Computer games that don’t make sense

I found a new computer game recently.

It's not a car simulator nor a flight simulator.  It's not a submarine simulator nor a city simulator.

It's a smoke simulator.

Yes indeed, folks, this is SimSmoke that allows you to set conditions to see how choked up you are going to be under various situations.

I gave it a go.

It's a bit of a wonky site but I finally settled on driving a moving car with the windows wide open, and enjoying a virtual fag at the same time. [They didn’t have a simulation for pipes]

It gave me a nice little graph showing my virtual exposure to virtual smoke over a period of virtual time –

SimSmoke graphNow I am a little confused.

Herself likes to strike up on a car journey and if the windows are closed, the place can fug up a little.  As I have an aversion to cigarette smoke I like to clear the fug out as quickly as possible.  I have discovered that opening my window just draws the smoke across my face, so I close my window and open hers, just a few millimeters [or an inch] will do the trick.  There is a sucky noise and whoosh – all the smoke has vanished.  The smoke from her fag then proceeds to travel in a dead straight line from her fag-end to the open window leaving me to puff my pipe in peace [the smoke from which now travels in a line across Herself to her window.  Heh!].

But the graph above tells me that I will be driving for a full twelve minutes or so, while the smoke fills the car to capacity when suddenly, with a bang it's all gone?

I checked the simulation to see if they were trying to fool me by leaving the windows closed for twelve minutes before opening them [which would have given the graph above, by my experience], but as far as I can see the windows were open all the time.  What the fuck is going on?

I can only conclude that there is something seriously wrong with either my car's windows or the fags Herself smokes.  Somehow our smoke is dispersing much too quickly.

After all, computer simulations are far more accurate than the real world?

 

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...

There will be no such thing as smoking

In surprise announcement that surprised nobody, the WHO last night urged that the word "smoking" be removed from all languages from the 1st March next.

In addition, they want a total ban on the words cigarette, pipe, hookah, tobacco, ashtray, fag [except when referring to homosexuals], butt [see “fag”], ashtray, cigar and inhale.  

Research from the University of California suggests that 100% of smokers were aware of those words before indulging in the deadly addiction and that the use of the words was a pernicious ploy on the part of Big Tobacco to force children to buy their products.

Starting from today, all books will have the blacklisted words removed and replaced with "health" and its grammatical variants in all languages.  For example "He lit his cigarette and blew a stream of smoke to the ceiling" will become "He lit his health and blew a stream of health to the ceiling".  This will remind people that they should be concerned with their health rather than simple pleasures.

The "health substitution" law will also apply to speech, so as and from March customers will be obliged to ask for "20 healths" at their tobacconists [or a packet of health, in the case of pipe smokers].

Similarly, all films and television programmes will have the offensive words bleeped out and residual visual cues will entail an "over 65" rating.

A spokesman from the World Health Organisation said in a press statement that "this was the endgame for Big Tobacco.  They have been recruiting our children by the use of these evil words which are nothing short of blatant and subliminal advertising, and this has to stop".

When asked about penalties for the use of the soon-to-be-banned words the spokesman smirked.  "We have been saying for years that smoking kills and we mean to make this a literal fact.  The use of those words will of course incur the death penalty.

When asked for a comment, the Tobacco Industry replied that they weren't worried.  "The WHO has just run out of ideas and is getting desperate.

They're only a shower of unelected fucking cunts anyway."

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (5 votes, average: 4.20 out of 5)
Loading...

Paradoxical research

This really has to be one of the best bits of research to date.

Fat and stupid… the shocking fate awaiting children of smokers revealed.

Wow!  Is this the Unified Theory where they have managed to combine the horrors of second hand smoke with obesity and stupidity?  If only they had managed to include alcohol they would have achieved the hat trick.

So what exactly have they discovered?

Well, the first startling revelation is that they "found the passive smokers had much more body fat than their equally heavy peers not exposed to cigarettes".  So in other words, they took a bunch of fat kids and found that there was essentially no difference between their weights except for those exposed to second hand smoke whose fat was then the same weight as those not exposed?  This would be truly amazing except that it makes no sense whatsoever?  There was more of them but they were still the same?

