Slashdot Mirror
Donald Trump To Announce Mike Pence As Vice-Presidential Running Mate (theguardian.com)
Donald Trump has selected Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his vice-presidential running mate. A senior GOP official, cited by many media outlets today (including the WSJ), confirmed the news, adding that the announcement will be made Friday. The Guardian reports: Pence brings several qualities to the Trump campaign that Republicans have found lacking, not least of which experience in government. The 57-year-old spent 12 years in Congress, including two years in a leadership role with the House Republican Conference. He was elected governor of Indiana in 2012, and gained a degree of national notoriety that's to a controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which he signed into law and then wanted revised, after many argued it would allow discrimination against LGBT people. A Trump-Pence ticket could send a message to Republican dissenters who feel they cannot support a candidate who has proven inconsistent on guns, abortion, LGBT rights and other social conservative issues. Just before the Indiana primary election, the staunchly conservative governor endorsed Ted Cruz, Trump's leading opponent and a far-right senator from Texas.An anonymous reader shared a BuzzFeed article on Pence today. The article digs into some of the opinion pieces Pence has penned over the years. In one such article, Pence wrote that "smoking doesn't kill." "Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill," he wrote. In another piece, he argues that Carbon Dioxide "can't be the cause of increased global temperatures" because it is "a naturally occurring phenomenon in nature..." not an unnatural one.
Editors, do you do anything???
Reaction from conservatives and Republicans on this will be little to zero excitement.
Pence shriveled up in the face of the challenges in his state when the religious freedom act came under assault, and he really bears no marks of being a person who could be sold as a moderating influence to Trump.
However, I suspect that Trump has left himself with few friends and fewer qualified choices, so this is what the Trumpsters get. Mike the Generic Guy.
Here's what Mike Pence said word for word in his so-called "denialist" and "anti-science" article:
And he was right.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
The republicans in Indiana will be celebrating. Pence was going to lose the governorship there if he ran again. So now they can get a new face and possibly retain the governor's mansion.
So, until now at least, it seems to be only a rumour and I wouldn't put past one planted by his campaign to generate buzz to his announcement tomorrow.
I went to the usual sources, and it turns out his ancestry is Irish Catholic, not Native American. (Source: "What You Didn't Know About Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana" by Danielle Burton in U.S. News )
I just googled Mike Pence's legislative history and he is bloody awful!
Totally against abortion, "[2011] remove the mandate on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee to focus on maximum employment", against same-sex marriage, does not want gays and similar to have equal rights, remove restrictions on campaign contributions, reduce taxes on the rich...
He is no friend of the people .
He is a Republican that hates homosexuals. That might make him our first homosexual VP, since most of those types of Republicans are "in the closet" types.
Pence is just as nuts as Trump which is good... for Trump. If Trump picked a good VP and somehow got elected, someone might try to assassinate him just to get the VP in place. Way to double down on the insanity! ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I did not think it possible for a VP nomination to make me even less likely to vote Trump. Guess I was wrong. HRC could pick a fresh steamer out of her porcelain throne and it would be a better pick.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
In my opinion, Trump will succeed not because of his political prowess, but because of who he resonates with.
People are tired of the elite ruling, making decisions based on cronyism and who lines their pockets. Trump isn't afraid to call them out.
The elite don't seem to understand that the non-elite vastly outnumber them, and are tired of their voices no being heard or making a difference.
Will Trump being president be a disaster, probably.. but at least it would shake things up and make the elite take notice how easily they can be replaced by the unsatisfied masses when the option presents itself.
Turing should have been tried as a war criminal for violating the privacy of U-Boat crews. #revisionism
I get the joke you're going for here, but considering what happened to Turing, it's pretty fucking tone deaf.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I think this is an excellent choice, and sure to help Trumps candidacy but on an unrelated note i hope the Trump team can lend a little insight into a common american problem:
you see, ive spent 2 years polishing a giant turd in my backyard, but i cant seem to figure out how to get it to shine. I put it next to a pretty woman, no deal. I set it next to an ugly stack of papers about Benghazi, but that didnt work either. I even took my turd and used it to smear other turds to make them seem less shiny than my turd...but im not entirely clear that did anything since nobody seems to like any of the turds.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric.
*Takes deep breath free of cigarette smoke*. I'm going with back handed big government since I'm not being killed by someone replacing my breathable oxygen with carcinogenic smog against my consent.
Seriously, I know she has no government experience, but she is a strong woman in her own right and if you watch her speak, she is no push over... I could see her as President in 20 years...
She is also one of the few people Trump can really totally and completely trust...
it might soon be legal to smoke marijuana but not tobacco.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
It was out of context of WWII though, that Turing got his punishment.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
there is plenty of evidence to support it. And if it is harmful to me then I have a right to live and you dont have a right to smoke around me. You can smoke anywhere you want, just not around me.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill. In fact, 2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness and 9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer. This is not to say that smoking is good for you.... news flash: smoking is not good for you. If you are reading this article through the blue haze of cigarette smoke you should quit. The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric.
Smoking doesn't kill... except for those one out of every three smokers who die from a smoking related illness. Then he tries to say that the relevant part of a conversation about smoking is really about second hand smoking... On the whole, it's just a bunch of nonsense.
