delta_9
Bluelighter
Hah, not with my crappy machine. I have a few emulators but don't play them much anymore.
Indeed.
-
PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe |
☮ Social ☮ PD Social: Cross-dimensional chatter. Now featuring mesphereomeantoliopeme.
- Thread starter Solipsis
- Start date
- Status
helium-4
Bluelight Crew
Man how lame is this... I have 9 lighters right in front of me, all of which has died in the past 2-3 weeks. I tried to find some matches last night and I was successful, but I've already ran through them. I gotta get this candle up and running with one of these dead lighters lol.
lulzkiller
Bluelighter
Basic lighter survival tip:
If you have one lighter with a broken ignition, but with plenty of lighter fluid in it, and one lighter will a working ignition but no gas, you can eject gas from one while lighting the gas with the other.
If you have one lighter with a broken ignition, but with plenty of lighter fluid in it, and one lighter will a working ignition but no gas, you can eject gas from one while lighting the gas with the other.
delta_9
Bluelighter
If they were bics then that's a huge bummer. If not, well then what can you expect from a non-bic lighter? ![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
Is there no way you could possibly use a stove to get something lit to transer to that candle? I wouldn't suggest trying to light the candle itself off a stove, but maybe tightly roll up a small piece of paper into a makeshift wick?
Is there no way you could possibly use a stove to get something lit to transer to that candle? I wouldn't suggest trying to light the candle itself off a stove, but maybe tightly roll up a small piece of paper into a makeshift wick?
Duh, I would hope he thought of that
delta_9
Bluelighter
http://www.donoharm.us/
Unrelated to your lighter fiasco. However I encourage everyone to have a look. This is right up PDs alley :D
Unrelated to your lighter fiasco. However I encourage everyone to have a look. This is right up PDs alley :D
Roger&Me
Bluelight Crew
Haha I've been in that position before. Its the weirdest feeling to have a bunch of drugs at your disposable, but to be unable to procure something as basic as fire. :D
Jesusgreen
Bluelight Crew
Since there was a little Mac vs Windows vs Linux talk on the last page I'll chime in
Having used Linux, OS X, and Windows, imo the advantages of each system are a lot different to what people usually say. I think it really depends on your needs, technological capabilities etc to which system is right for you.
Linux:
Speed is hands down where this wins. No Mac or Windows machine will ever run as fast as well as a Linux box, you can easily get your boot time down to ~5 seconds even with 3-4 year old hardware, really put your hardware to good use and get the best out of it. Linux machines are also the fastest gaming machines around, when people say Linux machines can't run games, what they mean is that most popular games are built using Direct X and other software that unfortunately only runs on Windows. In reality Open GL is just as capable as Direct X and supports Windows, Linux and Mac OS X, but it'll be a long time before the majority of developers make the switch or consider using both.
Another plus side is the lack of malware for Linux. You've probably heard the saying that Mac is virus-free, but in reality no OS is, just Mac and Linux have fewer malware programs written targeting their OSes due to their userbase being smaller than that of Windows. Statistically, Windows has the most malware by far, Mac comes second, and then Linux has a minute fraction of the malware of either system. Whichever one you use you should always have anti-virus software, firewall etc installed though.
This one also wins out for being Open Source of course, but that also causes Linux's major downside - fragmentation, and I'm not talking the disk kind, since there are so many different distributions out there, the worldwide programming effort for Linux is split up big time, and at the very least it takes a long time to choose which distribution suits you.
Use Linux if: You're tech-savvy and are willing to go through and spend time configuring your settings for a good many hours you'll get a beast of a computer, running at insane speeds, with a little cost reduction over other computers, and free updates for life. Also use if you're not concerned with using the most popular applications but are more than happy with free open source alternatives. It's also worth considering using if you don't game and just want a fast cheap computer for daily tasks, with little maintenance required.
Don't use Linux if: You want something that's at its fastest out of the box, or you are a gamer looking for a wide selection of the most popular games.