Then we come to the startling outcome that kids exposed to second hand smoke are thickos. 

She said this can translate to a poorer attention span and lower grades in the classroom and on standardised tests, adding: "We are talking about a recipe for an unhealthy child who becomes an unhealthy adult who cannot reach their full potential."

Bang go all those budding Einsteins so, and all because the parents smoked?  [On second thoughts, Einstein smoked so he wasn’t a budding Einstein either!]

Dr Davis added: "Doesn't everyone want their children to be as smart and healthy as they can possibly be?"

Oh do go and fuck off.  The only interest they have in children is to slot them into the headline.

Surprisingly, passive smoking did not appear to worsen breathing problems, such as snoring and short periods of not breathing while the children slept.

It also appeared unrelated, at least at this early age, to prediabetes, insulin resistance and fat around internal organs in the abdomen, especially dangerous for the development of diabetes, and ultimately heart disease and stroke.

No, it isn't surprising at all.  If they had looked a bit further they would have discovered that smoke has little or no effect whatsoever on a child's health.

She noted 28 percent of the participants were already prediabetic, but the incidence was actually slightly higher in the children who were not exposed to second-hand smoke.

Woops!  I take that back.  Smoke protects them against prediabetes.

Dr Tingen said: "If you are breathing in second-hand smoke, it is almost as bad as if you were smoking the cigarette yourself."

Er, can we have some supporting evidence for this little piece of liquid arse dribble?  It's a fucking makey uppey bit of shit and they know it, unless they are seriously retarded.  Maybe their parents smoked?

Data shows half of the US population is exposed at least once daily to secondhand cigarette smoke and approximately 20 per cent of young children live with someone who smokes in the home.

So according to the research 20 epr cent of Americans are obese and stupid?  For once, I can't argue with that.

They do seem to overlook one salient fact in all this research though?

It's a small point but I think it's relevant?

Can they explain how the Twentieth Century produced an enormous surge in scientific knowledge and technical advancement when virtually all the scientists involved would have been constantly exposed to cigarette smoke or even been smokers themselves? Also, I might add, obesity didn't hit the headlines then either?

Through the last century smoking was ubiquitous.  It was almost possible to escape, yet some of the greatest brains survived and obesity wasn't a problem.

Why can't these people just fuck off and get a real job? 

They are a waste of Oxygen.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...

Bubblegum and old socks

I'm not an expert on cigarettes or electrofags.

I haven't smoked a cigarette in well over forty years as I thoroughly dislike them.  If I run out of pipe tobacco I would far rather go without than bum a fag off Herself.  I have an electrofag but rarely use it as I find it leaves an oily taste in my mouth and is a very poor substitute for a rich bowl full of pipe tobacco.

So whenever I prattle on about cigarettes or electrofags I tend to talk from a logical point of view rather than experience.

Take for example today's latest puff piece from the Tobacco Control Industry.  

Teenagers who use e-cigarettes 'more likely to take up smoking', study finds.

I will lay to one side the fact that other "studies" have proved just the opposite [and the fact that the piece is basically a cry from Tobacco Control for yet more funding] and look at this from a logical standpoint.

We are constantly told by Tobacco Control that electrofags are designed to "trap" the cheeeldren and get them hooked on nicotine.  They cite the use of flavours such as Coca Cola and bubblegum as their proof.  So according to them, the kids experiment because of the flavours they are enticed with?  So my simple question would be why would they switch then to cigarettes?

Electrofag flavours – Banana Toffee Chews, Bubblegum, Rhubarb and Custard, Strawberries and Cream, Menthol to name just a tiny sample of the hundreds available.

Cigarette flavours – tobacco, slightly different tobacco, tobacco, weak tobacco, menthol, tobacco.

So why would any kid decide that somehow the taste of smouldering old socks is suddenly preferable to strawberries and cream?  After all, according to Tobacco Control, it's the flavour they're after?

Aha, they say – they switch to cigarettes because they are now addicted to nicotine!  But this doesn't hold water because apart from the fact that nicotine is about as addictive as coffee, electrofags already contain the nicotine they apparently crave and therefore there is no need to switch.

