The thinkpad keyboards are still great, even after Lenovo acquired the line from IBM. We lost the thinklight a while ago, and the travel is slightly less than it used to be, but they are still the best for typing. I'm typing this on an X260 right now.
That said, the "ideapad" laptops are generally inferior. If you want a laptop with a good keyboard you only have one brand worth looking at - fortunately they have a lot of different models for you.
I have comcast and I live in the middle of the country (over 1,000 miles from my home to the nearest ocean). I just logged in to my box at home (which is connected by comcast) from work and everything is fine.
the university takes a percentage off the "substantial grant" a faculty gets, in the name of "overhead".
Absolutely right. Fortunately most granting organizations (or at least the ones I am most familiar with such as NIH and NSF) are familiar enough with that expectation that they let you write it right into your proposal. Basically you say you need $X per year to keep the lights on and $Y per year to pay your grad students and you put it into the proposal.
Unfortunately if you are new faculty at an expensive university that ends up counting against you as you are then competing against faculty from other schools where the university cut - and the grad student salaries - is lower.
The job market is rather abysmal for grad school graduates right now, particularly if they go to grad school with the ambition of some day being faculty somewhere with their own research lab and a teaching appointment. There are plenty of good jobs in industry for those who finish their master's or PhD but a lot of grad school advisors look down on those positions and encourage their students to do the same (for both the positions and those who take them). On top of that grad students - at least STEM PhD students - are paid on average $20-35k / year as grad students at most US schools which is terrible pay. Few students are able to live on that kind of pay for the amount of time that it can take to earn a PhD - and it doesn't get a whole lot better as a postdoc either (for those who want to make an attempt at the academic route).
And on top of that a lot of grad schools conveniently forget to tell their students that junior faculty - not that many grad students make it that far - are averaging eighty hour work weeks at the big research universities right now when they are getting started. 40 hours goes in to the tasks you associate with junior faculty - teaching, research, assembling and running a lab - while another 40 hours per week goes in to preparing grant proposals. At many schools the junior faculty who don't pull in a substantial grant by their third or fourth year are promptly shown the door.
The money isn't there, the job security is nonexistent, the job prospects are slim. Not many Americans are masochistic enough to go that way any more. Plenty of job tracks exist for those with 4 year degrees (or even less) that pay better and have better job security than those that open up for those with advanced degrees.
I was considering going to Blade Runner with my wife. However it had been so long since I had last seen the first one I thought it would be nice to see it again before seeing the new one. So I checked the usual retailers - in my case Best Buy, Target, WalMart - and couldn't get it there as it was not available. I can't stream it on NetFlix either. I checked Barnes and Noble as well, no dice. I checked Amazon; they couldn't guarantee it either (only available through third parties).
Disney did the same thing with Tron when they released the new one a few years ago. If you shut out the fans who want to see it, you'll end up getting less money for the new product. In my case I just simply gave up and figured it's not that important. I can go spend my money on something else.
Do you parents still have health insurance for you?
I've been on my own two feet since I was a teenager half a century ago.
You've thrown out some fascinating distortions and outright lies in this discussion already, and that whopper sits well with them. You don't really expect us to believe that someone in their 60s would decide to open an account on this deteriorating website so they could show off to a very small part of the world just how uninformed they are, do you?
Seriously, kid. Get help. I'm done with you. I'm sure you'll come up with even more fascinating counterfactual output to somehow come back at me, but I don't care what you say next. You're done wasting my time. We both know you don't have the least bit of a clue on this matter; you have demonstrated that over and over again.
You are showing signs of a pretty severe case of last-post-itis there, kid. Do you parents still have health insurance for you? I'd recommend you seek out psychiatric treatment before it expires.
As for reading, try reading anything, really. You keep grasping at fact-free statements or half-truths and then trying to sling them at me when you can't build an argument. If you can't be bothered to read any of the sources I have cited in this discussion, that is not my fault. You hardly even show the ability to read what I write in reply to your comments, so I would expect that the sources I use are beyond your comprehension any ways.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but this is about a law in New York State. I can tell you from experience that you are absolutely not allowed to smoke inside a tobacco store in New York State
I just checked and you are wrong. Tobacconists, cigar bars, and private clubs are exempt from smoking bans in NY.
I will accept your absence of a source as confirmation that you made that up. I lived in NY State for over 7 years and I was familiar with the tobacco laws. Considering all the other nonsense you have spewed in this discussion, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you made that up as well.
I'm done responding to your ridiculous lies. It is no small wonder that someone as ignorant and inflammatory as yourself has so many foes and not yet a single fan here. You can keep making stuff up out of thin air or you can actually read up on what you are pretending to be knowledgeable on, but you're done wasting my time. You have shown repeatedly that you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about on this matter, you would have done yourself a great favor some time ago to stop replying and start reading. Instead you doubled down and went for slinging ridiculous disconnected insults at me.
