Hell, even snus is better than smoking. (Not regular snuff, even if it has a Swedish sounding name, but the real Scandinavian stuff, cured by steam instead of by heat, and free of most of the carcinogens.) But that's looked at as the gateway to smoking, rather than a safer alternative.
It would help if you didn't have several states whose entire economies depends on growing and selling the addictive substance in question.
Also, it does seem to engender a peculiar mental set. It's not a coincidence that these states also are renowned for the prehistoric policies of their governors, congressmen, and senators, not to mention the lingering mental and economic effects of having built their economies on not just tobacco growing, but tobacco growing conducted by slaves.
Smokers don't save any medical costs, as anybody who's worked in health insurance can tell you. That's why many insurers charge a premium of hundreds of dollars a year, even a month, for smokers. If smokers saved money, they'd be out there recruiting them, not to mention handing out free cigarettes.
The years of life lost to smokers are not the expensive end of life years. They are the healthy cost free years. On a cost/benefit basis, that's half a dozen years of paying in without taking any money out lost to the insurer. Smokers start racking up bills for COPD when they hit 50, and are on a bunch of meds to keep their lungs operational by the time they're 60, even if they've quit then.
last time i saw a study of it, which was decades ago, an average cd in good condition used a lot of error correction. i believe the production process generates enough bad dots or whatever that only robust error correction makes the technology useful.
The internet is not going to make living on Mars any easier. The internet is just a bunch of wires strung together, and has been around since the 1960s.
Yes, but the internet will ensure that when people do live on Mars, they will be able to send innumerable selfies back home.
Actually it does make sense to live on some other planet, and eventually other solar system. If an extinction level event occurs on the Earth
Most extinction level events that could happen on earth would be easier and cheaper to safeguard against while still living here
than by moving to mars. For instance, a deep sea colony would be cheaper and easier than a colony on mars and would
provide most of the the same safeguards as a colony on mars.
"This AGW thing makes me want to switch to alternative forms of energy" "You naive lefty dreamer! That's nutty and impossible! Anyway, if AGW becomes a problem, we'll just move the human race to another planet."
We probably are going to be more affected by what's going on in the deeper ocean now, and we're not much wiser about that than we are about what's going on on Mars. And it's probably cheaper to look down there.
And there were SF stories about underseas colonies too, although fewer of them.
Hey, who remembers "The Deep Range"?
Reducto Ad Absurdem is a perfectly valid argument. He is simply pointing out that there is necessarily a limitation to your viewpoint that you haven't addressed. Somewhere there is a line where the choice becomes non-free. "Your money or your life" is a good example of something over that line.
The real question is which side of the line is "get vaxed or get out" on and why.
We're fairly clear which side you believe it is on. Care to address the why part?
Note the common practice among the young and thuggish of asking "Lemme see a dollar" or "Lemme hold a couple of bucks" rather than "Your money or your life", which I have always believed was a fairly intelligent attempt to avoid the legal issue of force and/or intimidation. "I just said, lemme see a dollar. he did. he could have said no".
i keep hearing about this social contract, I never seen it, i never signed it. I had no choice in my being.
Contract law agrees with general good sense in this regard, in that if you have knowingly and willingly accepted the benefits of a particular contract, you have implicitly agreed to it. In this case, you could have expressed your opposition to the social contract at any time, either by removing yourself from the jurisdiction in which it is considered to be in effect, i.e. the US, or anywhere else you feel to be oppressive; or by rejecting some portion of it actively, for instance by robbing a bank or otherwise placing yourself outside the population who receive such benefits as protection by the police and/or armed forces, fire department, etc.
If you're still not clear on this here's another example: if you order a cup of coffee and the waiter mistakenly brings you a steak and you eat it, you do not then get to contest the check on the grounds that you never ordered it.
I've got a WAIS 3 combined cognitive function test score of over 180 (that's all you need to know), and I am against vaccinations where they are not necessary. Influenza mutates every ten days, rendering vaccinations useless before they're even distributed. My wife got a flu shot in October, she had influenza over xmas. I didn't get a flu shot, I'm strong as an ox. I've not even had so much as a cold since the last time I had a seasonal shot back in 1993 which resulted in me developing pneumonia thanks to influenza. Eight months it took me to recover from that.