And then there is the minor matter of cost.  I don't know how much is costs to keep an electrofag running, but I can guarantee it is a mere fraction of the cost for ordinary cigarettes which now run at €10.50 just for a pack of twenty.  Why the fuck would anyone switch to something that lacks flavour and costs an arm and a leg?  It makes no sense whatsoever.  It is completely illogical.

To go back to the "study" that sparked this little brain fart of mine, I noticed something strange about it. 

Just under a third of more than 2,300 students had used e-cigarettes when they were first questioned in 2013 at the age of 14, the study published in the journal Tobacco Control found.

Some 20 per cent of those who used e-cigarettes had smoked real cigarettes by the time of the second survey a year later, compared with just six per cent of those who had never used them.

OK, so a few hundred kids had experimented with electrofags the first time around.  Kids experiment, and that is perfectly normal.  Obviously that third had inquisitive minds.  Then they come back a year later and guess what?  Those experimenters had also experimented with cigarettes!  So what?  When you go to buy a pair of shoes, don't you try several pairs before making your purchase?  What conclusion can you possibly deduce from this other than kids like to experiment, and that some of them had tried cigarettes?  How many of those who had tried cigarettes had gone back to electrofags?  We're not told.  How many had decided that either electrofags or cigarettes were not for them at all?  We're not told.  In fact we are not told anything other than what the "researchers" want us to hear.

Now if they had gone back a year later and discovered that every kid from the first sample who had tried electrofags was now firmly hooked on a forty a day habit I would concede they might have a point.

But then you can't let the facts get in the way of a good scare story?

 

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (5 votes, average: 4.60 out of 5)
Loading...

Trying to explain insanity

Roof Bloke called around yesterday.

There is a tricky bit of work to be done Up There.  The water cistern sits on top of the flat roof and is encased within a cabinet, and the latter has finally succumbed to old age.  Seeing as it mainly consisted of chipboard and has lasted nearly fifty years I think it deserves a good funeral?  I would have replaced it myself [seeing as I built the original] but when it comes to waterproofing roofs, I prefer to leave it to the professionals.

Anyhows, we went up to the roof so he could take measurements.  He admired my building work and I admired his steel tape and then we repaired to the kitchen for a cuppa.

I don't know how the discussion started but we got onto the subject of smoking.

He apparently gave up recently.  I said fair play and was he now using electrofags?  He replied that he was tempted but that he had heard that they were as dangerous as ordinary fags. 

I asked what he had heard.

He said he had done some searches around the Interweb and that a whole load of sites were saying that they were as dangerous or in some cases even more dangerous than the smoky type.  He even mentioned Popcorn Lung.

I had to laugh, but in a sad sort of way and not an hilarious sort of way.  I explained that all those "studies" about Popcorn Lung and the cries of deadly danger were from the Anti-Smoker Lobby who for some inexplicable reason were dead against Electrofags.  I told him that the "studies" were full of crap, exaggerated and in most cases downright lies.

But that makes no sense, said Roof Bloke.  Why on earth should they be against them if they are so good at helping people quit?

And here's the rub.  How do you explain insanity to a sane person?  How do you explain colours to someone who is born blind?  How can you possibly give an answer when trying to explain the inexplicable?

I told him I didn't know.  Furthermore I said that I doubted the Puritans know.  My guess is that they are furious that they have been blindsided.  They had their nice roadmap set out for a tobacco-free world and that everything would be done their way, when suddenly a device comes along that not only isn't on their roadmap but is far more effective than they ever were at getting people off the smokes.  They could see a future where they weren't needed any more and didn't fancy giving up their fat salaries and research grants.

He thought about this and agreed it made sense in a perverted sort of way. 

As the conversation progressed it transpired that he too is an Anti-Nanny in a huge way, and his bugbear is Big Pharma.  I have a funny feeling we are of similar minds.

He's a nice chap is Roof Bloke.

I don't do this often but I might even let him off the bill for the roof.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (9 votes, average: 4.56 out of 5)
Loading...