if nobody ever wants the salad.
  
  
  Quote:

  I could have told them to stop smoking, but I wouldn't do that because it's their choice to do so and I respect that.

  
  
  So... you're saying you passed on the opportunity to work out your differences in a polite and friendly manner, out of "respect", but you feel justified in supporting a law that sorts it all out for you with threats of fines and criminal prosecution. And you really don't see an inconsistency there? Where did the "respect" go? Where did "their choice" go?
  
  
  Quote:

  - You have a right to smoke

  
  
  Yes.
  
  
  Quote:

  - I have a right to not smoke, and shouldn't be forced to breath in your smoke after you've smoked it too

  
  
  Check.
  
  
  Quote:

  - We both have a right to visit the pub

  
  
  D'oh. You have no more right to demand entry into a private establishment than I have a right to demand entry into your home. There are laws to prevent discrimination specifically based on race and such, but there is no law that says you can demand that a business accepts you as a customer.
  Your right not to smoke is guaranteed by your freedom not to go into places where there is smoking going on.
  
  And before you start whining about "your friends" again, no, you don't have a right to be around your friends, either. In fact if you need to argue that it's your right to be around your friends, then you have a pretty fucked-up friendship going on there. Friends work things out. If you can't find a way to be around each other that you can all agree to, then you're not friends.
  
  
  Quote:

  Solution: the smokers smoke outside or in a separate place, everyone drinks beer and has a laugh inside. I don't get why people have any problem with that.

  
  
  Solution: Talk to your friends instead of letting the law talk for you. I know, your solution is simpler. But mine is better.
  
  
  Quote:

  cancer is perhaps just a bit more serious than risking some ear damage.

  
  
  The difference in risk is actually not that obvious. Ear damage is pretty much guaranteed with continued exposure to loud music, whereas the dangers of secondhand smoke are seen as slight statistical tendencies. Whether you breathe secondhand-smoke constantly or not, you're very unlikely to get lung cancer. Not saying the difference in risk is insignificant, of course, but it's meaningless without some perspective. Just the fact that you guys keep bringing up cancer shows your perspective is way off, since cancer is not the main danger associated with tobacco (that would be heart disease).
  
  Another thing to consider is that tobacco is not the main danger associated with going to the pub - that would be ethanol, the neurotoxin in your beer. It seems a bit stupid to complain that the guy sitting next to you is elevating your risk of getting cancer from 0.0056% to 0.0057% while you're voluntarily drinking large amounts of poison which will do permanent damage to your brain and other internal organs. Not to mention you're doing it deliberately to lose control over your actions. Maybe you'd care if mentioned ethanol is known to cause cancer? Or is that too much perspective for you.
  
  Even so, risk is completely besides the point. The point is, if I don't like the risk I can GTFO. You know, sometimes we have to take a little responsibility for our own safety. You'll be well aware if smoking is going on the second you enter a pub, and it's been explained to you quite thoroughly by the state how bad this is for you. So you have all the information you need to protect yourself, and the freedom to do so. In fact protecting yourself is a NON-action, less effort than putting yourself at risk, what the fuck more could you ask for? Oh right, your friends...
  
  "But I want to be with my friends and my friends don't respect me enough to go to a smoke-free place with me and I'm really too afraid to tell them how I feel about their smoking and boohoohoo". Is it any wonder that your friends don't respect you a whole lot if that's your attitude? Be a man! Tell them the smoke bothers you - unless they're complete bastards then they'll respect that. Really.
  
  
  Quote:

  Hence why smoking in such places is now banned :) You're still free to smoke, you're just not allowed to do it where it's harming + annoying lots of people.

  
  
  I can harm and annoy IQ in the park if I want. I don't really want to, though. I'd much rather go to some closed-off designated smoking area like, dunno, a pub...
  
  
  Quote:

  A bit inconvenient for you when the weather is bad perhaps, but you're no longer risking other people's health and making their clothes and hair stink. Surely a win?

  
  
  Not getting through here...
  
  Eh. Sorry for the rant. At least this prod will have the tallest comment page ever. ;P
• isokadded on the 2009-07-31 15:27:24
• 4k procedural graphics Windows Smoking Kills by Loonies [web]
• What's wrong with you people?
  
  
  Quote:

  It's so painful to see addicts trying to do everything to justify their dirty habits instead of just quitting...

  
  
  And it's so painful to see otherwise decent people turn into self-righteous dicks when they feel they have a little bit of power over others. What business is it of yours? Nobody asked you to hang around in places that allow smoking, and from what I gather the problem isn't a lack of alternatives. So what exactly is it?
  
  "Smoke annoys me tremendously"
  - Then stay away from smoke
  "But I want to go to pubs, shouldn't I be allowed?"
  - Then go to no-smoking pubs
  "But my friends all want to go to smoking pubs"
  - Is it friendly to deny them that option?
  "But they have a filthy habit!!!"
  ...
  
  The arguments invariably jump all over the place because there is no single coherent argument that would possibly justify a smoking ban in private establishments. Like I say, outdoor smoking bans make some degree of sense, but if you honestly feel that smokers are disgusting creatures, why do you insist on going to the same pubs that they go to? Why not let them be disgusting all by themselves if that's the way they want it? Oh, because they're your friends so you have a right to be around them, even if it means they have to be forced to go out of their way to accomodate you. "Friends." Pfft.
  
  
  Quote:

  yeah let me know when loud music gives you ear cancer

  
  
  Are you saying very loud music isn't harmful? Are you serious?
  
  *sigh* thank you for missing the point, though. Which is that whether or not it's harmful (and it is), I can easily avoid it if I don't like it. And I have no right to demand that other people adjust and businesses cater to what I want. Unless I'm almost completely alone in wanting what I want, then there will either be other businesses catering to me, or there will be at least a niche market waiting to be exploited - either way there is no need for legislation. If I'm really only one of few people who want quiet pubs (as it seems I am), then there is no justification for legislation - I can't in good conscience demand that a very large number of people give up something they like so that I can have something I like. But then that's just me being oldschool. I know free democracies are very untrendy these days.
  
  I don't smoke anymore, BTW, haven't in a good while.
• isokadded on the 2009-07-30 00:02:51