If you got influenza from a flu shot, let alone pneumonia, you need to get a lawyer and make the company pay for marketing that vaccine which obviously doesn't meet the minimum standards for flu vaccine, which is that it contains no live virus.
innocent until proven guilty only applies to criminal prosecution, it doesn't even apply to civil suits, where the preponderance of the evidence is enough to establish a decision. Thus cases such as OJ, where he is not guilty in the criminal court for purposes of criminal punishment, but the civil suit could decide that his responsibility was well established enough that he had to pay damages.
The liability issue alone should be enough to make vaccination mandatory. Liability both ways; employees who sue Disney after they catch measles from a customer, and customers who catch measles from an employee. No court is going to argue against that.
But we live in an era when a US senator can argue that it's an infringement on the rights of a business to require it to require employees to wash hands after going to the bathroom; and that the remedy for this government overreach is for the government to require them to post a sign saying that they don't require employees to wash their hands. So apparently the issue isn't government regulation, it's just washing hands that worries him.
torture is an issue that's very much up in the air as to being reasonable to use - but there's no question the people it was used against were ACTUALLY criminals.
Nothing says "false moral equivalence" more than equating making known terrorists who have been captured in combat a little uncomfortable for a while.
What's sad is that you believe this is true.
"The waterboarding technique was physically harmful, inducing convulsions and vomiting. Abu Zubaydah, for example, became "completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth. " Internal CIA records describe the waterboarding of Khalid Shaykh Mohammad as evolving into a "series of near drownings."
Sleep deprivation involved keeping detainees awake for up to 180 hours, usually standing or in stress positions, at times with hands shackled above heads. At least five detainees experienced disturbing hallucinations during prolonged sleep deprivation and, in at least two of the cases, the CIA continued the sleep deprivation.
Contrary to CIA representations to the Department of Justice, the CIA instructed personnel that the interrogation of Abu Zbaydah would take precedence over his medical care, resulting in the deterioration of a bullet wound Abu Zubaydah incurred during his capture. In at least two other cases, the CIA used its enhanced interrogation despite warnings from CIA medical personnel that the techniques could exacerbate physical injuries. CIA medical personnel treated at least one detainee for swelling in order to allow the continued use of standing sleep deprivation.
At least five CIA detainees were subjected to "rectal rehydration" or rectal feeding without documented medical necessity. The CIA placed detainees in ice water "baths." The CIA led several detainees to believe they would never be allowed to leave CIA custody alive, suggesting to one detainee that he would only leave in a coffin-shaped box. One interrogator told another detainee that he would never go to court, because "we can never let the world know what I have done to you." CIA officers also threatened at least three detainees with harm to their families - to include threats to harm the children of a detainee, threats to sexually abuse the mother of a detainee, and a threat to "cut [a detainee' s] mother' s throat."
...
Of the 119 known detainees, at least 26 were wrongfully held and did not meet the detention standard in the September 2001 Memorandum of Notification (MON). These included an "intellectually challenged" man whose CIA detention was used solely as leverage to get a family member to provide information, two individuals who were intelligence sources for foreign liaison services and were former CIA sources, and two individuals whom the CIA assessed to be connected to al-Qa'ida based solely on information fabricated by a CIA detainee subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. Detainees often remained in custody for months after the CIA determined that they did not meet the MON standard. CIA records provide insufficient information to justify the detention of many other detainees." -Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program
And once again, we see that the most voluble proponents of the necessity of the Second Amendment to allow the citizens of the United States to stop their government from engaging in tyranny and oppression are also the most voluble proponents of government tyranny and oppression, as long as it's directed towards others.
" Putting $100,000,000,000 toward the wrong program means a lot of people die needlessly, because that $100,000,000,000 spent wisely could save a lot of people." For instance, for only ten times that we were able to kill half a million Iraqis. Who would want to detract from that to deal with something that only 97% of people who know what they're talking about consider a looming threat?
We've got plenty of threats, domestic and foreign, that require us to kill lots of people; we haven't got the luxury of addressing threats which do not involve killing anybody.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, even snus is better than smoking. (Not regular snuff, even if it has a Swedish sounding name, but the real Scandinavian stuff, cured by steam instead of by heat, and free of most of the carcinogens.) But that's looked at as the gateway to smoking, rather than a safer alternative.
It would help if you didn't have several states whose entire economies depends on growing and selling the addictive substance in question. Also, it does seem to engender a peculiar mental set. It's not a coincidence that these states also are renowned for the prehistoric policies of their governors, congressmen, and senators, not to mention the lingering mental and economic effects of having built their economies on not just tobacco growing, but tobacco growing conducted by slaves.
