[Olug-list] Re: Vurdert røykeforbud under OLUG-samlingene i bunkeren?

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Remco B. Brink wrote:

 > Per Inge Oestmoen <pioe@coldsiberia.org> writes:
 >>The assertion that something is "reasonable" or "unreasonable" is in
 >>itself a statement based on personal beliefs.

 > Just as much as the assumption from your side that smoking is
 > ukultur. I disagree, therefor you can not pose it as a fact.

I was hitherto unaware that disagreement in itself gave grounds for 
rejection of a particular claim.

 > If you think smoking has a negative effect on culture, especially
 > after you mention the runner who made good times during the height
 > of his smoking and running career (sport is afterall part of 
culture > as well), then you'll need to present quite some more compelling
 > arguments in your favour.

It depends on what kind of culture one wants to cultivate. As we 
should all realize, one can hardly argue against any potential or real 
negative cultural factor without resorting to norms. Those again must 
be founded in the demonstrable effect of the phenomenon in question, 
related to one's long-term goals for the culture.

 > Ofcourse the next question is how significantly the impact of those
 > tar particles is compared to the general lifespan of harddisks
 > nowadays.

In the same way one might pose the question whether the tar inside the 
lungs of Lauenborg or others shortens the individual human life 
significantly. Since these things are not capable of direct 
measurement, one has to make (seeming) arbitrary judgments based on 
careful analysis of the results of different patterns.

Some forward the case that those who are not smoking are nevertheless 
forced to smoke in the presence of smoking companions, and that this 
is objectively bad. However, I see the problems inherent in that 
position too, since the smoker may demur, saying that (s)he is as as 
entitled to the pleasure of smoking as the non-smoker is to the 
enjoyment of tar-free air.

Either way, one of the parties will likely experience a reduction in 
pleasure. That is why I propose that the hard drives be given the 
final word. ;-)

 >>I guess that we may _reasonably_ conclude that any habit that 
 >>destroys _hard_drives_ is most definitely _ukultur_.

 > Nope, we can reasonably conclude that any habbit that destroys
 > harddisks is bad for the harddisks.

If something that is even mildly destructive for HDD's is not 
considered ukultur, then it bodes no good, since we need to keep our 
disks as long as possible, in order to wait out at least a five-year 
period with drives incorporating extensive copy-control until "free" 
drives are again available.

 > If it's ukultur or not is a totally different matter altogether ;-)

There may be reason to feel a slight disappointment upon learning that 
a habit that leads to the accumulation of tar on the indide of hard 
drives is not generally accepted as a bad cultural element even among 
computer lovers.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway