How do I delete my account please?

[How do I delete my account please?]

20 hours ago, Sallubrious said:

I don't hate you Ano, I just don't agree with you, I never said anything personal but you took it that way and lashed out at me.

 

@Sallubrious - funny, I was just about to say the same thing!

I haven’t taken any of this personally. There were some remarks which addressed me personally, & I responded to those in kind, but I didn’t assume they were personal attacks. Of course, since several of the more inflammatory comments have since been deleted/hidden, much of the context for the more heated arguments is now missing, and it appears as if me & Horsie are just overreacting to the comparatively-moderate comments that are left. But even of the more outrageous remarks, most weren’t responses to anything I’d actually said - so it’s hard for me to get too offended by those, since the only people I saw being attacked were strawmen. (Personally-offended, that is - I can be still be offended by falling debating standards )

 

I’ve seen the whole thing as an interesting discussion & intellectual debate. I might *have* emotional responses to comments, but I try not to confuse my own reactions with someone’s intent, or to assume a personal attack unless that’s explicit. Likewise I wasn’t trying to attack you personally - I addressed some of your remarks directly, but I thought that’s what people do in debates. I was challenging the *ideas* that you presented, not you, or your “honour”. We’ve had some good discussions over the years, and I consider you a friend. Nothing has happened to change that, and if you decide to stay on I will look forward to our future discussions. Just y’know, maybe not this particular topic.

 

And we should table any future debates until our respective real-life dramas are resolved/improved, because the stress from these life-&-death situations is fucking hectic and we’re probably projecting a lot of that into an already-tense topic - which doesn’t make the best environment for any kind of constructive dialogue. In the meantime, let me know if there’s anything I can do to help - I’m still your friend and am here for you if you want.

[Watch this space]

@Responsible Choice, wow. The "like" seemed insufficient, this needs a "HOLY SHIT!"
 

Quote

 

In San Francisco last week, District Attorney George Gascon announced that his office will be automatically applying provisions of Prop 64 to remove convictions going back to 1975 for activities that are now legal under state law. Gascon noted that policies of the past were unevenly enforced, and disproportionally affected minorities.

“We want to address the wrongs that were caused by the failures of the war on drugs for many years in this country and begin to fix some of the harm that was done not only to the entire nation but specifically to communities of color,” said Gascon.

 

 

 

[Just say "no" to sniffer dogs]

Also, you make some good points @Northerner, I certainly didn't intend my post to be a Compleat Guide to handling police/dog encounters - although I can see that it might've looked that way, and I should try to find one of those & link to it here as well - I think Torsten wrote something like that a whiles back...

 

I mainly just wanted to draw attention to a few points that I thought those guides/advice often either miss or under-emphasise, as a lot of people are apparently making the same mistakes re:consenting/admitting guilt, and so are inadvertently helping the cops, not only to solidify any charges against them, but also to support the whole program!

 

You're right that being polite & cooperative is generally a good strategy (a small but significant number of arrests under the sniffer-dog program have charges even though no drugs were found! - "resist arrest, offensive language and assault police"), but I find it helps to know where "cooperation" becomes "needless self-incrimination", and on the flipside, the difference between "polite lawful refusal" and "belligerently hindering police operations", as these can be fine lines to walk. The former can mean the difference between being arrested on drug charges & being free to leave; while the latter can be the difference between those things & maybe being left in the back of a paddywagon on a hot day. I mightn't have your generous perspective of police officers and their motivations, but that doesn't mean we disagree on how to handle encounters. I too think that you should be polite & respectful, if only because you're less likely to have your arms broken "resisting arrest" that way.

 

[Just say "no" to sniffer dogs]

As Northerner points out, customs/quarantine sniffer dogs is a very different story to cop dogs. @Crop, I really doubt the table-turning will work for a police search. I have seen plenty of "indications" by the dog (which resulted in that person being searched for drugs), where the only "indicating" that I could see was the dog sticking its head into their shopping bag to sniff some sausages or something. I thought they were supposed to sit down or something, not just express an interest in a smell. I dunno, maybe it indicated to its handler in some subtle way that I missed. But whether or not the dog made a real positive indication or not is beside the point if the person just agrees to be searched anyway.