And what's your point here? I've told you repeatedly that you are free to go poison yourself at home all you want, but you have no right to poison me against my will.
and if you do choose to enter a business that permits smoking, you are being poisoned with your consent.
Except that it has been understood for some time that a single establishment that allows smoking will end up poisoning not only people who are customers, but also people who are nearby, people who know customers, people who are tangential clients, etc. The pollution has to go somewhere once it is created, and the establishments would go broke if they were to invest in proper equipment to handle it.
(Additionally, there is no evidence that second hand e-cigarette vapor poisons anyone, so your defense of the ban is also not based in science or facts.)
We've discussed this before. The product is not safe, period. You can drink their kool-aid if you want, but it won't change the fact that there is no safe limit for exposure - especially when the manufacturers and vendors insist on not announcing what is in their mixtures. Nobody has a right to forcibly expose others to this.
We don't even allow people to smoke inside stores that exist to sell smoking products, but the store owners don't complain.
In fact, smoking in retail tobacco shops and private smoke lounges is legally permitted in California
Perhaps you didn't notice, but this is about a law in New York State. I can tell you from experience that you are absolutely not allowed to smoke inside a tobacco store in New York State - with the exception of ones that are located on tribal land.
And if bar owners overwhelmingly prefer a smoke free environment, what would be the harm in giving bar owners the choice? Why do you have this compulsive need to make the entire world conform to your preferences?
Because in a bar or restaurant you can end up with people unwillingly inhaling the toxic second hand smoke. You can also end up with passers-by and neighbors who are also exposed against their will. Air is a communal resource.
When you have thought this through, you will see that smoking restrictions and forced sterilizations aren't just accidental companions in both US progressivism and German fascism, but come from the same ideological roots.
Not even remotely close. You can keep twisting about if you want, but you will remain wrong on that matter. Go poison yourself at home, and leave the rest of the country out of it. We have a right to not be harmed by your bad choices.
And what's your point here? I've told you repeatedly that you are free to go poison yourself at home all you want, but you have no right to poison me against my will.
Similarly, you are free to continue falling on your own face in this discussion all you want, I cannot stop you from doing that.
I went through grad school in a similar illusion of going into a strictly academic position. Then I went through a postdoc position and hit a wall. There are lots and lots of PhDs running around out there who tried the same and failed the same.
Thankfully a lot of advisers now are more receptive to their students announcing early that they want to follow a non-academic track (many before used to reject prospective students who wanted that). However not many are great at steering their grad students towards it. If the faculty advisers were even honest about the time commitments expected of junior faculty in the hard sciences (generally starting around 80 hours a week) that would steer many students down another path.
That said, I have a non-academic position and I am very happy. I'm making more than junior faculty at the school where I did my undergrad or PhD and I only work 40 hours a week.
If you want to pretend that you could somehow know e-cigarette cocktails to be safe
The criterion for imposing government regulations on the use of private property
In your private home, that you own, you can poison yourself all you like. However you do not have the right to poison me in other places.
So, if you want to ban e-cigs on my private property by law
I'm interested in knowing what business you own that would be harmed by forbidding the use of e-cigarettes? We don't even allow people to smoke inside stores that exist to sell smoking products, but the store owners don't complain. It's not legal for me to run an internal combustion engine indoors at my place of employment - even if I wanted to use it to generate power - and that doesn't bother me either.
I mean, people like you got away with compulsive sterilization and segregation with pretty much the same reasoning you are applying here. Iâ(TM)m just expressing my disapproval.
No, that is not even remotely close to true. Telling people they cannot poison others does not come the slightest bit close to mandatory sterilization. In fact the Nazis you tried to compare me to in a separate thread would likely have been quite fond of your plans to force people to accept exposure to toxic vapors, I recall that worked pretty well for them for a while.
If you're going to pull out the stops and call me a Nazi, you could at least do so with a properly formatted link so I could see you try to support your argument.
We cannot answer the first question because the manufacturers won't tell us.
Gee, if only there were a device you could use to measure the components of a vapor. And if only there were well known techniques for measuring a statistically relevant sample of e-cig vapors to get a general idea of what's in them.
Very cute, there. If you knew more about mass spectrometry you would likely know the statistical difficulties native to the method. However even if you were able to do absolute quantification of every component in a single sample, the e-cigarette market is so thoroughly un-regulated that there is no way to assert that sample as being representative of anything. A company can make a formula "ABC1" and sell it today that has a given mixture, and then sell a completely different formula "ABC1" tomorrow with all the same labels. On top of that there is no reason to expect that one company's "ABC1" is similar to their "ABC2", or that something called "ACB1" from another company is at all similar to either.
So I honestly have no data about the physics of how an e-cig works. However, I'd be very, very suprised if there are anywhere near the reactions going on in a battery powered e-cig versus combusting tobacco. If I were building an e-cig, I'd use the lowest power possible to vaporize the fluid.
But I'd be really, really surprised if any chemical reactions at all occur, let alone combustion or ionization. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?
We've been able to observe chemical reactions between charged gas phase-ions for over half a century now. After all, what is an ion but a molecule with a non-zero charge? Anything with a non-zero charge will have a tendency to seek out another molecule to resolve that charge to zero.
I suspect you can count the number of detectable chemicals on your fingers and toes
That's making some pretty huge assumptions about the manufacturing process used by the companies selling the e-cigarette liquids (amongst other things).
Well, lots of possibilities: you could be lying, it could be psychosomatic, or your lungs could be damaged due to your history of smoking
I will ask you once to withhold your accusations and presumptions. They don't belong in this discsussion.
at most that would justify restricting it on public property, not on private property.
Which private properties are you asking to be able to use e-cigarettes at that don't allow traditional cigarettes? This mostly applies to public property, along with the addition of businesses that are already banned from allowing tobacco use. This does not at all touch what one can do in their homes, for example.
First of all, did you read the line you quoted? This is not the federal government involved here. This is the State government of New York, representing the people of New York.
Under the incorporation doctrine, most of the limits on federal power also apply to the states.
Your argument would hold more water if you would adhere to only one reading of a sentence.
They are expressly allowed to do this if they so choose.
No, sorry: many restrictions on they private property are not permissible under the Constitution and are not compatible with a free society no matter what the majority of people want to happen.
You can keep moving the goal posts if you want, but it won't help your case. If you want to pretend that you could somehow know e-cigarette cocktails to be safe - and you can't possibly suipport that claim when you don't know what is in them - then just stick to that. Playing SCOTUS here doesn't help you.
OK, it has formaldehyde in it. How much? And is it enough to have any effect?
We cannot answer the first question because the manufacturers won't tell us. If we bought a vial from a local shop today that was called "ABC1" and we tested it, there is no guarantee that it would be an accurate reflection on another bottle of "ABC1" purchased tomorrow, or a bottle of "ABC2" or "XYZ17" purchased later today. The lack of regulation leads to - amongst other things - no standards or accountability on what goes in to these cocktails.
We know how toxic formaldehyde is, but we don't know how much formaldehyde is in the vial. We also don't know the actual volume in each puff as there is no dosing regulation on the devices.
I don't think we consider how risky things are absolute terms before banning them.
I'd like to point out that this is quite a bit different from an outright ban. People can still use them; the law only says they cannot use them in public. Generally things that pose a danger to the public are prohibited from being done in public.
That mist you see? It's not combustion particles, it's water droplets. It's fog.
That's an oversimplification.
Can you make a water mist without putting energy in? Most e-cigarettes have high temperature elements in them to create that mist, while the mist may be mostly water vapor there is plenty of other stuff in there that combusted in the high temperature environment created by the device. Even amongst the other chemicals that were not combusted many of them were ionized into vapor, making them more biologically active than they were in liquid form.
The law isn't telling people they can't do it, rather it is saying that the rest of society has the right to not be exposed to it involuntarily (as is also the case with regular tobacco smoke). You can still smoke it in your private home, or in your private car, or in other private places. Those who are intelligent enough to not smoke this should not be forcibly exposed to the toxic brew that is produces.
No, the law is quite definitely telling people they may not vape in public places.
I don't see the disagreement. Tobacco use is banned in public places in New York state for the same reason. I was pointing out that people can still kill themselves with e-cigarettes in their own home, car, and other private places all they want.
What many other posters are saying is we have no such evidence in the vaping case. Maybe the vapor is harmful, maybe it's no more toxic than normal city air. I honestly have no idea. But until someone produces some reasonably strong evidence, we should be quite hesitant to ban it.
The problem though is that the e-cigarettes are the ultimate moving target for safety. There are thousands of different cocktails available for them on the market today, and almost none of them list their contents. Once we show that one is toxic what do we do about the rest of them? Even if cocktail "ABC1" was shown toxic, how would you know if the guy next to you is smoking "ABC1", "ABC2", or "XYZ28"? You simply don't know that, and the user might not know - or care - if their favorite blend has been proven toxic.
maybe it's no more toxic than normal city air.
I don't know where you live but there is little to no detectable vaporized formaldehyde where I live. The industrial plants here have to install scrubbers for their exhaust stacks to deal with known toxic chemicals. E-cigarettes don't have anything to contain toxic products of combustion - in fact by design they allow those right into the smoker's mouth.
I haven't heard anyone make a case that the chemicals in vape vapor is more or less harmful than ordinary air.
As has come up already, there are thousands of different cocktails on the US market today. There is no standard of any sort for this almost completely unregulated industry. We know some of them have - amongst other toxic chemicals - formaldehyde in them, but showing them to all have it would be a waste of time as there would be new ones before you finish, old ones would be gone or renamed, etc. We could show that one has toxic shit in it, but then the vendors would reply by saying we didn't test the rest of them.
How many businesses have you visited that have their own fully-contained air supply with sufficient filtration to keep pollutants from seeping between their business and the rest of the world?
We're talking about vaping here, not nerve gas. There is not a shred of evidence that second hand vaping causes any problems even sitting right next to someone.
So the time that someone let their puff of vapor my way and I was coughing and tearing for the next 15 minutes was just a figment of my imagination then? I'm glad you came along to correct my reality for me.
You would perhaps have an argument here if there was some sort of inherent "right to smoke", but none exists and there is no reason for one ever to.
You got it backwards. The question is: does government have legitimate power to prevent people from smoking, and of course it doesn't. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
First of all, did you read the line you quoted? This is not the federal government involved here. This is the State government of New York, representing the people of New York. They are expressly allowed to do this if they so choose.
Second, this is not about a right. This is about putting others at risk. I don't have the right to dig a giant unprotected hole in a public place that people could fall into.
Thank you for providing a study on e-cigarette use, but it does not answer any of the questions I was after. This is a longitudinal study on the smokers themselves, which is only studying their saliva and urine. This did not study the actual vapors from the e-cigarettes, and hence tells us nothing about secondhand exposure to it. I don't give a crap how much someone wants to use an e-cigarette at home, in their car, or in other private places where tobacco use is allowed. However they do not have the right to subject me to it.
You want e-cigs banned.
No, I do not. Please do not misquote me. I have said repeatedly that people can use them all they want at home, in the car, or in other places where regular tobacco use is allowed. I just don't want them used in public where they put others at risk.
Fine. I do not care.
For someone who claims to not care, you have written a lot about this matter.
My nose burns. I sneeze. My eyes water.
I'm sorry that you are having an allergic reaction to someone's perfumes or colognes. If this is a routine thing then it would seem that you are routinely encountering the same person who does this, have you tried talking to them? If they are a coworker you could take it up with your HR department as well. At my own place of employment there are designated perfume/cologne free areas for people with sensitivities such as what you describe.
a relatively harmless smell is so terrible (vaping)
You have it wrong here again. The smell of the e-cigarette is only part of the problem. The bigger problem is that with the vast overwhelming majority of e-cigarette cocktails we really don't know what is in the vapor, particularly after combustion.
nobody has proven vaping is even bad.
That is a moving target at best. We know formaldehyde is in a large number of the e-cigarette mixtures, and we know what that does to the body - and that it can be vaporized. But at what point would it be accepted that one mixture is "bad"? Do we need an animal model showing a mouse getting lung cancer from second-hand exposure? Then do we have to do that for the thousands of other cocktails out there as well? The contents of the mixtures are pretty well never shared publicly, and almost never are the manufacturers required to do so.
Do you understand now?
Understand that you are defending e-cigarettes? Yes I understand that. Understand why you are defending them? No. Understand why you feel the need to be evasive with statements like
Vaping is as toxic, or even less toxic, than your perfumes and colognes.
First of all, you have provided zero evidence to support that. How are you measuring toxicity? Who measured what kind of e-cigarette vapor using what kind of device? You might as well be comparing to to unicorn tears with that nebulous claim.
Second, even if you did have evidence comparing a volume of the e-cigarette juice to an equal volume of cologne, that would not be a relevant comparison. Most people put on cologne or perfume once in the morning and then none again throughout the day, while people who use e-cigarettes will use repeatedly throughout the day. In other words second-hand exposure - which is what we're trying to prevent here - goes down throughout the day for cologne but goes down, up, down, up, etc for e-cigarettes.
Ban both or be a hypocrite.
Don't be ridiculous. Pretending that they are somehow comparable is absurd.
Whether a restaurant or store allows vaping or not should be up to the owner of that restaurant or store.
How many businesses have you visited that have their own fully-contained air supply with sufficient filtration to keep pollutants from seeping between their business and the rest of the world? I can't recall any that I have ever visited. Air is a shared resource. People have a right to not be subjected to a cloud of unknown pollution from others against their will.
Smokers can go kill themselves on their own property.
This is why restaurants went smoke free in most places years ago. Having a "smoking" and a "non-smoking" section in restaurants didn't work, the non-smokers were still breathing in the smoke from the smokers on the other side of the restaurant.
You would perhaps have an argument here if there was some sort of inherent "right to smoke", but none exists and there is no reason for one ever to. If smokers can't get by with smoking in their homes and automobiles, too bad. They have no right to pollute the air of the rest of humanity.
Thank you. Your number here is low enough that you also likely recall what this place was like before it became a conservative echo chamber. Oddly enough after being tagged troll my comment has such been up-moded repeatedly so it does seem there are a few sensible people reading this thread.
Slashdot Mirror
The thinkpad keyboards are still great, even after Lenovo acquired the line from IBM. We lost the thinklight a while ago, and the travel is slightly less than it used to be, but they are still the best for typing. I'm typing this on an X260 right now.
That said, the "ideapad" laptops are generally inferior. If you want a laptop with a good keyboard you only have one brand worth looking at - fortunately they have a lot of different models for you.
I have comcast and I live in the middle of the country (over 1,000 miles from my home to the nearest ocean). I just logged in to my box at home (which is connected by comcast) from work and everything is fine.
the university takes a percentage off the "substantial grant" a faculty gets, in the name of "overhead".
Absolutely right. Fortunately most granting organizations (or at least the ones I am most familiar with such as NIH and NSF) are familiar enough with that expectation that they let you write it right into your proposal. Basically you say you need $X per year to keep the lights on and $Y per year to pay your grad students and you put it into the proposal.
Unfortunately if you are new faculty at an expensive university that ends up counting against you as you are then competing against faculty from other schools where the university cut - and the grad student salaries - is lower.
The job market is rather abysmal for grad school graduates right now, particularly if they go to grad school with the ambition of some day being faculty somewhere with their own research lab and a teaching appointment. There are plenty of good jobs in industry for those who finish their master's or PhD but a lot of grad school advisors look down on those positions and encourage their students to do the same (for both the positions and those who take them). On top of that grad students - at least STEM PhD students - are paid on average $20-35k / year as grad students at most US schools which is terrible pay. Few students are able to live on that kind of pay for the amount of time that it can take to earn a PhD - and it doesn't get a whole lot better as a postdoc either (for those who want to make an attempt at the academic route).
And on top of that a lot of grad schools conveniently forget to tell their students that junior faculty - not that many grad students make it that far - are averaging eighty hour work weeks at the big research universities right now when they are getting started. 40 hours goes in to the tasks you associate with junior faculty - teaching, research, assembling and running a lab - while another 40 hours per week goes in to preparing grant proposals. At many schools the junior faculty who don't pull in a substantial grant by their third or fourth year are promptly shown the door.
The money isn't there, the job security is nonexistent, the job prospects are slim. Not many Americans are masochistic enough to go that way any more. Plenty of job tracks exist for those with 4 year degrees (or even less) that pay better and have better job security than those that open up for those with advanced degrees.
I was considering going to Blade Runner with my wife. However it had been so long since I had last seen the first one I thought it would be nice to see it again before seeing the new one. So I checked the usual retailers - in my case Best Buy, Target, WalMart - and couldn't get it there as it was not available. I can't stream it on NetFlix either. I checked Barnes and Noble as well, no dice. I checked Amazon; they couldn't guarantee it either (only available through third parties).
Disney did the same thing with Tron when they released the new one a few years ago. If you shut out the fans who want to see it, you'll end up getting less money for the new product. In my case I just simply gave up and figured it's not that important. I can go spend my money on something else.
Do you parents still have health insurance for you?
I've been on my own two feet since I was a teenager half a century ago.
You've thrown out some fascinating distortions and outright lies in this discussion already, and that whopper sits well with them. You don't really expect us to believe that someone in their 60s would decide to open an account on this deteriorating website so they could show off to a very small part of the world just how uninformed they are, do you?
Seriously, kid. Get help. I'm done with you. I'm sure you'll come up with even more fascinating counterfactual output to somehow come back at me, but I don't care what you say next. You're done wasting my time. We both know you don't have the least bit of a clue on this matter; you have demonstrated that over and over again.
You are showing signs of a pretty severe case of last-post-itis there, kid. Do you parents still have health insurance for you? I'd recommend you seek out psychiatric treatment before it expires.
As for reading, try reading anything, really. You keep grasping at fact-free statements or half-truths and then trying to sling them at me when you can't build an argument. If you can't be bothered to read any of the sources I have cited in this discussion, that is not my fault. You hardly even show the ability to read what I write in reply to your comments, so I would expect that the sources I use are beyond your comprehension any ways.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but this is about a law in New York State. I can tell you from experience that you are absolutely not allowed to smoke inside a tobacco store in New York State
I just checked and you are wrong. Tobacconists, cigar bars, and private clubs are exempt from smoking bans in NY.
I will accept your absence of a source as confirmation that you made that up. I lived in NY State for over 7 years and I was familiar with the tobacco laws. Considering all the other nonsense you have spewed in this discussion, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you made that up as well.
I'm done responding to your ridiculous lies. It is no small wonder that someone as ignorant and inflammatory as yourself has so many foes and not yet a single fan here. You can keep making stuff up out of thin air or you can actually read up on what you are pretending to be knowledgeable on, but you're done wasting my time. You have shown repeatedly that you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about on this matter, you would have done yourself a great favor some time ago to stop replying and start reading. Instead you doubled down and went for slinging ridiculous disconnected insults at me.
Good bye, kid.
And what's your point here? I've told you repeatedly that you are free to go poison yourself at home all you want, but you have no right to poison me against my will.
and if you do choose to enter a business that permits smoking, you are being poisoned with your consent.
Except that it has been understood for some time that a single establishment that allows smoking will end up poisoning not only people who are customers, but also people who are nearby, people who know customers, people who are tangential clients, etc. The pollution has to go somewhere once it is created, and the establishments would go broke if they were to invest in proper equipment to handle it.
(Additionally, there is no evidence that second hand e-cigarette vapor poisons anyone, so your defense of the ban is also not based in science or facts.)
We've discussed this before. The product is not safe, period. You can drink their kool-aid if you want, but it won't change the fact that there is no safe limit for exposure - especially when the manufacturers and vendors insist on not announcing what is in their mixtures. Nobody has a right to forcibly expose others to this.
We don't even allow people to smoke inside stores that exist to sell smoking products, but the store owners don't complain.
In fact, smoking in retail tobacco shops and private smoke lounges is legally permitted in California
Perhaps you didn't notice, but this is about a law in New York State. I can tell you from experience that you are absolutely not allowed to smoke inside a tobacco store in New York State - with the exception of ones that are located on tribal land.
And if bar owners overwhelmingly prefer a smoke free environment, what would be the harm in giving bar owners the choice? Why do you have this compulsive need to make the entire world conform to your preferences?
Because in a bar or restaurant you can end up with people unwillingly inhaling the toxic second hand smoke. You can also end up with passers-by and neighbors who are also exposed against their will. Air is a communal resource.
When you have thought this through, you will see that smoking restrictions and forced sterilizations aren't just accidental companions in both US progressivism and German fascism, but come from the same ideological roots.
Not even remotely close. You can keep twisting about if you want, but you will remain wrong on that matter. Go poison yourself at home, and leave the rest of the country out of it. We have a right to not be harmed by your bad choices.
And what's your point here? I've told you repeatedly that you are free to go poison yourself at home all you want, but you have no right to poison me against my will.
Similarly, you are free to continue falling on your own face in this discussion all you want, I cannot stop you from doing that.
I went through grad school in a similar illusion of going into a strictly academic position. Then I went through a postdoc position and hit a wall. There are lots and lots of PhDs running around out there who tried the same and failed the same.
Thankfully a lot of advisers now are more receptive to their students announcing early that they want to follow a non-academic track (many before used to reject prospective students who wanted that). However not many are great at steering their grad students towards it. If the faculty advisers were even honest about the time commitments expected of junior faculty in the hard sciences (generally starting around 80 hours a week) that would steer many students down another path.
That said, I have a non-academic position and I am very happy. I'm making more than junior faculty at the school where I did my undergrad or PhD and I only work 40 hours a week.
If you want to pretend that you could somehow know e-cigarette cocktails to be safe
The criterion for imposing government regulations on the use of private property
In your private home, that you own, you can poison yourself all you like. However you do not have the right to poison me in other places.
So, if you want to ban e-cigs on my private property by law
I'm interested in knowing what business you own that would be harmed by forbidding the use of e-cigarettes? We don't even allow people to smoke inside stores that exist to sell smoking products, but the store owners don't complain. It's not legal for me to run an internal combustion engine indoors at my place of employment - even if I wanted to use it to generate power - and that doesn't bother me either.
I mean, people like you got away with compulsive sterilization and segregation with pretty much the same reasoning you are applying here. Iâ(TM)m just expressing my disapproval.
No, that is not even remotely close to true. Telling people they cannot poison others does not come the slightest bit close to mandatory sterilization. In fact the Nazis you tried to compare me to in a separate thread would likely have been quite fond of your plans to force people to accept exposure to toxic vapors, I recall that worked pretty well for them for a while.
If you're going to pull out the stops and call me a Nazi, you could at least do so with a properly formatted link so I could see you try to support your argument.
We cannot answer the first question because the manufacturers won't tell us.
Gee, if only there were a device you could use to measure the components of a vapor. And if only there were well known techniques for measuring a statistically relevant sample of e-cig vapors to get a general idea of what's in them.
Very cute, there. If you knew more about mass spectrometry you would likely know the statistical difficulties native to the method. However even if you were able to do absolute quantification of every component in a single sample, the e-cigarette market is so thoroughly un-regulated that there is no way to assert that sample as being representative of anything. A company can make a formula "ABC1" and sell it today that has a given mixture, and then sell a completely different formula "ABC1" tomorrow with all the same labels. On top of that there is no reason to expect that one company's "ABC1" is similar to their "ABC2", or that something called "ACB1" from another company is at all similar to either.
So I honestly have no data about the physics of how an e-cig works. However, I'd be very, very suprised if there are anywhere near the reactions going on in a battery powered e-cig versus combusting tobacco. If I were building an e-cig, I'd use the lowest power possible to vaporize the fluid.
One model is described at howstuffworks.com. This one they describe uses a heating element, which correlates well with verified reports of people being burned by them. It's not combustion, but it is high enough temperature to ionize the liquids so they can be inhaled.
But I'd be really, really surprised if any chemical reactions at all occur, let alone combustion or ionization. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?
We've been able to observe chemical reactions between charged gas phase-ions for over half a century now. After all, what is an ion but a molecule with a non-zero charge? Anything with a non-zero charge will have a tendency to seek out another molecule to resolve that charge to zero.
I suspect you can count the number of detectable chemicals on your fingers and toes
That's making some pretty huge assumptions about the manufacturing process used by the companies selling the e-cigarette liquids (amongst other things).
Well, lots of possibilities: you could be lying, it could be psychosomatic, or your lungs could be damaged due to your history of smoking
I will ask you once to withhold your accusations and presumptions. They don't belong in this discsussion.
at most that would justify restricting it on public property, not on private property.
Which private properties are you asking to be able to use e-cigarettes at that don't allow traditional cigarettes? This mostly applies to public property, along with the addition of businesses that are already banned from allowing tobacco use. This does not at all touch what one can do in their homes, for example.
First of all, did you read the line you quoted? This is not the federal government involved here. This is the State government of New York, representing the people of New York.
Under the incorporation doctrine, most of the limits on federal power also apply to the states.
Your argument would hold more water if you would adhere to only one reading of a sentence.
They are expressly allowed to do this if they so choose.
No, sorry: many restrictions on they private property are not permissible under the Constitution and are not compatible with a free society no matter what the majority of people want to happen.
You can keep moving the goal posts if you want, but it won't help your case. If you want to pretend that you could somehow know e-cigarette cocktails to be safe - and you can't possibly suipport that claim when you don't know what is in them - then just stick to that. Playing SCOTUS here doesn't help you.
OK, it has formaldehyde in it. How much? And is it enough to have any effect?
We cannot answer the first question because the manufacturers won't tell us. If we bought a vial from a local shop today that was called "ABC1" and we tested it, there is no guarantee that it would be an accurate reflection on another bottle of "ABC1" purchased tomorrow, or a bottle of "ABC2" or "XYZ17" purchased later today. The lack of regulation leads to - amongst other things - no standards or accountability on what goes in to these cocktails.
We know how toxic formaldehyde is, but we don't know how much formaldehyde is in the vial. We also don't know the actual volume in each puff as there is no dosing regulation on the devices.
I don't think we consider how risky things are absolute terms before banning them.
I'd like to point out that this is quite a bit different from an outright ban. People can still use them; the law only says they cannot use them in public. Generally things that pose a danger to the public are prohibited from being done in public.
That mist you see? It's not combustion particles, it's water droplets. It's fog.
That's an oversimplification.
Can you make a water mist without putting energy in? Most e-cigarettes have high temperature elements in them to create that mist, while the mist may be mostly water vapor there is plenty of other stuff in there that combusted in the high temperature environment created by the device. Even amongst the other chemicals that were not combusted many of them were ionized into vapor, making them more biologically active than they were in liquid form.
The law isn't telling people they can't do it, rather it is saying that the rest of society has the right to not be exposed to it involuntarily (as is also the case with regular tobacco smoke). You can still smoke it in your private home, or in your private car, or in other private places. Those who are intelligent enough to not smoke this should not be forcibly exposed to the toxic brew that is produces.
No, the law is quite definitely telling people they may not vape in public places.
I don't see the disagreement. Tobacco use is banned in public places in New York state for the same reason. I was pointing out that people can still kill themselves with e-cigarettes in their own home, car, and other private places all they want.
What many other posters are saying is we have no such evidence in the vaping case. Maybe the vapor is harmful, maybe it's no more toxic than normal city air. I honestly have no idea. But until someone produces some reasonably strong evidence, we should be quite hesitant to ban it.
The problem though is that the e-cigarettes are the ultimate moving target for safety. There are thousands of different cocktails available for them on the market today, and almost none of them list their contents. Once we show that one is toxic what do we do about the rest of them? Even if cocktail "ABC1" was shown toxic, how would you know if the guy next to you is smoking "ABC1", "ABC2", or "XYZ28"? You simply don't know that, and the user might not know - or care - if their favorite blend has been proven toxic.
maybe it's no more toxic than normal city air.
I don't know where you live but there is little to no detectable vaporized formaldehyde where I live. The industrial plants here have to install scrubbers for their exhaust stacks to deal with known toxic chemicals. E-cigarettes don't have anything to contain toxic products of combustion - in fact by design they allow those right into the smoker's mouth.
I haven't heard anyone make a case that the chemicals in vape vapor is more or less harmful than ordinary air.
As has come up already, there are thousands of different cocktails on the US market today. There is no standard of any sort for this almost completely unregulated industry. We know some of them have - amongst other toxic chemicals - formaldehyde in them, but showing them to all have it would be a waste of time as there would be new ones before you finish, old ones would be gone or renamed, etc. We could show that one has toxic shit in it, but then the vendors would reply by saying we didn't test the rest of them.
How many businesses have you visited that have their own fully-contained air supply with sufficient filtration to keep pollutants from seeping between their business and the rest of the world?
We're talking about vaping here, not nerve gas. There is not a shred of evidence that second hand vaping causes any problems even sitting right next to someone.
So the time that someone let their puff of vapor my way and I was coughing and tearing for the next 15 minutes was just a figment of my imagination then? I'm glad you came along to correct my reality for me.
You would perhaps have an argument here if there was some sort of inherent "right to smoke", but none exists and there is no reason for one ever to.
You got it backwards. The question is: does government have legitimate power to prevent people from smoking, and of course it doesn't. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
First of all, did you read the line you quoted? This is not the federal government involved here. This is the State government of New York, representing the people of New York. They are expressly allowed to do this if they so choose.
Second, this is not about a right. This is about putting others at risk. I don't have the right to dig a giant unprotected hole in a public place that people could fall into.
You want e-cigs banned.
No, I do not. Please do not misquote me. I have said repeatedly that people can use them all they want at home, in the car, or in other places where regular tobacco use is allowed. I just don't want them used in public where they put others at risk.
Fine. I do not care.
For someone who claims to not care, you have written a lot about this matter.
My nose burns. I sneeze. My eyes water.
I'm sorry that you are having an allergic reaction to someone's perfumes or colognes. If this is a routine thing then it would seem that you are routinely encountering the same person who does this, have you tried talking to them? If they are a coworker you could take it up with your HR department as well. At my own place of employment there are designated perfume/cologne free areas for people with sensitivities such as what you describe.
a relatively harmless smell is so terrible (vaping)
You have it wrong here again. The smell of the e-cigarette is only part of the problem. The bigger problem is that with the vast overwhelming majority of e-cigarette cocktails we really don't know what is in the vapor, particularly after combustion.
nobody has proven vaping is even bad.
That is a moving target at best. We know formaldehyde is in a large number of the e-cigarette mixtures, and we know what that does to the body - and that it can be vaporized. But at what point would it be accepted that one mixture is "bad"? Do we need an animal model showing a mouse getting lung cancer from second-hand exposure? Then do we have to do that for the thousands of other cocktails out there as well? The contents of the mixtures are pretty well never shared publicly, and almost never are the manufacturers required to do so.
Do you understand now?
Understand that you are defending e-cigarettes? Yes I understand that. Understand why you are defending them? No. Understand why you feel the need to be evasive with statements like
I do not care
? No.
People have actually studied e-cig output
Who are these people?
Where are their studies?
What liquids did they test?
What devices were used in the test to vaporize them?
What techniques were used to search for the compounds that came out?
You keep telling me that these are safe but you can't be bothered to provide any support for that claim.
Maybe we need a "vaping mask" that can be used in public. It would seal around mouth and nose, and filter exhalations. That would address the problem.
I'm thinking this might be an acceptably inexpensive solution. Saran wrap or packing tape come to mind as well.
Vaping is as toxic, or even less toxic, than your perfumes and colognes.
First of all, you have provided zero evidence to support that. How are you measuring toxicity? Who measured what kind of e-cigarette vapor using what kind of device? You might as well be comparing to to unicorn tears with that nebulous claim.
Second, even if you did have evidence comparing a volume of the e-cigarette juice to an equal volume of cologne, that would not be a relevant comparison. Most people put on cologne or perfume once in the morning and then none again throughout the day, while people who use e-cigarettes will use repeatedly throughout the day. In other words second-hand exposure - which is what we're trying to prevent here - goes down throughout the day for cologne but goes down, up, down, up, etc for e-cigarettes.
Ban both or be a hypocrite.
Don't be ridiculous. Pretending that they are somehow comparable is absurd.
Whether a restaurant or store allows vaping or not should be up to the owner of that restaurant or store.
How many businesses have you visited that have their own fully-contained air supply with sufficient filtration to keep pollutants from seeping between their business and the rest of the world? I can't recall any that I have ever visited. Air is a shared resource. People have a right to not be subjected to a cloud of unknown pollution from others against their will.
Smokers can go kill themselves on their own property.
This is why restaurants went smoke free in most places years ago. Having a "smoking" and a "non-smoking" section in restaurants didn't work, the non-smokers were still breathing in the smoke from the smokers on the other side of the restaurant.
You would perhaps have an argument here if there was some sort of inherent "right to smoke", but none exists and there is no reason for one ever to. If smokers can't get by with smoking in their homes and automobiles, too bad. They have no right to pollute the air of the rest of humanity.
Thank you. Your number here is low enough that you also likely recall what this place was like before it became a conservative echo chamber. Oddly enough after being tagged troll my comment has such been up-moded repeatedly so it does seem there are a few sensible people reading this thread.