OS X:
Speed/usability out of the box is where Macs come out top. The reason you buy your Macs prebuilt and don't build them yourself is because they are already configured for the specific hardware they run on. This is why so many people will boot up a Mac after having used Windows machines all their life and be amazed with how fast it runs from the get go, and how smooth it seems.
Macs also have the advantage of bringing Unix to the masses. Linux is based on Unix but due to the difficulty of setting up many of its distributions and even the easy-to-use ones being fragmented into hundreds of different distributions and versions they all have a smaller user base, less support, and of course, being free and not bundled with your system there's no way of calling up your support line or sending your system in for fixes if something goes wrong - unless you're paying your local technician. Macs on the other hand have bundled Unix into an easy-to-use system that has a massive userbase, and have made a lot of people learn the basics of a Unix system.
The major downsides of Macs are the price and the lack of options for customisation. In the simplest terms, you are always paying too much when you are buying a Mac. You can often price up a Linux or Windows machine, OS included, for as much as $400+ cheaper than a similarly specced Mac, and essentially, with OS X being a well-configured edition of Unix, you're basically paying someone $400+ to set up a distribution of Linux for you and configure it for your hardware, while not getting to choose that hardware. With some Macs though the price gap is smaller, just be sure to compare and contrast with custom build PCs when looking for one. The lack of customisation limits you in speed because you are almost always unable to get the fastest hardware out. Similarly to Linux this also suffers from a lack of game developers who're willing to make Mac versions of games, however that's slowly changing, and Mac has a lot more support for popular games than Linux does, by far.
Use OS X if: You don't want to spend time configuring your system and want things running smoothly from the get go, combined with better support from more popular applications and games, while not needing everything that's available to Windows. Also use if you're not willing to build your computer yourself/get someone else to, prebuilt Windows machines, like Macs, are overpriced, and so if you're not going to customise then the Mac is the better choice, and will run faster and last longer for the same amount of money.
Don't use OS X if: You're looking for customisation. If you're looking for software or hardware customisation options you're far far better off with either a Linux or Windows machine. Also don't use if you're just buying your Mac for Photoshop, Photoshop runs just as well on a Windows machine which will be at a lower price tag, and there are even free alternatives for all three operating systems. Same goes for Garage Band etc, they all have alternatives that run on Windows/Linux, which are usually similarly (or better) fleshed out.
Windows:
Software development base is where Windows comes out on top by far. Windows has the largest market share and as such there are far more developers targeting Windows machines alone and not bothering with OS X or Linux at all. This means more programs (both free and paid), more games, though on the downside more malware. If you're not prepared to run a good free anti-virus program and regularly scan your computer then this makes Windows a very risky option, but if you are this opens you up to a much wider variety of choice than the other systems combined.
Windows is fully fleshed-out with this huge variety of software and games and still affordable. While Linux has low support by application developers and is free, and OS X has medium support by application developers and is very expensive, Windows is rather cheap and offers the most applications of all the systems as already mentioned. This means Windows is really the winner on customisation, as although it doesn't quite have the ability to take apart and configure your OS to a deeper level like with Linux, it goes far further than a Mac and then offers you the widest variety of software, while still working with all hardware. In general with Windows, if someone wants to send you a file or an application, you know it's going to work on your system, whereas with Linux or OS X, this is less likely by far.
The real problem with a Windows machine is that it requires the most maintenance out of the three systems. If you're not willing to scan your machine, set your computer defragmenting, making system restores, backing up data etc you're likely to run into many problems in the long run. This can be tedious and most users would rather avoid all this extra work and just have it done for them. Now with fewer ways to really customise your operating system to the wide variety of hardware you could be running, you're also not going to get your machine as fast as a Linux machine, ever, but on the flip side, while you're not as fast out of the box as a similarly specced OS X machine, with a little configuration you will run much faster - and you beat both systems with the ability to actually use your hardware for all of the latest games.
Use Windows if: You want to be able to use the majority of applications and games available and care about the availability of software, there's really nothing that's off limits to a Windows user thanks to this. Also use Windows if you're a gamer, this simply should be your first choice system, so many more games available, and even the games that have been ported to Linux and OS X will run faster on Windows simply due to the fact that they were designed first-hand with Windows in mind - Windows is the system for gaming really, beating even consoles by far in selection of games, speed at which it'll run them, and price per game.
Don't use Windows if: You don't care about using the big brand applications and games and are happy with a smaller selection of software, as really Windows relies on its wide support for different software to make it win out, and without that would lose out to both Linux and OS X. Don't use Windows if you're going to buy a store-built machine, always pick the parts and build yourself, you're going to be paying the same price for a prebuilt Windows machine as for a prebuilt Mac, only you'll get some cheap no-name brand Power Supply and Motherboard, resulting in your system dying within the next 1-4 years, and running nowhere near as fast out of the box.
Tl;dr: Linux is best for max speed if you have time to customise it, OS X is best for usability and good speeds out of the box and for people not willing to build their own systems, Windows is best for those who want a wide variety of games and applications and are willing to build their own machines.
Having used Linux, OS X, and Windows, imo the advantages of each system are a lot different to what people usually say. I think it really depends on your needs, technological capabilities etc to which system is right for you.
Linux:
Speed is hands down where this wins. No Mac or Windows machine will ever run as fast as well as a Linux box, you can easily get your boot time down to ~5 seconds even with 3-4 year old hardware, really put your hardware to good use and get the best out of it. Linux machines are also the fastest gaming machines around, when people say Linux machines can't run games, what they mean is that most popular games are built using Direct X and other software that unfortunately only runs on Windows. In reality Open GL is just as capable as Direct X and supports Windows, Linux and Mac OS X, but it'll be a long time before the majority of developers make the switch or consider using both.
Another plus side is the lack of malware for Linux. You've probably heard the saying that Mac is virus-free, but in reality no OS is, just Mac and Linux have fewer malware programs written targeting their OSes due to their userbase being smaller than that of Windows. Statistically, Windows has the most malware by far, Mac comes second, and then Linux has a minute fraction of the malware of either system. Whichever one you use you should always have anti-virus software, firewall etc installed though.
This one also wins out for being Open Source of course, but that also causes Linux's major downside - fragmentation, and I'm not talking the disk kind, since there are so many different distributions out there, the worldwide programming effort for Linux is split up big time, and at the very least it takes a long time to choose which distribution suits you.
Use Linux if: You're tech-savvy and are willing to go through and spend time configuring your settings for a good many hours you'll get a beast of a computer, running at insane speeds, with a little cost reduction over other computers, and free updates for life. Also use if you're not concerned with using the most popular applications but are more than happy with free open source alternatives. It's also worth considering using if you don't game and just want a fast cheap computer for daily tasks, with little maintenance required.
Don't use Linux if: You want something that's at its fastest out of the box, or you are a gamer looking for a wide selection of the most popular games.
OS X:
Speed/usability out of the box is where Macs come out top. The reason you buy your Macs prebuilt and don't build them yourself is because they are already configured for the specific hardware they run on. This is why so many people will boot up a Mac after having used Windows machines all their life and be amazed with how fast it runs from the get go, and how smooth it seems.
Macs also have the advantage of bringing Unix to the masses. Linux is based on Unix but due to the difficulty of setting up many of its distributions and even the easy-to-use ones being fragmented into hundreds of different distributions and versions they all have a smaller user base, less support, and of course, being free and not bundled with your system there's no way of calling up your support line or sending your system in for fixes if something goes wrong - unless you're paying your local technician. Macs on the other hand have bundled Unix into an easy-to-use system that has a massive userbase, and have made a lot of people learn the basics of a Unix system.
The major downsides of Macs are the price and the lack of options for customisation. In the simplest terms, you are always paying too much when you are buying a Mac. You can often price up a Linux or Windows machine, OS included, for as much as $400+ cheaper than a similarly specced Mac, and essentially, with OS X being a well-configured edition of Unix, you're basically paying someone $400+ to set up a distribution of Linux for you and configure it for your hardware, while not getting to choose that hardware. With some Macs though the price gap is smaller, just be sure to compare and contrast with custom build PCs when looking for one. The lack of customisation limits you in speed because you are almost always unable to get the fastest hardware out. Similarly to Linux this also suffers from a lack of game developers who're willing to make Mac versions of games, however that's slowly changing, and Mac has a lot more support for popular games than Linux does, by far.
Use OS X if: You don't want to spend time configuring your system and want things running smoothly from the get go, combined with better support from more popular applications and games, while not needing everything that's available to Windows. Also use if you're not willing to build your computer yourself/get someone else to, prebuilt Windows machines, like Macs, are overpriced, and so if you're not going to customise then the Mac is the better choice, and will run faster and last longer for the same amount of money.
Don't use OS X if: You're looking for customisation. If you're looking for software or hardware customisation options you're far far better off with either a Linux or Windows machine. Also don't use if you're just buying your Mac for Photoshop, Photoshop runs just as well on a Windows machine which will be at a lower price tag, and there are even free alternatives for all three operating systems. Same goes for Garage Band etc, they all have alternatives that run on Windows/Linux, which are usually similarly (or better) fleshed out.
Windows:
Software development base is where Windows comes out on top by far. Windows has the largest market share and as such there are far more developers targeting Windows machines alone and not bothering with OS X or Linux at all. This means more programs (both free and paid), more games, though on the downside more malware. If you're not prepared to run a good free anti-virus program and regularly scan your computer then this makes Windows a very risky option, but if you are this opens you up to a much wider variety of choice than the other systems combined.
Windows is fully fleshed-out with this huge variety of software and games and still affordable. While Linux has low support by application developers and is free, and OS X has medium support by application developers and is very expensive, Windows is rather cheap and offers the most applications of all the systems as already mentioned. This means Windows is really the winner on customisation, as although it doesn't quite have the ability to take apart and configure your OS to a deeper level like with Linux, it goes far further than a Mac and then offers you the widest variety of software, while still working with all hardware. In general with Windows, if someone wants to send you a file or an application, you know it's going to work on your system, whereas with Linux or OS X, this is less likely by far.
The real problem with a Windows machine is that it requires the most maintenance out of the three systems. If you're not willing to scan your machine, set your computer defragmenting, making system restores, backing up data etc you're likely to run into many problems in the long run. This can be tedious and most users would rather avoid all this extra work and just have it done for them. Now with fewer ways to really customise your operating system to the wide variety of hardware you could be running, you're also not going to get your machine as fast as a Linux machine, ever, but on the flip side, while you're not as fast out of the box as a similarly specced OS X machine, with a little configuration you will run much faster - and you beat both systems with the ability to actually use your hardware for all of the latest games.
Use Windows if: You want to be able to use the majority of applications and games available and care about the availability of software, there's really nothing that's off limits to a Windows user thanks to this. Also use Windows if you're a gamer, this simply should be your first choice system, so many more games available, and even the games that have been ported to Linux and OS X will run faster on Windows simply due to the fact that they were designed first-hand with Windows in mind - Windows is the system for gaming really, beating even consoles by far in selection of games, speed at which it'll run them, and price per game.
Don't use Windows if: You don't care about using the big brand applications and games and are happy with a smaller selection of software, as really Windows relies on its wide support for different software to make it win out, and without that would lose out to both Linux and OS X. Don't use Windows if you're going to buy a store-built machine, always pick the parts and build yourself, you're going to be paying the same price for a prebuilt Windows machine as for a prebuilt Mac, only you'll get some cheap no-name brand Power Supply and Motherboard, resulting in your system dying within the next 1-4 years, and running nowhere near as fast out of the box.