 

And hey, I guess we're not the only ones to realise that dogs react to things they shouldn't: because another loathsome tactic which has been used by Sydney sniffer-cops is to target methadone clinics. Methadone apparently gives a false-positive for the dogs, which the cops know about and deliberately exploit (along with the afore-mentioned strategy of just bullying people to consent, so that the original grounds for suspicion becomes irrelevant) to let them search every person exiting the clinic with their lawful takeaway doses. They could probably do the same thing outside of pain clinics & pharmacies as well, but they don't, because if they treated anyone but junkies like this it would be considered harassment. In my book, this is akin to ambush-raiding outside injecting rooms or pill-testing tents. Actually, I think this is worse. All of them are a kind of breach of trust but at least they can claim a zero-tolerance excuse for harassing those other facilities (as they're about harm reduction rather than discouraging illicit drug use). But when they target methadone patients, they're effectively punishing people who are trying to stop their illicit drug use - so it's not only anti-harm-reduction, it's not even defensible from a zero-tolerance point of view.

 

But hey, I'm sure they get some real big busts at bloody Kings Cross 'done clinics, FFS. I'm sure that even though a majority of searches will come up empty (as always), and even though the vast majority of all sniffer-dog seizures are of tiny amounts (from memory only ~3% were "traffickable", the rest were mostly minor possession charges & cannabis-cautions*), yeah I'm sure that this is a totally worthwhile & cost-effective strategy for reducing drug trafficking, and not the counterproductive, cruel & petty bullshit that it appears on the surface. Because yeah, you just need to look around an average methadone clinic to see that all the patients here are clearly wealthy, organised criminals, who must just be forgoing luxuries like food, new clothes & dental care as part of their disguise. Almost as bad as Redfern station - apparently another major hub on drug-smuggling routes, which definitely operate mostly via public transport.

 

(*sorry I can't find the source right for those stats again right now, will post a link if/when I do)

[Tips for re-potting seedlings?]

If you're using any medium with fine dust or fibres (especially if they're light enough to get airborne) - rockwool, perlite & vermiculite spring to mind as particularly nasty ones, though I'm sure there are others too (from memory even super-fine sand is bad news)... keep it misted with water to minimise the dust, and wear a dust-mask. Some of these things can cause silicosis, you really don't want to be breathing them in. I've never been clear how much damage those same fine particles/fibres can cause to skin/eyes/etc, but figure they'd be capable of causing some irritation at the very least. So if you're getting reactions after handling certain media - maybe next time try wetting it down & wearing mask/goggles/gloves if you weren't already?

[[ENDED][GIVEAWAY] Fresh Kratom Seeds From Malaysia (Mitragyna speciosa)]

Wow, very generous MeanGreen. Great to hear a little about the clone saga too, thanks Darklight!

 

93

[Just say "no" to sniffer dogs]

6 hours ago, SayN said:

I eventually relented and agreed because I feared that not doing so might give them cause to instantly rock up to my house instead.

Yep, I've done it too. And that's one reason I wrote this - I know how hard it is to think clearly about these things when the pressure is on, and how hard it is to stand up to people with guns who are saying you should agree with them. But there are really good reasons for not taking the apparent path-of-least-resistance in this situation. They are very good at making it seem like things will go easier on you if you agree, where in reality they are going to search you regardless - and if you're clean, that is all they are going to do.

 

Just as they're good at pressuring you to consent to the search. Really you have no choice - you need to cooperate (unless you want extra charges of hindering/obstruction/whatchamacallit), but if you consent and they find something, their chances of making the charges stick are near 100%. Whereas there aren't really any downsides to not consenting, so long as you do it in a polite and cooperative way: "thankyou, but I would rather not - though I do intend to cooperate here since you don't actually need my permission, do you?" (that is likely to be a rhetorical question - they usually try to dodge answering it outright, possibly because even my polite-to-cops voice is still sounding like a smartarse - I'm sure you can do better ).

 

Also in non-sniffer-dog situations they may not actually have "reasonable suspicion" to search you, in which case they might just be fishing, and relying entirely on coercing your consent to make the search legal. So there's another reason not to give it.

 

 

Quote

what i really resented, apart from being paraded through the pub to the 'searching area', was how they went through my wallet and recorded my name, address etc  I mean if they found nothing on me surely there was no reason to record anything.  I'm curious what my legal rights were in relation to this; could/should I have protested at the time and/or followed it up the next day?

Okay like I said not a lawyer blah blah, but as I understand it, this procedure is just as much for your protection. Sure, they'll make it seem intimidating, but that's kinda their job. And think of the alternative, where they don't have to keep any kind of record of who they grab & search. I've seen that version of NSW Police, and think we'd all prefer the tedious name-and-address rigamarole that holds them accountable. If it reaches the point where you are being searched every day, or are subjected to those "more intrusive" searches, or detained for searching so you're late to your new job or a court appearance, for instance, it can be very helpful to you that these records are kept. Bringing charges of harassment or misconduct against police is never going to be easy, but without a record that such searches ever happened, it may be damn near impossible.

