From TFA:
"And like a marine sail, a solar sail could also bring you home. You could use the solar sail to tack your vessel, making it travel "against the wind," back to Earth."
I don't see how this would be possible.. sailboats can do this because of a keel which exerts force on the water, which cannot be done in the near vacuum of space. Or am i missing something?
We didn't evolve from modern day monkeys, both us and the apes have a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago, and an ancestor even further back where monkeys also evolved from. That is the species that 'lost' in the end. So yes, you are mistaken. Your view is one of the typical straw man arguments against evolution, made by people who don't (want) to understand how it works.
I skimmed both articles, they focus on medical costs related to smokers vs non smokers, not on medical costs related to smokers vs total costs for non smokers. So nothing about the tax on tobacco, duration of pensions/welfare, jobs sustained and lost because of smoking, import/export of tobacco and related goods, productivity lost due to smoke breaks, fires started by carelessly discarded cigarettes or the carbon emissions from lighter fuel.
The medical part is just one of the many factors of the economical impact that smoking has on our world, so purely medical accounting will give a twisted view of the numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only is it cold here, but most of the Netherlands is below sea level, so we get free water cooling too for overclocking our data centers.
From TFA: "And like a marine sail, a solar sail could also bring you home. You could use the solar sail to tack your vessel, making it travel "against the wind," back to Earth." I don't see how this would be possible.. sailboats can do this because of a keel which exerts force on the water, which cannot be done in the near vacuum of space. Or am i missing something?
We didn't evolve from modern day monkeys, both us and the apes have a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago, and an ancestor even further back where monkeys also evolved from. That is the species that 'lost' in the end. So yes, you are mistaken.
Your view is one of the typical straw man arguments against evolution, made by people who don't (want) to understand how it works.
I skimmed both articles, they focus on medical costs related to smokers vs non smokers, not on medical costs related to smokers vs total costs for non smokers. So nothing about the tax on tobacco, duration of pensions/welfare, jobs sustained and lost because of smoking, import/export of tobacco and related goods, productivity lost due to smoke breaks, fires started by carelessly discarded cigarettes or the carbon emissions from lighter fuel.
The medical part is just one of the many factors of the economical impact that smoking has on our world, so purely medical accounting will give a twisted view of the numbers.