Tl;dr: Linux is best for max speed if you have time to customise it, OS X is best for usability and good speeds out of the box and for people not willing to build their own systems, Windows is best for those who want a wide variety of games and applications and are willing to build their own machines.
helium-4
Bluelight Crew
Still no luck yet. I can get a small flame occasionally from an individual lighter or using one's gas and once flint, but I don't have enough time to either light an old match or the candle I've been using with the matches. I've wasted way to many hours trying to find any still working lighters this today, I really wish I wasn't being lazy and decided not to drive a mile away to pick up a bic.
In my old apartment my roommate and I usually were set with lighters, but we always had a case of matches lying around for situations like this, or days when I just can't seem to find where I last put one.
Hopefully it'll take five more minutes and I'll be able to smoke some UR-144
In my old apartment my roommate and I usually were set with lighters, but we always had a case of matches lying around for situations like this, or days when I just can't seem to find where I last put one.
Hopefully it'll take five more minutes and I'll be able to smoke some UR-144
yucatanboy2
Bluelighter
What's up PD?
long time no see. I spent the last week and a half in Barcelona (soooo much fun!) on vacation with my wife (it was our late honeymoon, we never had one when we got married back in 2010). Before that I was at a conference and busy at work. Unfortunately, i think the stress of leaving Barcelona had made me come down with a cold.
Dang it america, why don't you have cute little restaurants on every street with super cheap wine and tasty tapas?!?! I miss barcelona soo much. Also, that city loves its tapas. One night when I was out at a club, a Spainard on MDMA gave me some weed for free
. Also, I just randomly found a 20 euro bill on the street one morning. Awesome.
long time no see. I spent the last week and a half in Barcelona (soooo much fun!) on vacation with my wife (it was our late honeymoon, we never had one when we got married back in 2010). Before that I was at a conference and busy at work. Unfortunately, i think the stress of leaving Barcelona had made me come down with a cold.
Dang it america, why don't you have cute little restaurants on every street with super cheap wine and tasty tapas?!?! I miss barcelona soo much. Also, that city loves its tapas. One night when I was out at a club, a Spainard on MDMA gave me some weed for free
. Also, I just randomly found a 20 euro bill on the street one morning. Awesome.
Jesusgreen
Bluelight Crew
Set up candle. If it's not a free-standing one, find a holder, set it down, now take the two lighters, hold them over the candle wick - one with flint, one with gas, but them next to each other, release the gas from one, keep sparking the other until it lights. Never fails me when I'm too lazy to go get new lighters :D - I always tilt the lighters so they're both facing up rather than towards each other, I've always been worried that having them face each other would cause the lighter with gas to explode in my hand (unlikely, especially with so little gas, but we can be paranoid can't we?
)
RhythmSpring
Bluelighter
^ Isn't DXM a dissociative AND a psychedelic?
delta_9
Bluelighter
^No 5ht2a agonism that I'm aware of.
RhythmSpring
Bluelighter
^ Is that what defines psychedelic? Salvia has no 5h2a agonism and it's an "atypical psychedelic" according to erowid. I thought psychedelic was defined more by subjective effects than pure pharmacology.
delta_9
Bluelighter
"Traditional" psychedelics ie tryptamines, phenethylamines, and ergolines are all full or partial agonists at 5ht2a. There may be some exceptions but this is a general rule of thumb. Of course related 5ht receptors and even other receptors types come into play as well. But psychs can be broadly defined by this pharmacological action.
I think there needs to be a distinction between psychedelics, dissociatives (most of which are NMDA antagonists ie ketamine, pcp, dxm, etc), deliriants(anticholinergics ie dramamine, diphenhydramine). All of these drugs can and are lumped together at times as they can all have "psychedelic" or "trippy" aspects.
I should state some notable exceptions like salvia for example, which has activity at opioid receptors but is still best classified as a dissociative. Amanitas as well act on GABA but I would also say are dissociative. There are other examples but I'm too lazy right now
I suppose you could think of this as mostly semantics anyway. Most of these drugs have a wide range of action, and IMO the 5ht agonism best defines those "traditional" psychs.
I think there needs to be a distinction between psychedelics, dissociatives (most of which are NMDA antagonists ie ketamine, pcp, dxm, etc), deliriants(anticholinergics ie dramamine, diphenhydramine). All of these drugs can and are lumped together at times as they can all have "psychedelic" or "trippy" aspects.
I should state some notable exceptions like salvia for example, which has activity at opioid receptors but is still best classified as a dissociative. Amanitas as well act on GABA but I would also say are dissociative. There are other examples but I'm too lazy right now
I suppose you could think of this as mostly semantics anyway. Most of these drugs have a wide range of action, and IMO the 5ht agonism best defines those "traditional" psychs.
delta_9
Bluelighter
Sorry for this double post but my post count was at 8,666 and that made me kinda scared.
I feel better now :D
I also can't spell
I feel better now :D
I also can't spell
Last edited:
Thorns Have Roses
Bluelight Crew
Ack, the nomenclature argument rears its head again. My opinions are all on record.
You sure it wasn't being in a confined space on airplane or some such occurrence?
I'm totally jealous you got to go Barcelona (never been outside the US, well I did when I was 1 year old, but that doesn't count). Any particularly tasty dishes you would like to relate to us?
tucansam said:
You sure it wasn't being in a confined space on airplane or some such occurrence?
I'm totally jealous you got to go Barcelona (never been outside the US, well I did when I was 1 year old, but that doesn't count). Any particularly tasty dishes you would like to relate to us?
helium-4
Bluelight Crew
I couldn't thing tonight until I went and got a lighter. However much good that may be, the price for a regular big was over $2.00. Had to buy a 7/11 lighter. 7/11 Sucks. Everything is so over priced there I don't know how so many of them are in business within a mile and half from me. Also this lighter is going to be tragic and more than likely run out sooner than a bic.
Well, time to get high. Just which I had a cig, but cannabinoids should be good enough. The first day without any cigs is that hardest, becoming not much of a thing after a week.
Well, time to get high. Just which I had a cig, but cannabinoids should be good enough. The first day without any cigs is that hardest, becoming not much of a thing after a week.
Thorns Have Roses
Bluelight Crew
^
Herb patch and vineyard
Lighten the burdens of men
Atlas bears true life
Herb patch and vineyard
Lighten the burdens of men
Atlas bears true life
Last edited:
helium-4
Bluelight Crew
Well I find the found my "assumingly" lost 2c-p bag and decided to randomly dose. Vaped like a total of ~5-6mg. Feeling pretty good, just wanna smoke some cannabinoids and chill out.
Edit: fuck, forgot I'm out of cigs. Cigs are a must for tripping even if I only smoke 1/8 of one at a time.
Edit: fuck, forgot I'm out of cigs. Cigs are a must for tripping even if I only smoke 1/8 of one at a time.
Jesusgreen
Bluelight Crew
I've been thinking about the whole classes of hallucinogens thing and really I now think the best would just be to classify by receptors activated, it saves confusion with people thinking that a dissociative could fall under the psychedelic class etc - and while for example some GABA agonists can be very similar to NMDA antagonists, and Salvia's k-Opioid agonism too can bear resemblance to these, I'd say that they're significantly different enough that there could at the very least be sub-classes.
What we'd name them is another matter. GABA-A agonist "dissociatives" have always intrigued me the most, they seem to sometimes bear more resemblance to NMDA-antagonists, sometimes to deliriants, and sometimes a mixture of both (e.g. Ambien, Amanita Muscaria).
What we'd name them is another matter. GABA-A agonist "dissociatives" have always intrigued me the most, they seem to sometimes bear more resemblance to NMDA-antagonists, sometimes to deliriants, and sometimes a mixture of both (e.g. Ambien, Amanita Muscaria).
- Status