And just from a pragmatic point of view, you actually are required to identify yourself to any police officer who asks in this situation (and many others, here's a rundown). Refusing to do so is an offence in many situations (a snifferdog search being one of them), which on it's own would probably just get you a fine & detained until they could identify you, but in the context of a search can also be considered grounds for suspicion all on its own - so even if they found drugs but their other grounds for suspicion were found unreasonable in court (and the charges would be normally be dismissed) - refusing to identify yourself to police is itself considered suspicious activity, and could put those charges back on the table.

[Just say "no" to sniffer dogs]

Okay, we really need to stop enabling these underwear-sniffing police officers. I’m not judging, but they should find some less harmful way to indulge their fetishes. So I’m here to help.

 

tldr:
- If stopped by sniffer-dog-cops to be searched DO cooperate with them, but you don’t need to consent to the search - ask them to note your objection.
- If you're clean, DON’T admit to recent contact with illicit drugs (even after they’ve cleared you). This benefits no one except the cops, who use these admissions of guilt to pad their poor detection rates. It’s not your job to justify their shitty false-positive rates for them.

 

Okay, now for the long version. Let’s start with a few figures, to give an idea of the size of this problem (I mean program):

 

The NSW Police Detection Dog unit costs $9.42 million per year to maintain. Just one dog, with one handler, bills a hefty $148.50/hr. NSW Greens have estimated the total cost of running a standard 3-dog “festival unit” to be ~$6000/hr, or $30K+ for a one-day festival.
 

Approx 250,000 body-searches per year are conducted by NSW police, around 5% of these used sniffer dogs to justify their search, which otherwise may have lacked “reasonable suspicion”.

 

Ugur Nedim, of Sydney Criminal Lawyers, advises that admitting to illicit drug use/contact/possession before consenting to a search, can later be used to solidify the police position of having “reasonable suspicion” to search you, in the event that drugs are found. If you keep your mouth shut, the police will have to defend their position and explain why you were singled out, which might give you a chance of having the case thrown out. Their usual default excuse is that you were “agitated” or “behaving erratically” or the somewhat-circular “trying to evade” the dogs/police (eg. crossing the road). If possible, ask them (before the search) why you were suspected, and what you are suspected of - there’s a slim chance this info could be helpful to you at trial. If they do find drugs in their search, and you didn’t consent (it’s illegal not to cooperate with police - so you need to submit to the search, but be sure they have registered your objection as well), try to get hold of any witnesses or video footage which could be used to counter their claims of erratic behaviour, or approaching known drug dealers, or whatever other bullshit they claimed as their "reasonable suspicion". It’s legal to film the encounter (or ask someone else to) so long as you aren’t breaking any other laws to do so (eg. hindering police, trespassing, etc).

If you didn’t consent, and their grounds for suspicion are found unreasonable, you may be able to get the charges dismissed, as Nedim concludes:

Quote

Accordingly, any search based upon a positive indication alone would be unlawful, which means that any evidence derived as a result of the search (eg any drugs found) would be subject to the exclusionary provisions of section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW); in other words, the case could be thrown out of court on the basis of illegal search

 

Do be aware though that this is only a possible argument, not an iron-clad one. Depending on the circumstances, police might say that your mere presence in the vicinity was reason enough to suspect you (esp. at public events where they have blanket-warrants). Again, this is probably circular reasoning, as they have likely used that same justification to request a warrant to conduct sniffer-dog operations at that place/event in the first place: “we think you’re carrying drugs because you’re in this area where we think people are taking drugs - so let us search you so that we have some proof of that”. Really they should have some proof first, but if they have a warrant then someone has already signed off on that, and it’s harder to argue with a judge.

 

However even if the search is negative (the cops don’t find anything), how you answer the “have you had any recent contact with illicit drugs” question is still important. Drugs are found in only ~30% of personal searches based on a positive indication by the dog (figures vary, but the average is around there). Given that they often target bars, clubs & events which have high rates of illicit drug use, that figure could be even less impressive than it sounds - I’d love to see a controlled study to see if the dogs can do any better than just a random RBT-style testing.