If you take just the part about "smoking doesn't kill" it does make him sound worse than he deserves, but similarly the bit that you quote makes him sound better than he deserves. Mostly he's just spewing gibberish here.
The problem with YOUR wanting to preserve YOUR individual liberty to smoke as you see fit is that YOUR smoking impacts MY well-being in multiple ways; from degradation of air quality, exposure to harmful toxins second-hard, and costs to the health care system. Individuals CAN choose to smoke, but people SHOULDN'T. It IS the role of government to minimize tragedies of the commons and to push the populace to behave in certain ways. It is the choice of THE people to decide how that influence is exerted, and unfortunately some individuals may not like it.
It is much MORE harmful to the nation when we allow such individuals to persuade us that this is wrong.
g=
For all his faults, Newt accepts climate change and calls for "green conservativism", has good attitudes on minorities and women's rights (defended those and a potential woman president in an Ali G interview), and supports a base on the moon and a flight to Mars. What more can one ask for.
Smoking does raise your risk factors for fatal disease dramatically, thus can be said to "kill". Science has consistently shown second-hand smoke has zero impact on anyone, aside from annoying people and irritating the bronchial passages. CO2 is a natural phenomena; the amount of CO2 we're pumping out in the given time frame is *not* a natural phenomena (in so much as human activity can be said to be not natural); and whether you believe the AGW line or the anti-AGW line, that distinction remains a cold, scientific fact, indisputable because it is a comparative mathematical relationship and not a whimsical conclusion drawn from data.
People are persistent in being imprecise.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
There is plenty of evidence to support negative-association reparative therapy to turn gays back into normal people, too; it just happens that the full body of scientific information suggests said evidence is faulty, insignificant, or anomalous.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
There's decades worth of evidence of the harm of second hand smoke. It isn't 1950 any more, Big Tobacco's "research" has long ago been debunked, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a government taking steps to protect people from harmful substances. Your right to smoke ends at my fucking lungs.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Then Trump's perfect running mate. Between the two of them, they can create a cloud of incoherence so thick that no one will be able to tell what the hell they're talking about.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Not only does that make the state's actions worse, it does nothing to alleviate GPs lack of ability to pick a target.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Now if he could only actually raise some funds. And by that I mean not threaten lawsuits.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
keeping other peoples fucking drugs out of my own goddamn lungs is not "big government" that's basic fucking law and order that is a libertarian governments only fucking mandate
shove whatever goddamn needle full of nicotine and tar into your own fucking veins you want, i don't fucking care, so long as I DON'T HAVE TO BREATH IT
you smokey goddamn ash-hole
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Usually propylene glycol, if you've got the good stuff. Frequently acetylamides that break down into diacetylamides, which causes popcorn lung over long-term, extreme exposure. Aldehydes can also form into formaldehyde if you gunk up the mechanism and cause localized hot spots.
The stuff dissolves in air to a less-than-toxic (LC0) dose, and is known-harmless. The ingredients are often published, and almost always well-known. The amount of douchebaggery is readily measurable by how big and gaudy the vaping rod is, ranging from a discrete cigarette-like device to a fat, ornate miniature hookah; you can pick out the inverse by identifying who is smoking motherfucking dragons, since they're usually well-balanced individuals with improved judgment over the baseline population.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
i wish i had seen and upmodded your much more politely phrased comment but i already posted an angry rant to the same effect myself
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
the NIH, CDC, Cancer.gov, American Cancer Association, Surgeon General, International Agency for Research on Cancer, American Lung Association, American Medical Association, just to name a few, would disagree with that statement. But I know, biased sources with agendas.
This means that Pence won't be running for governor of Indiana. Which means he's going to be out of office entirely come 2017.
I'll let my wife know next asthma attack she gets from second hand smoke that she's fine and just imagining her inability to breath.
I keep coming back to the time when Obama flip-flopped on telecom immunity during the run-up to the 2008 election.
People kept pointing out that this one act caused the telecoms to donate more money to him, which got him elected. Given the closeness of the 2008 election, it's plausible that if Obama *hadn't* done this that he would not have become president.
People also pointed out that: "it was necessary to get elected - he can't implement hope and change unless he wins".
It was a rationalization based on "the ends justify the means".
I shudder to think that Pence was chosen simply for this reason - an expedient choice to increase the odds of Trump being elected, and not for his opinions, competence, or experience.
My soul is fading, I am become like the Democrats.
Never mind whether it's even harmful or not. It's arrogant and rude to force other people to breath your fumes, whether they come from your cigarette or -- uh, elsewhere.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
There's no difference – second hand tobacco smoke is tobacco smoke, and your lungs expel much of it unchanged. A trivial literature search reveals this. Tobacco smoke contains active drug. Most of America doesn't want to have to do specific drugs just because you choose to. Do it in your own home, just like users of other inhaled psychoactive drugs have to.
I have read stories about thousands of people who win the lottery and I would not call them elite either. "Elite" is a set of people holding lots of power. Money is just one form of power, but there are many more forms of power. Elites also use that power to scratch each others backs. It's a "click", or a "club". Hillary is a member of the club, Sanders was not. Pence is not, Paul is not, and I think you will see the point and be able to spot the trend.