 

On that note, anyone got an 8-year-old kid? I want to see how many flaws they can spot in this bit of NSW Police maths (we’ll ignore its other problems like the bit where they equate prohibition with harm-minimisation for now and just focus on the figures):

Quote

15 December 2011
Mythbuster: reports on the "record failure" of NSWPF Drug Detection dogs are false and misleading.

The figures quoted were provided to NSW Parliament by the Dog Unit but have been misinterpreted.
The report states that there have been "a record 80% false positives" because only 20% of searches resulted in drug seizures.
The facts:
Of the 17,198 searches by drugs dogs so far this year:
    •    27% have resulted in drug seizures;
    •    61% have resulted in "residual admit' (no actual drugs found but the person searched admitted to having had contact with drugs, explaining the odour that the drug detection dog has indicated);
    •    15% have resulted in "residual deny" (no actual drugs found and the person doesn't admit to having had contact with drugs, attributable to limited powers to conduct more intrusive searches and the person being untruthful about being in contact with drugs).

The total comes to 103% because when multiple types of drugs are detected, the system records the seizures separately but it's not recorded as an additional search.
Sniffer dogs are close to 100% accurate.
They are an important facet of the overall harm minimisation strategy of NSWPF.
In addition, the dogs have a strong deterrence factor: they not only lead to the seizure of drugs from dealers and users, but people also dump their drugs when they see the dogs. Thus these drugs are not consumed and the risk avoided.

 

Hang on. If there were 4643 seizures (27% of 17,198), and some of those were really separate seizures from the same single person/search, then the actual number of “true positives” (dog indications resulting in drug seizures) is going to be LOWER than 27%. If just 10% of those people were carrying just two separate drugs (e.g.. one joint, one pill), then that would drop the % of indications-resulting-in-seizures down to 24% (which happens to be what is left after both the “no drugs found” groups are subtracted from a 100% total). This means that over 9000 of the 12,500-odd sniffer-dog searches each year in NSW (which are conducted with supposedly-reasonable suspicion) don’t find anything.

 

But see what they’ve done there? (I know this example is from 2011, but the same arguments are being used today). They have twisted the math to make it look like a 24%-positive rate is actually an 88%-positive rate (61+27), and then just rounded that up as being “close to 100%”.  Makes me start humming

just to think of it:

 

“Mate, did you know that your car only has one tire?”
“Yeah but that’s all cool, the other three were there recently, and one said he’ll probably be back soon, so that’s kind of like having 4 tires. In fact, I’d just replaced this one here, so it’s almost like having 5 tires!”

 

That is almost the same logic that the “mythbuster” propaganda-piece above has used. I don’t care how many theoretical tyres your car has, NSW Police, out here in reality there’s only one - and 24% is not “close to 100%”. (Now how about you drive your one-wheeled snifferdog program over there into the corner - there’s a dunces cap waiting for you - and you can spend that time thinking about all the better ways we could've spent $9.4 million)

 

And the major factor that is helping them to pad those figures? That 61%. All you folks out there who are needlessly admitting to illicit drug contact (especially after you’ve been searched & found clean!). You don’t need to do this. With only 1-in-5 people plausibly (i.e. when they aren’t carrying drugs) denying recent drug contact, police can argue that their dogs are flawless and that those people are just lying (cops also use this claim to argue for “more intrusive” search powers, btw - that’s cavity searches without any reasonable suspicion). But if the 76% who were clean all denied drug contact, then that argument would become a lot less convincing, making justification of the program much more difficult.

 

Admitting to recent drug contact doesn’t benefit you in any way (and could theoretically be used to get further warrants to search your car/home/workplace, although I’m not aware of any cases where they’ve done this). The only people this benefits are the cops - providing them with ammunition to defend their flawed, unconstitutional, & expensive program.
Please, don’t help them.

 

 

(usual disclaimers about this not being real legal advice - although I do link to some real legal advice above, and encourage everyone to follow those links and confirm all this for themselves)

 

 

 

[I'm high on life...]

Sleep deprivation leads to some altered states for sure. Quite quickly you reach a point where some of those “filters” drop and the world suddenly has a lot more tracers & fractals & such in it. Along with just straight-up hallucinations. It starts out minor - mostly corner-of-the-eye stuff where your brain makes a best-guess at what you glimpsed, and that guess turns out to be wrong.

 

Deeper into sleep debt, those visual hallucinations become more common & enduring, and can be accompanied by auditory hallucinations. I’ve also gotten to where touch signals started going haywire as well (though never proprioception, strangely), but by that point my brain was so fried that it barely registered. Because unfortunately (for seekers of natural highs, at least) sleep dep also leads to just a general loss of cognitive function where you can’t think or react or remember things quickly/well. In more severe cases there are reports of delusional & paranoid behaviour - I think a big chunk of “amphetamine psychosis” is synonymous with severe sleep deprivation. And certainly a lot of the unpleasantness is down to the increased stress that goes with lack of sleep - whether it’s the cause, effect, or a nasty cycle of both. Being stressed all the time means that your body is always in low-level fight-or-flight mode, which is fucking terrible for your general well-being, and brings us to…

 

Long-term effects - these include increased blood pressure, fucked metabolism & digestion, decreased immune function & memory…and some other fun stuff like organ decline & increased risk of heart attack. So yeah, as far as “natural highs” go, it’s the crystal meth of the group - not recommended. If you have no choice in the matter though, there’s a few things I’ve found to help minimise the adverse effects:

 

*low-carb/high-protein/high-fat diet - if you’re awake an extra 8hrs/day, you need to eat an extra meal each day as well, or even two. Making them low-carb stops the sugar-highs & inevitable crashes afterwards, which you really don’t need on top of the sleep dep. Especially if you’re active during these times, or there are stims involved, I really can’t emphasise this enough - your body needs fuel.
*drink plenty of water
*don’t drive - after just 20hrs awake you’re already up to ~2 standard drinks worth of impairment (according to the few studies on this topic which got past ethics approval - I’m sure that many armed forces have more detailed data, but considering how they obtain it, they haven’t seen fit to publish)

*know when to quit - if you're staying awake to study or get work done (or do anything which requires even a little brainpower), sleep dep will really fuck with your ability to function after a while. It's worth doing a little cost/benefit analysis every so often to decide whether it's worth staying up another night - if you're just going to spend half of it reading & re-reading the same paragraph over & over because your brain is fried, it might be more productive to spend those hours napping.
*relax - even if you can’t sleep, take the time to meditate/relax for a little while. Go for a walk, take a long shower, anything. Getting those stress hormones under control will keep your body in better shape and your sanity alive a little longer.

[Cabin Porn]

She may be overdressed by Primitive Tech standards, but she's still chopping down a tree barefoot, with a stone axe, in a matter of minutes. I sure wouldn't be calling "show us yer tits" at this lady if I valued my life.

 

And while I can picture Primitive Tech Guy working an office job during the week and building huts as a hobby, these videos feel more like she just agreed to be followed around with a camera for a couple of days to do the stuff she was doing anyway. I actually don't mind the slower editing - it gives a better idea how long each step takes, and gives some time for the little details like cleaning bamboo or doing those bamboo-twine twist-knots, that would often get cut out of a shorter film - I've got a fast-forward button if I need it, but I can't slow down the other guys videos to watch his knotwork more closely.

[Cabin Porn]

That Primitive Technology guy has some competition here with Primitive Life girl. I'd always wondered how those Asian grannies who trot up mountainsides with 50kg sacks of rice balanced on their heads (to leave their hands free to smoke rollies) got to be so badass... I'm now just going to picture them like this when they were younger.

 

 

Good idea with using bamboo as a post-hole digger, the dirt just gets stuck in the hollow stem - I'll probably actually use that in future as I have the same kind of sticky clay soil to make it work. The technique she uses to break bamboo by scoring around it first looks nifty too - I'm betting it's not as easy as she makes it look, but bamboo is so rough on tools I'm willing to give that a go sometime anyway.

[don't cha hate it when..]

DCHIW your brain tries to be more efficient... I think it might've been secretly listening to terrible motivational speakers while I sleep or something... you know, the kind who abuse words like "proactive" & "synergy"...I don't know where else it would've gotten the impression that this was a good idea.

 

I always thought fibromyalgia was something that just appeared for no known reason, but apparently there's a less common form where it develops secondary to something else. So if you're in bad enough pain, for long enough, eventually your brain can start wondering:

 

"Well we seem to be putting a lot of effort into sending & processing all of these pain signals, how about we optimise this process (& other buzzwordy nonsense) by just becoming more sensitive to those signals so we don't need to send as many to feel the same level of pain? Yay efficiency!"

 

"Er, so you will remember to send a memo out to all the body parts letting them know about this change of procedure - y'know, so they don't just keep sending the same levels as before? ... hello brain? ...are you still there?"

 

Alright, well fibro may be a poorly-defined & probably-untreatable condition, but I learned the cure for "faulty brain" from Homer Simpson years ago:

 

 

Although I'm not sure if beer is gonna be strong enough for this one. Hmm...

 

"Ok Brain, listen up. I have any number of neurotoxins available to me, and I'm willing to try as many as I need to. Remember that time we took nutmeg? Oh ha - that's right, no you don't! Do you want some more myritastic blackouts? Or how about another MXE overdose - I'm pretty sure my body parts won't hurt if I'm not attached to them because I'm spinning through alternate dimensions. There are dissociatives I've never even tried! I've got a bunch of ways outta this pain situation buddy, and likely none of them are going to mean good news for you. So I suggest you tone it down there, unless you want to find out whether between us we can design a failsafe DIY ketamine coma apparatus. Personally I think not, but that might not stop me from trying it out anyway, if this nonsense continues."

[Logged in? But not.]

It always does this to me when I view it from a mobile (Android) - there is nowhere to log in on the home (or subforum) pages. But I learned that if I click on any thread then the login option appears - just scroll down to the bottom of the page. Alternatively if you're not logged in you can try to respond to a thread and the prompt will appear. So you can keep nostalgia-themed Corroboree colours if you like.

[Show us ya camping pix!]

Team Hammock! It's great being able to just stop hiking anywhere (anywhere with trees, at least) you like & set up camp - no need to find level ground with a clearing big enough for a tent or swag. Rocky ground, wet/flooded ground, steep slopes, all good. I've hammocked in swamps, hanging over creeks, on cliffsides, and in canyons during flashfloods, and if you make a few adjustments (eg. hang your pack & boots off the ground during flood times, and remember to climb out the uphill side of the cliff-hammock) you can get some pretty amazing sleeping spots. I've seen people string theirs up high up in tree canopies - that would be awesome to try sometime, esp somewhere like a rainforest with lots of epiphytes & wildlife at that level. You can also purposely hang them loose so they dip down in the middle & work as a sling chair, makes a nice spot to sit & read on hot days.

 

The one I've been using for years is just basic - similar to WB's, you can pick them up for $30-40. The mozzie net is great, and if I don't need it during the day I can flip the hammock over (so the net is underneath) & lay on the clear side. I also have a netless one (they're $13 on ebay) out at my cabin just for day-lounging or emergency guest bed. And I recently bought one of this style where the net stays up on its own - haven't taken it out for a spin yet, but looking forward to it.

 

They're not ideal in really cold weather, and they can be uncomfortable if you hang them badly (eg. tilted, or too loose so it sags in the middle, or tied so that water runs down the ropes into your bedding) or have to share one with other people or all your gear (eg. because of flashfloods or tent failures) - though we have slept 2-3 people per hammock (small people, that is - combined weights <150kg) in emergencies, they do stretch out pretty wide. But once you get the hang of them, they're so comfortable. It's really the best thing: there's nothing like looking up at the stars, being rocked gently to sleep by the breeze, then waking up to an amazing view from the edge of the cliff where you're suspended.

 

On 1/12/2018 at 11:04 AM, waterboy 2.0 said:

Trangia is all I use for cooking , if not on coals. Can get a variety of fuels anywhere to run it.

@waterboy 2.0 I've been looking at these because the wastefulness of those single-use butane/propane canisters drives me nuts. I wasn't sure how efficient they were, but the idea of being able to just burn metho is pretty appealing. What other fuels do you use in yours?

 

I also like that the basic design is so simple & robust you can just DIY out of old cans & stuff (eg. DIY adjustable alcohol stove ), it appeals to the cheapskate & apocalypse-prepper in me.

 

[Cinnamomum Camphora (Camphor Laurel)]

Just come visit NSW or Qld mate, you can probably get people to pay you to take them away.

 

I think that they weren't on Vic's noxious weeds list only because the seeds prefer warm & wet to germinate, and the young plants are frost tender. So it was thought that they wouldn't spread in the colder drier climate of Vic. However they've managed to spread to other frosty areas like the Dorrigo plateau, so the species is either adapting or was even tougher than we realised. Either way frost no longer seems like a reliable contraceptive for camphor laurels - I sure as hell wouldn't bet my ecosystem on it. I notice that Agriculture Victoria still mentions it on their invasive species list, because even though it's not weedy there yet, there doesn't seem to be any reason why it couldn't if given the chance - on their "potential distribution" map covers half the state!

 

And although most of the wild stuff in NSW & Qld is thought to be the one variant ("camphor" chemotype), there are a few different ones which all have slightly different genetics, which may be another reason not to bet on the better-known characteristics - a less common weedy variant in these states ("cineole" chemotype) has been reported to tolerate drier climates for germination, for instance - and there are several other chemotypes as well. This may also be relevant if you wanted this plant for particular compounds or properties - the aromatics vary between the different chemotypes.

 

If they escape into the wild, they shade out other plants & release allelopathic compounds which inhibit the germination & growth of other plants. They seed prolifically & the birds spread them everywhere. They also sucker like mad, so if you try to get rid of them simply by cutting them down you'll end up with a grove instead of just one tree. The leaves & berries are toxic to some animals, and may be the reason for decreased fish populations in waterways surrounded by camphor laurels - they often line creeks & riverbanks, making removal especially tricky without eroding the banks.

 

Whatever you want this species for, it's not worth it.

[Prescription piperazine? Help needed please]

Ok so I see why you got confused about this: flunarizine is indeed "a piperazine"(the chemical class), but it is not synonymous with the individual compound "piperazine". Still confused? Think of "amphetamine", which can be used to describe either an individual compound, or a group of compounds which share a common chemical structure...this is a little like that.

 

"Piperazines" describes a group of compounds which include a similar chemical structure, but which have a very broad range of different mechanisms & activities - there are antihistamines, antipsychotics, antidepressants, antiparasitics, to name a few. Plus of course all of the "MDMA-like" substituted piperazines. Flunarizine has a different mechanism again, being a calcium-channel blocker. These are all different compounds, and because the group is so diverse, any details about one compound within this very broad group "piperazines" are unlikely to apply to another compound from this family. They aren't even clear on the mechanisms for some of them. So while "piperazine" is technically accurate in describing the chemical structure of these compounds, it's not a very useful search term if you want to investigate the safety/activity of a specific drug (unless that drug happens to be the compound "piperazine", which was one of the antiparasitic piperazines).

 

As far as I can make out flunarizine has a pretty good safety profile - no significant interactions, and few side effects other than some drowsiness & possible weight gain. They suggest caution when using it with other sedatives, but only because of the possibility of additive effects, not because of any interaction.

[Mass Scopolamine Overdose in Perth]

14 hours ago, Fenris said:

Bit of a worry though, who was the "scoop" meant for and what was its intended use?

 

Could've just been someone buying their travel-sickness meds in bulk. If you buy hyoscine over-the-counter at a chemist it works out at about $2 per milligram of active ingredient. A couple of grams would be a lifetime supply. Some folks also use it (or a plant containing it) as an adjunct to various psychoactives to reduce nausea, which might've been inspired by accounts of including nightshades in some yage brews, or how it used to be given routinely in hospitals with opioids as an anti-emetic. I've tried a bunch of anti-emetics for many different reasons, and this is still one of the more effective ones I've found.

 

On a tangent, there are indications that some battlefield surgeons (esp in WW2) tried to use the amnestic effects of high doses to therapeutic advantage, dosing recently-traumatised soldiers in an attempt to prevent PTSD, in the same way that benzoes are sometimes still used (in civilian medicine) for this purpose today.

 

So there are real medicinal uses for this stuff, it's not necessarily nefarious for someone to have ordered it. And the insistence on "illicit drugs" in that article is just funny, since you can buy this stuff without a prescription from any chemist - you don't even need to ask a pharmacist, it's right there on the shelf next to the mylanta.

[Meet up: Special SAB Camp NNSW (Memorial for andyamine) All welcome, but registration required.]

I'll have to confirm when we know dates, but yeah I'm keen too. There was too much happening at EGA, I never got a chance to talk with most of you northerners - it'd be good to catch yas.

[RIP andyamine]

I’ve watched Andy help so many folks (including myself) through rough times over the years - sorry we couldn’t return the favour in the end.

 

Seeing you folks at EGA take care of each other I was so proud of the lot of you - you really are an amazing bunch. Hillbilly you’re a goddamn rock, and if you take even half as good care of yourself as you did of everyone else, you’ll be just fine.

 

It was good to have a little time out to grieve properly, in a beautiful place where we didn’t have to worry so much about keeping it together and acting normal. I had the viking camp theme in mind, so late at night went down to the lake that looked like an abyss full of stars and launched a little flaming effigy boat out into that mirror world. And danced with the joy of living so that my goodbye to him wouldn’t be only sadness of death, but also fierce gladness in life. It was nice to be in a place where I could get away with weirdness like that.

 

I talked with a lot of new people over the weekend and one thing that struck me was how many people at the conference had similar stories that had led them there - backgrounds with hard drugs & mental health issues, that they kept to themselves for fear of scaring the gentle tripper types. I know that talking about these things isn’t always helpful, and sometimes it’s better to not dwell & just get on with things - but if you’re suffering in silence because you think no one in this crowd will understand…you’re wrong.  Some have even found ways to heal & repair themselves, and may be able to offer more than just sympathy. All you have to do is ask.

 

There are so many paths that might lead to healing & fulfillment…I understand despair, but it’s not over while there are still things left to try. Every time I want to give up I remember that I still haven’t tried so many things: iboga therapy, quitting my job, living as a squatter & mural artist, coke & hookers til the money runs out, volunteering at an injecting room, or becoming a buddhist monk. And that any one of those might be the thing that renews my interest in life when it all seems lost.

 

So sorry that you didn’t find your peace in life AndyAmine

 

[SAB peeps at EGA roll call! (Who's going?!)]

Cool, will do - and I'll keep an eye out for any fresh fungi on the trip down too. Not long now!

[SAB peeps at EGA roll call! (Who's going?!)]

2 hours ago, karode13 said:

If anyone could bring some specimens that would be fantastic.

Can they be any type, or are you looking specifically for ones of ethnobotanical interest? And do we need to have a clue what they are beforehand, or is that the point of the workshop? I have a couple dried specimens (& photos of the fresh ones) of a species I am very curious to get an ID for, but only because they look weird, not because I suspect them of containing anything interesting.

[Is god a computer programmer?]

12 hours ago, Sallubrious said:

I noticed bluntmuffin (CBL) was back and I was trying to bait him into the discussion

Lol, collateral trollage. Want me to delete my post so you've still got a chance at hooking CBL? I mean, I'm sure mine has all kinds of flaws as well, but they weren't tailor-made for him like yours were.

[Is god a computer programmer?]

8 hours ago, Sallubrious said:

So what becomes the base ruleset, the physical or the quantum ?

It would seem the easiest way to achieve this would be to have the quantum rule set underpinning the taxonomic rule set but it becomes the perfect paradox because everything contained in that (quantum) class ie taxa would have to contradict the base rule set.

Okay, I know virtually nothing about computer programming so this may be a dumb question, but does a system has to be designed with rule sets that apply this way? I mean, is that the only way to build a vaguely-efficient complex simulation? Or is that just how we have been doing it?

 

Knowing nothing about the mechanics, it seems like it should be possible to build this kinda thing where objects are described by the quantum rules, and then the various results are sorted into taxonomical classes - without actually being defined by them. As an analogy think of DNA for the "bottom-up" ruleset that you mentioned, and Linnaean taxonomy as the "top-down" one. A creature's characteristics can be described and classified using either or both, but the only the DNA ruleset actually contributes to them. There is no causative link from the creatures classification, to its characteristics. And so if the Linnaean classification contradicts the DNA evidence (as it so often has) - that doesn't actually matter, because the taxonomy is arbitrary - this ruleset is not applied to the objects, it is defined by the objects. And so there is no conflict - there can't be.

 

This is a genuine question as I don't really understand the fundamental rules computers operate by. But if I go back to the system you described where there are conflicting rulesets... this is a situation I run into a lot at work (database managing stuff) - sometimes these conflicts cause errors, but more often what happens is that one ruleset will be prioritised.

 

So if we applied that concept to a simulation with contradictory quantum/physical rulesets, mightn't that explain things like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle & waveform collapse? And maybe just quantum effects in general? One set of rules says the object is a wave, the other set says it's a particle, but only one of these can apply.

 

(and yes, that last sentence should totally be read in a dramatic "only one can win!" WWF-commentator voice: "Schrödinger's Box: two paradigms enter, but only one will leave" )

[Is god a computer programmer?]

^^

You don't even really need the pantheism, do you? If you accept that your reality is self-generated, that everything IS you, then isn't the pantheon just another thing that is you, and therefore covered by the solipsism?

[Is god a computer programmer?]

I never noticed that I had a centre-justify button. This is great!

ooh, and a right-justify as well!

and I know the left one is just the default that we see all the time, but I'll include it just to be nice _{albeit in a pretty condescending way}

COLOURS!

I never use those either.

• okay, I'm running out of buttons now

1. can someone build some more for me to play with ^{pretty please}?
2.  

 

1 hour ago, Inyan said:

Is god peanut butter?

Well, I mean, it sounds a bit silly when you put it like that, but yes, this is essentially what I personally

_{(in a totally unscientific way, as a fallible & biased human being, which I feel should go without saying but apparently it doesn't because we just had a whole discussion about this being a big issue)}

have decided to believe:

Thou art god, I am god, all that groks is god.

Because if you can't know for sure, then it's best to just treat everything as if it's divine, right?

 

 ...I guess that I can't be sure peanut butter "groks", but better to be safe, rather than risk offending my maybe-creator by dissing it. It's a good thing I like peanut butter. This will be a lot harder for Spam.