Trump is interesting though, because he was a card carrying member of that club for a long time. I still like the conspiracy theory that he is on the R ballot and winning only to ensure Hillary gets elected. He is known to be a brilliant showman, and in this case it would have to be a brilliant performance. Give away the punchline and I can see members of the club losing their heads in the square.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The stuff dissolves in air to a less-than-toxic (LC0) dose, and is known-harmless.
Not sure how carefully you're picking your words here...if it's less-than-toxic, that means it's still more-than-nontoxic? Cf. less-than-lethal weapons vs. nonlethal weapons.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
That selective quote is just as bad as the bias you claim to be against.
He wrote "Time for a reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill. In fact, 2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness"
So 1 in 3 does die from a smoking related illess Mr Pence? And you are going to use THAT statistic as support for "smoking doesn't kill". When it kills 1/3rd of smokers? How many smokers exactly Mike, does it need to kill before you consider it "something that kills"?
But wait, theres more he goes on, "and 9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer."
So 1 in 10 do get lung cancer? That's a full 10%. Again, Mike Pence, what percentage would it need to be before you recognize that as too much lung cancer? Remember, these aren't MY stats, Mike Pence, these are the onese in your own argument.
And THEN he says... "This is not to say that smoking is good for you.... news flash: smoking is not good for you. If you are reading this article through the blue haze of cigarette smoke you should quit."
Ah Mike Pence, the voice of reason at last. An activity where 10% get lung cancer, and it's responsible for a full third of their deaths -- you'll concede that "it's not good for you". Hey Mike, having a heart attack has a 2 in 3 survival rate too. I guess you'd agree with the statement that "Heart attacks don't kill" and "They just aren't good for you".
And then you continue on... with: "The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric."
1 in 3 killed by smoking... right Mike Pence? That's what you are telling me. I think I'm going to go with smoking being pretty harmful to the nation.
And he was right.
Was he? I'm not going to say I support "back handed government disguised in do gooder healtcare rehetoric"; but I'm pretty sure he's pretty much dead wrong when he says "reality check, smoking doesn't kill". I think he needs a reality check.
Science has consistently shown second-hand smoke has zero impact on anyone, aside from annoying people and irritating the bronchial passages.
So it has no impact except for this impact it has. Which is on your health.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
I don't smoke. I think it's a disgusting habit that nobody should do. And as a non-smoker I say this with full offense meant. You're a whiny little bitch. Seriously. If people want to, let them. I can get the banning it indoors, but where I live they're trying to ban it outdoors as well. Seriously, grow a pair, it's not going to kill you unless you have constant contact to it. The occasional whiff you get out side isn't going to hurt you.
This is an absolute fabrication. You are a liar and a bad one at that.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/dat...
There are 10 scientific paper linked at the bottom of that CDC page that affirmatively show a statistically significant connection between secondhand smoke and the conditions and problems listed. The smokers lungs only filter about 10% of the pollutants contained in the tobacco smoke, the rest remain in the second hand smoke and will be absorbed partially by the next person that inhales the smoke.
Yeah I am sure you hate Obama because of his "flip-flop on telecom immunity". You guys are so transparent. You hate Obama because of "flip flopping" but Bush was great, right?
Actually, I hate Bush more.
Taking the country to war under false pretences, torturing prisoners... that's a lot of sin to wash away.
Obama caved to the establishment and is generally ineffective, but he hasn't done anything that rises to that level of evil.
I'm an independent thinker, not a party hack.
Turing was an idiot savant, apparently. Imagine walking into the IRS for an audit and confessing to having hidden tons of income 20 years ago (where they are forbidden to look, and wouldn't find out anyway)? Well, that was along the lines of what he did. He basically volunteered himself for punishment.
Under the circumstances, I don't feel that the target selection was all that bad. He *was* the person most responsible for Bletchley Park's successes during the war. People get into a froth without knowing the whole story on Turing. Sure, the law was shitty back then, but the law was shitty in every other time, too, in some respect.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Bullshit. CDC link:
Health Effects in Adults
From the American Cancer Society
But go ahead, claim all their science is junk and you're smarter than the experts. That seems to be a symptom of people who can't admit facts.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The funny thing is that Conservatives don't even really oppose big government, they just want it to be a big, harmful, theocratic government. It's government that helps people that they object to. They're fine with treating The Handmaid's Tale as an instruction manual.
Which was almost certainly because she smoked. She tried many, many times to quit but funny thing about a substance bred for addictiveness, it's hard to stop using it, especially with a high stress American life. As for spin, he still wrote the words "smoking doesn't kill" and those words are demonstrably false. I see no spin here. Maybe a little left wing bias since TFS didn't say anything good about him but even that I could chalk up to comment baiting.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If you take just the part about "smoking doesn't kill" it does make him sound worse than he deserves
Not at all. Telling people something doesn't kill you because it only kills 33% of the people who use it is completely illogical. Putting it in context does not make it any less insane.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
http://www.latimes.com/politic...
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The stuff dissolves in air to a less-than-toxic (LC0) dose, and is known-harmless.
if it's less-than-toxic, that means it's still more-than-nontoxic?
"If it's less-than-zero that means it's still greater-than-nonzero"... your statement makes no logical sense when evaluated as an expression. Less-than-p in no way implies greater-than-non-p.
In code, this
x < y
does not make this true:
x > !y
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Anything marked as a quotation should be lifted verbatim.
Exception: If you add something (such as an explanation or clarification) it should be in square brackets.
Exception: If you omit something for brevity, mark the missing section with an ellipsis in square brackets.
Exception: If you spot a grammatical error and you want to draw attention to it, add [sic] after it.
Original Grauniad article:
Slashdot summary:
As soon as you start frigging around with tenses, pronouns, voices or any other form of paraphrasing, even a tiny bit, it ceases to be a direct quote and should NOT be marked as one. This is Journalism 101.
At the bottom of the
Pets of smokers contract emphysema. Pets of non-smokers do not.
I'm not talking about in a mathematical context. If you hadn't just ignored my
Cf. less-than-lethal weapons vs. nonlethal weapons.
you would have realized I was talking about how some people object to the term "nonlethal weapons" in reference to beanbag shotguns and teargas, etc., because if you try hard enough it's still possible to accidentally kill people with them. Hence "less-than-lethal weapons."
And I'm still wondering whether there was a reason GP used "less-than-toxic" instead of "nontoxic," which your post did nothing to help.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Tobacco isn't considered psychoactive.
Original comment said irritation. I said asthma attack. You said inflammation. I'll admit they are all related, but I don't put them as equivalent. I put the asthma attack as a severe inflammation and much worse than just an irritation.
Regardless, you can't say it causes zero impact just by dismissing a major potential issue (and completely dismissing all the other issues others have posted). Otherwise you can say stuff like science has consistently shown a gun shot wound has zero impact on anyone, aside from annoying people and irritating tissue in the vicinity of the wound.
Nah, they want a small government. Just small enough to fit inside your reproductive organs to make sure you're not doing anything EEEEEVIL.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Here's what Mike Pence said word for word in his so-called "denialist" and "anti-science" article:
And he was right.
I'm not sure the original quote was mined, though it definitely needs more context. And the actual context is worse than your excerpt:
We will hear about how this phalanx of government elates has suddenly grown a conscience after decades of subsidizing the product which, we are now told, "kills millions of Americans each year".
Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill. In fact, 2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness and 9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer. This is not to say that smoking is good for you....
So lets unpack this a bit.
We will hear about how this phalanx of government elates has suddenly grown a conscience after decades of subsidizing the product which, we are now told, "kills millions of Americans each year".
First he's misleading his reader about the opposing arguments. I don't know who said that "kills millions of Americans each year" but the very similar sounding claim that people will be thinking of is smoking kills millions worldwide every year. When people hear a reference to 5 million killed they'll think it means 5 million Americans killed, so now the static sounds dodgy because there's two different versions floating around and one of them sounds really implausible. It could be an accident (ie he misheard the quote) but it might also be a deliberate attempt to harm his opponents' credibility by assigning them bad arguments.
Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill. In fact, 2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness and 9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer.
I think most people would consider 1/3 of smokers dying of smoking related illness as "smoking kills". What he's doing is a bit of a slight of hand, he makes an assertion and then repeats statistics. Even though the statistics essentially contradict his assertion uncritical readers (especially sympathetic readers) will simply accept the offered premise that the statistics support his assertion.
So it's wrong to claim he said "smoking doesn't kill" and meant that like smoking isn't bad for you, or even that smoking doesn't kill you. But it's true he's trying to downplay how deadly cigarettes are in a disingenuous way.
I stole this Sig
if it's just substituting marijuana for tobacco in all the same places and contexts, then yeah it is a bad thing, as bad as the current status quo, which is already inexcusable.
marijuana and tobacco should both be legal in and ONLY IN contexts where OTHER PEOPLE aren't FORCED to take your fucking drugs with you. so away from public places, contained on private property, with consent of the property owner, but even then only where you don't have dependents like children or employees who can't just leave your space. if that means that only childless homeowners can smoke, and only in their own homes, then tough shit.
if keep it out of my fucking air then i don't fucking care, but KEEP IT OUT OF MY FUCKING AIR, and deal with whatever the fuck you have to deal with to accomplish hat.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric.
And he was right.
As someone who has seen what smoking does, and remembers the tobacco companies lying under oath about the ill effects of smoking, I'm happy with big government smacking those guys down. Also, I'm happy that my health insurance payments are a lot lower because there are fewer tobacco-caused issues they have to pay for for others on my plan.
Government's role is to keep the big companies honest. It's not perfect, but it does a better job than anything else would. Our job is to keep government honest. We suck at this, because we elect people based on what they say, not what they do. We love people who lie to us about what we want to be true. I'm not sure how to fix this, though.
Indeed. The Republican Party Platform, as of now, wants government to:
* Regulate the porn industry and control what you're allowed to see.
* Regulate who you can marry.
* Regulate what operations your doctor can do on you (especially if you are a woman).
* Regulate what bathroom you can use.
* Spend more and more on the military.
* Pay for it all by cutting taxes, mostly on the wealthy.
Not what I would call small government.
But they want to be sure that fewer people have health care, so they have that going for them, which is nice.
He also said this word for word: "...smoking doesn't kill. In fact, 2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness..." Poor grammar aside, that may be one of the worst arguments I've ever heard.
As a native of Indiana, and as a longstanding resident, I couldn't be more pleased with Trumps decision.
Anything that gets him out of this State is good news, indeed!
[x] Can not see Russia from his porch.
[x] Does not own a pig or lipstick.
[x] Able to name all of his children from memory.
[x] Is aware that the Founding Fathers did not know the Pledge of Allegiance.
[x] Has no unmarried, pregnant daughters promoting abstinence.
[ ] Understands that smoking tobacco kills.
[ ] Knows that Carbon Dioxide is the cause of Global Warming.
[ ] The movie Titanic is not a metaphor for the USA today.
[ ] Realizes George Washington was not a Republican.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
...and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a government taking steps to protect people from harmful substances.
Agreed, for the sake of argument. Now you have to stop operating any petroleum consuming devices in my vicinity. Cars, motor boats, lawnmowers, etc., all have to go. Don't even THINK about running anything on diesel! Also, no more dryer sheets, colognes, or perfumes. Keep your toxic, allergenic, and carcinogenic smells in their tanks and bottles, thank you.
Man I like this idea!
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
*Lights up a cigarette.*
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Would have loved to have seen him pick Newt.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
True if the intensity is too much. The same can be said from industrial air pollution, traffic, the neighbours cooking food that I don't like etc. etc.
Yes cigarette smoke in a car is too strong, but smoke from the neighbours? The smoke won't hurt you, yet you can smell it. There are many smells in the world, and many tastes.
If it is bad or not depends on the health of the population at large, the cost for society in terms of health, money and quality of life.
In that sense, I would asume that substituting marijana for tobacco, would be an improvement.
Just like with cigarettes, forcing others to smoke passively should not be allowed.
Rude? Maybe. Arrogant? I dunno about that one.
I'm not a smoker, but my fumes seem to make my kids laugh.
Damn right!! Now out of the same respect you have for yourself and your precious body and lungs I require you show me the same respect.
Never again use any consumer products that have perfumes or scents in them, including but not limited to:
1) Dryer sheets (I can't fucking exercise outside in neighborhoods because of these damn things)
2) Clothes detergent
3) Soap
4) Shampoo
5) Conditioner
6) Perfume and cologne
7) "Body sprays"
8) Air fresheners
9) Hair products (from mousse to wax)
10) Cleaning products
All of these can cause allergic reactions, asthma attacks, and subsequent sinus and respiratory infections. Many of the fragrances are carcinogenic as well as the medium used to disperse them.
With your obviously heartfelt sentiments expressed above you have to get behind this, otherwise all you are is an arrogant self-centered hypocrite.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
The big bogeyman is cancer, heart attacks, and all the other effects of cigarette poisoning. Irritation of the bronchial tubes in sensitive individuals can, in fact, cause asthma attacks; so can asbestos dust, but that's really not what anyone cares about with asbestos. If asbestos were bullshit, the same form statement ("asbestos has been shown to have zero health effects, aside from irritating the bronchial tubes") would apply, with the same implications.
To put it simply: second-hand smoke is sold as a toxic environmental factor poisoning healthy people and shortening their lives; it doesn't.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I stopped reading at popcorn lung.
Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
It's so interesting the rights you conservatives choose to give a shit about. Second hand smoke and the right to fire pointy metal bits at high velocity are defended to the death. The right of two men to marry, of workers to collectively bargain, of everyone to see a doctor - meh.
Ok, can do and already do.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The AHA, ACS, and CDC all have 50-year-old research and positions on these things. They lag behind modern science by an enormous margin.
In a study of 76,000 women, current and former smokers had statistically higher chances of lung cancer; exposure to second hand smoke showed NOTHING.
Studies that show links between second-hand smoke and disease are almost universally case-control, where you find someone who has a disease and ask if they were exposed to a potential cause. This kind of study overwhelmingly shows us that video games cause people to be violent psychopaths and should be abolished from society. Actual scientists involved in this kind of research have, for a *long* time, expected that the 7,300 lung cancers claimed caused by second-hand smoke might be more approximately ZERO.
Modern research can't find a link between nicotine in particular and heart disease, at all; nicotine is known to be non-carcinogenic at this point, but cigarettes have hundreds of toxic chemicals. The thing toxicologists know that you don't is those chemicals disperse in air and become laughably-minor doses, in the same way that eating a pound of salt WILL KILL YOU while drinking a half an ounce of automobile antifreeze won't do a damned thing to you. The thing CDC, AHA, and ACS know that you don't is they're not obligated to follow rigorous scientific standards; they have a mission, and they can use any flawed research available that was once generally-accepted and hasn't been firmly stamped out in the public mind to pursue that mission, as they can defend their "best judgement" as long as it's not well-known and well-accepted by the greater populous that they're wrong, and damn what the latest and most effective science says.
It's the same thing as red meat having NO SCIENTIFICALLY-VALID NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS, while the Pork lobby had the campaign, "Pork: The Other White Meat" in the height of the red meat health scare because pork is red meat (nutritionally), but considered white meat in a culinary sense (they found a legal way to falsely market pork as a healthy alternative to red meat when it is, in fact, red meat).
We call this "critical thinking".
Support my political activism on Patreon.
its not the site that's pissing me off, it's real life, and this is just an fortuitous opportunity to vent that anger on something that deserves it.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
There's no such thing as non-toxic. Vitamin B1, consumed in any dose, won't absorb through your intestines; injected, it will seriously fuck you up in high concentrations. Water, drunk, will kill you by making your brain swell. Oxygen is deadly. Glucose is a vicious poison, and your body decays when you have too much of it in your blood; your pancreas constantly switches between insulin and glucagon release to bind blood sugar into glycogen and then release more sugar into your blood so your cells can consume it. Glyphosate is harmless at doses at which salt is harmful, and is fatally toxic at doses something like 3 times the toxic dose of table salt.
LC0 is the dose below which no adverse effects are demonstrated. Cyanide will kill you; less cyanide will make you violently ill; a very small concentration of cyanide will do NOTHING. Cyanide isn't non-toxic; you just didn't inhale enough of it.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Dry air also irritates the bronchial passages.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
It's a real thing.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I'm not talking about in a mathematical context. If you hadn't just ignored my
Cf. less-than-lethal weapons vs. nonlethal weapons.
you would have realized I was talking about how some people object to the term "nonlethal weapons" in reference to beanbag shotguns and teargas, etc., because if you try hard enough it's still possible to accidentally kill people with them. Hence "less-than-lethal weapons."
That's just as meaningless as before, and I don't mean just the inclusion of both "try" (meaning intentionally) and "accidentally" (meaning unintentionally) in the same sentence, I mean the sentence "If you try hard enough it's possible to accidentally kill people with $FOO". Using that bar (if you try hard enough), then almost everything that exists will meet that criteria, including cushions, ice-cream, etc. If it doesn't kill anyone then just try harder until it does.
Regardless....
And I'm still wondering whether there was a reason GP used "less-than-toxic" instead of "nontoxic," which your post did nothing to help.
I dunno, hey... I kinda see what you mean if I reason it like this:
When $FOO is an easily measurable criteria that must be met, such as toxic or lethal, then less-than-$FOO means that the criteria was not met. Therefore, in the context of meeting a criteria, the assertion less-than-$FOO can only be true if the assertion not-$FOO is also true (although the reverse may not always be true - it's generally not possible to exceed a criteria such as lethal, only to meet it - I would expect people to understand that with a criteria such as this the reverse has to be true as well, thus making both statements equivalent).
However, in GP's case, "toxicity" is not a discrete criteria to meet. There are, after all, various levels of toxicity as opposed to only one level for "lethal". In that case, saying "less-than-toxic" would mean something different to saying "nontoxic". Toxicity is often determined by the amount (it's not the product that is toxic, but the quantity. Even water is toxic in high quantities, while cyanide is not in trace amounts), so "less-than-toxic" actually has meaning: the amount of product has not breached the bar to be considered toxic, while "nontoxic" has a different meaning: The product has no practical toxic levels (like weed).
So, to me, those two phrases have slightly different meanings. Air, in standard atmospheric conditions, is non-toxic. Half a litre of scotch is less-than-toxic. A full gallon of scotch is toxic.
(Yeah, well I'm bored, and navel-gazing over formal-logic in spoken language is a great way to pass the time, cheers :-)
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Oxygen is deadly.
To anaerobic bacteria, sure ;)
Apparently you can breathe 100% oxygen, it just has to be at a lower pressure. I was aware they had a 100% oxygen atmosphere on (at least) Apollo 1, which contributed greatly to the fire.
today I learned
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
He wrote "Time for a reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill. In fact, 2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness"
Is it really relevant that 2 out of 3 people die of something else before smoking eventually kills them?
I don't think so.
There's never been any proof that second hand smoke is even remotely dangerous.
You might not want to smoke, but you have no right to prevent anyone else from doing it.
It amuses me that the way the US is going, it might soon be legal to smoke marijuana but not tobacco.
Then how do you explain the fact that I have COPD with ZERO cigarette smoking "experience"?
I'll tell you how: Six decades of constantly LIVING WITH cigarette smokers.
Second-hand smoke really is no joke. I'm not an anti-smoking crusader (quite the opposite, actually); but I have to pay at least some attention to my personal experience...
we kinda have to give people a little leeway on things that come out of their bodies without any choice.
it's not like we could reasonably regulate the carbon emissions from breathing or anything.
of course to the extent that it can be controlled, like pissing and shitting, then yeah, same standards apply.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Tobacco isn't considered psychoactive.
It most certainly is by the people who smoke it.
the carbon and hydrogen oxides that come out of a complete combustion reaction are not directly harmful to you -- they're already present in the air everywhere. (imbalances of their concentrations have big, slow environmental impacts, but they're not toxic to humans per se). the shit that comes out of incomplete combustion, the particulate matter that makes smoke smoke (and toxic additives like lead) absolutely should be regulated, in most cases already is extremely regulated, and i wouldn't oppose tighter regulations.
and artificial scents on the rest of that stuff? feel free to ban that if you like too. we don't need it, and if it's hurting someone, go ahead ahead and get rid of it.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
That's ... interesting. Still, at a lower pressure, you're getting less oxygen (mg per kg of body weight) into your blood, in the same way that drinking a shot of moonshine is less alcohol than drinking 4 cans of beer and not diluted.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
If it's 100% oxygen but at a lower pressure, it equals out to full pressure but oxygen only being 21% by volume. At least, that's what it sounds like they mean by "partial pressure."
IANAPhysicist
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
"Turing was an idiot savant, apparently. Imagine walking into the IRS for an audit and confessing to having hidden tons of income 20 years ago (where they are forbidden to look, and wouldn't find out anyway)? Well, that was along the lines of what he did. He basically volunteered himself for punishment."
Turing Swartzed himself. It was the classic nerd vs evil government locker stuffing.
I've heard it's drinking buddies with Clippy. If I were The trump in charge, I'd start sleeping with one eye open.
Do you drive a car or use electricity? Yes so off the soap box
Get up!
This is not news. It is rumor. Trump campaign has denied that a selection has been made. I don't think that is normal campaign BS. This week we have seen "omg it's definitely newt" and "omg it's definitely Christie" and now "omg it's definitely pence."
At least you only fell for this one.
I think you have hit the nail on the head, but I hit it first (or maybe 17th after seeing it on Twitter). Trump does NOT really want to be president. He wants to be EX-president with the giant brand value. Trump actually thinks Nixon was a chump for not milking the cash after his pardon. Here is the Donald's REAL plan.
1. Get the nomination. Easy to fool some of the people all of the time.
2. Pick a VP who loves Ford's pardon of Nixon.
3. Win the election. Only has to fool most (51%) of the people on some of the days (one election day, to be precise).
4. Be himself. Start some wars, bankrupt the country, whatever. Get impeached, resign, get pardoned.
5. PROFIT.
If Scott Adams is right with his glide slope comment, then we are seriously phucked now and we just have to pray that Trump's selfishness will keep him from blowing up the country, even though he could just hop on one of his private jets and fly to one of his other houses. I hope that Adams is delusional, because the other hope of Trump's secret super-patriotism is too forlorn, even for me.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Couldn't be the industrial pollution or smog in yoru area, nope.
Not that an ANONYMOUS COWARD deserves an explanation; but:
There is Not really that much of either smog nor industrial pollution in Indianapolis. And I work in a nonsmoking office Developing software, and have never had an occupation that exposed me to hazardous substances.
So I really don't think so.
But as I said, I don't go around crusading for anti-smoking, and in fact think that the anti-smoking ordinances that we have in our County are ridiculously nanny-state-ish.
Hope he wins. We just had a clown by the name of Hussein Obama. If that's doesn't mock the credibility of the Presidency, what does? Our country is strong enough to tolerate another, it's designed that way. We're not electing a king. VOTE TRUMP. With Hillary, there will be War with Russia and Walmart will grow even bigger (she was former director), though the former obviously cancels the latter and just about everything else.
American Lives Matter (ALM) - rebel in November, by pissing off Hollywood and Silicon Valley.
The VP pick is the first truly binding presidential decision. At it's most basic, it can tell you if the presidential candidate is more concerned about politics or the best interests of the country. That's why it can be hurtful to make a purely political pick of a totally unqualified person. No one can be absolutely certain that he is going to live four more days, let alone four years.
A terrible and obviously unqualified VP pick should be absolutely disqualifying for a candidate, but obviously it isn't. Dan Quayle has already been mentioned, and even the Sarah Palin pick didn't destroy McCain's candidacy. Actually, I think the Dan Quayle pick may have been part of a long-term plan to make Dubya look qualified for the job--and now we have the Donald.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
True if the intensity is too much. The same can be said from industrial air pollution, traffic, the neighbours cooking food that I don't like etc. etc.
Yes cigarette smoke in a car is too strong, but smoke from the neighbours? The smoke won't hurt you, yet you can smell it.
A super soaker full of urine is a reasonable countermeasure. Simply collect the urine and spray it on and around their windows. They can smell it, but it won't hurt them.
There are many smells in the world, and many tastes.
Which is why more people should smoke tobacco, as you won't be able to smell the urine, shit and dead bodies in the city. As a side benefit it would be cover for people smoking weed in public. That way their smoking had a purpose, they smoked for someone else's freedom. Noble tobacco smokers.
In that sense, I would asume that substituting marijana for tobacco, would be an improvement.
Just like with cigarettes, forcing others to smoke passively should not be allowed.
An improvement worthy teaching in schools. Make smoking compulsory and taught in schools because people who don't smoke are not pulling their weight in the hospital system. We need participation.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
That's lung cancer that does.
Just cough on them. Then apologize saying the smoke made you cough. I call it a fuccough.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
carbon and hydrogen oxides are already plentiful in the natural atmosphere and not harmful to humans (imbalances of them maybe to the environment, but that's not an individual transgression). all other emissions (e.g. particulates, i.e. SMOKE) are already highly regulated and rightly so.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
i fully support any further regulation needed to remove any harmful emissions still remaining in car exhaust, so no hypocrisy here.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Smoking doesn't kill... except for those one out of every three smokers who die from a smoking related illness.
Well apart from lung cancer most smoking related deaths are failures of the circulatory/respiratory system which is what kills most other people too, just a little quicker with that crap in your lungs and veins. Since we're all going to die the interesting metric is really how much sooner, the answer is about a decade. In fact some people who've done the math on public pensions, healthcare and such have questioned whether or not smoking actually costs money or saves money since by far most smokers get through their tax years fine and die early so society won't have to take care of them so long. But that is of course politically most incorrect to mention, long healthy lives are what is desirable whether the individual agrees or not.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I remember the days before bans on smoking in restaurants.
Waiter: "Smoking or non-smoking?"
Me: "Non-smoking please."
Waiter leads me and my party past tons of smokers to the non-smoking section which is literally two tables away from the smoking section - as if smoke knows there's a mystical boundary and won't pass it. We spend our meal coughing as some guy puffs away two tables over and there's nothing we can do short of leave as quickly as possible and never eat out again. The guy is in the smoking section so he was fine and ALL restaurants did that so we couldn't just go to another one.
The smoke was bad for me (besides the cancer-causing stuff, I hate the smell), but my mother-in-law has breathing issues and someone blowing smoke at her all evening could result in serious breathing problems that could send her to the hospital. Now, we can eat without having to endure someone blowing toxic smoke at us. If you can't make it through a meal without lighting up, maybe it's time to admit you have a problem.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
My son was learning about drugs in school. Some of the usual scare-tactic stuff about marijuana. Now I've never smoked (marijuana or tobacco) and rarely drink, but I told him that if I had to choose one of the three (alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana) to become addicted to, I'd choose marijuana. (With alcohol a second-place choice.) Yes, it's still a drug and has negative effects. Yes, I prefer not being addicted to anything (well, except chocolate). But marijuana isn't nearly as bad as tobacco and alcohol can be.
(Of course, I wouldn't want people getting high and driving or smoking joints in restaurants and blowing smoke my way.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Apparently, Mike Pence does not grasp that even too much dihydrogen monoxide can be deadly.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
I'd agree and add: Not when you're operating something that could result in the injury/death of others due to the effects of your drug of choice.
So drink all you want and smoke as many joints as you want, but don't get behind the wheel and drive. When you do that, you're forcing other people to deal with the effects of your drug of choice. It's a pretty clear cut example of "the right to swing your fist ends at my face." Just have a designated driver and then enjoy your evening.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
If you were to get me to drive a car and told me "don't worry, two out of every three people who drive this car don't die in horrible random explosions", I'd back away from the car as quickly as possible, not suddenly gain confidence in how safe the car was.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The post I responded to, at the time I responded, was rated +5 insightful. The post states makes a comparison stating that Trump is worth less than feces. That is an ad hominem, and empty shilling. I'm glad to see the post moderation has been corrected as of now.
I did not debate for or against either candidate, I pointed out a shill and appear to be correct. You have a mental health issue if you believe the person I responded to had a rational argument, or if you read more than me pointing out the bs moderation.
I won't generally debate politics here, because quite frankly the crowd is mostly anti-intellectual. I'll occasionally attempt to direct people to rational discussion but won't usually debate. Out of the 2 political posts I looked at today, sock puppets are modding up insults about Trump and anything pro-Hillary. I can find a few oddballs, but generally way down in the threads so already hidden by volume.
Sure, modding often changes. However when you see massive swings hitting brainless posts the shill effect is very obvious.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
For those who haven't taken politics 101 in the high school, this is a good time to look up at the responsibilities of the American Vice President. (Hint, this is not the person who takes over president's duties when the president goes on vacation or a work trip).
The American vice president is technically legally allowed to retired into his Florida mansion immediately after his ticket wins the White House election, and then chill all day at the beach until one of two highly unlikely events happens. First, he is the first in line to succeed the president should anything happen to him or if the president resigns or is removed from the office. Second, the VP can break the legislative battles in the senate when the vote is split exactly 50-50, which you can imagine doesn't happen very frequently. In between of such highly unlikely events, the VP isn't supposed to do much. If he decides to chill all day at the beach, he can't be fired or sacked for having such a carefree life unless he somehow broke the law, because VP is an elected office.
So what good is the VP for? The VP is primarily a marketing figure. The Vice President has to be the side-kick of the presidential candidate during the election campaign. The VP candidate is always selected based on his ability to attract the electoral vote, rather than his ability to cast that precious tie-breaking senate vote (and usually, nobody chooses him based on the ability to lead the country because normally someone who is running for the presidential seat doesn't plan to die or retire soon).
For example, the Democrats often have a "south problem", because the American South isn't usually inclined to vote for a Democrats. So one type of electoral strategy is to have at least one southerner on the electoral ticket. Clinton had Al Gore (both were southerners) and Kerry selected John Edwards (a North Carolinian).
Just the opposite, actually: they don't even get a buzz anymore.
Are ties in the Senate so common and important that I should care who is Vice President?
That's not how we normally talk about drilling for oil, but I take his point. Most of the recently emancipated geocarbon comes from ancient sea beds, as all solvent petroleum engineers know.
The 135 billion tonnes of liberated petroleum since the beginning of the industrial revolution (to name just one figure out there), where did it go? To properly conceal a giant object roughly 5 km cubed, I figure you'd need a magician's white hanky 15 km to a side.
That's either a small city, or a very large sleeve.
Conservation of substance: I think we're supposed to begin grasping this concept around the age of three, in the normally developed.
But you still drive a car and make people who haven't agreed to breathe your exhaust breathe your exhaust. So yeah - if you drive a car, you are a hypocrite.
So you're fine with people smoking near you if you haven't consented and if they are not breaking any laws or regulations? If the answer is "no", you are indeed a hypocrite. If the answer is "yes", shut up already.
For someone who views themselves as rational, how can you honestly sit there and scream "shills" with a straight face? How can you call someone a "shill" simply for disagreeing with you? You've not demonstrated the person is shilling at all - you've introduced no evidence, and made no case. You are being wonderfully hypocritical and not at all rational.