Smokers don't save any medical costs, as anybody who's worked in health insurance can tell you. That's why many insurers charge a premium of hundreds of dollars a year, even a month, for smokers. If smokers saved money, they'd be out there recruiting them, not to mention handing out free cigarettes. The years of life lost to smokers are not the expensive end of life years. They are the healthy cost free years. On a cost/benefit basis, that's half a dozen years of paying in without taking any money out lost to the insurer. Smokers start racking up bills for COPD when they hit 50, and are on a bunch of meds to keep their lungs operational by the time they're 60, even if they've quit then.
Nonsense. Millions of years ago there was more smoke in the air, and nobody got lung cancer
that's why i liked token ring.
last time i saw a study of it, which was decades ago, an average cd in good condition used a lot of error correction. i believe the production process generates enough bad dots or whatever that only robust error correction makes the technology useful.
The internet is not going to make living on Mars any easier. The internet is just a bunch of wires strung together, and has been around since the 1960s.
Yes, but the internet will ensure that when people do live on Mars, they will be able to send innumerable selfies back home.
The Concorde was an economic failure. Being able to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.
which is apparently the thinking behind manned lunar landings.
Actually it does make sense to live on some other planet, and eventually other solar system. If an extinction level event occurs on the Earth
Most extinction level events that could happen on earth would be easier and cheaper to safeguard against while still living here than by moving to mars. For instance, a deep sea colony would be cheaper and easier than a colony on mars and would provide most of the the same safeguards as a colony on mars.
"This AGW thing makes me want to switch to alternative forms of energy" "You naive lefty dreamer! That's nutty and impossible! Anyway, if AGW becomes a problem, we'll just move the human race to another planet."
We probably are going to be more affected by what's going on in the deeper ocean now, and we're not much wiser about that than we are about what's going on on Mars. And it's probably cheaper to look down there. And there were SF stories about underseas colonies too, although fewer of them. Hey, who remembers "The Deep Range"?
Reducto Ad Absurdem is a perfectly valid argument. He is simply pointing out that there is necessarily a limitation to your viewpoint that you haven't addressed. Somewhere there is a line where the choice becomes non-free. "Your money or your life" is a good example of something over that line.
The real question is which side of the line is "get vaxed or get out" on and why.
We're fairly clear which side you believe it is on. Care to address the why part?
Note the common practice among the young and thuggish of asking "Lemme see a dollar" or "Lemme hold a couple of bucks" rather than "Your money or your life", which I have always believed was a fairly intelligent attempt to avoid the legal issue of force and/or intimidation. "I just said, lemme see a dollar. he did. he could have said no".
It is often illegal to expose others to a disease, knowingly. https://www.google.com/webhp#n...
i keep hearing about this social contract, I never seen it, i never signed it. I had no choice in my being.
Contract law agrees with general good sense in this regard, in that if you have knowingly and willingly accepted the benefits of a particular contract, you have implicitly agreed to it. In this case, you could have expressed your opposition to the social contract at any time, either by removing yourself from the jurisdiction in which it is considered to be in effect, i.e. the US, or anywhere else you feel to be oppressive; or by rejecting some portion of it actively, for instance by robbing a bank or otherwise placing yourself outside the population who receive such benefits as protection by the police and/or armed forces, fire department, etc. If you're still not clear on this here's another example: if you order a cup of coffee and the waiter mistakenly brings you a steak and you eat it, you do not then get to contest the check on the grounds that you never ordered it.
I've got a WAIS 3 combined cognitive function test score of over 180 (that's all you need to know), and I am against vaccinations where they are not necessary. Influenza mutates every ten days, rendering vaccinations useless before they're even distributed. My wife got a flu shot in October, she had influenza over xmas. I didn't get a flu shot, I'm strong as an ox. I've not even had so much as a cold since the last time I had a seasonal shot back in 1993 which resulted in me developing pneumonia thanks to influenza. Eight months it took me to recover from that.
If you got influenza from a flu shot, let alone pneumonia, you need to get a lawyer and make the company pay for marketing that vaccine which obviously doesn't meet the minimum standards for flu vaccine, which is that it contains no live virus.
innocent until proven guilty only applies to criminal prosecution, it doesn't even apply to civil suits, where the preponderance of the evidence is enough to establish a decision. Thus cases such as OJ, where he is not guilty in the criminal court for purposes of criminal punishment, but the civil suit could decide that his responsibility was well established enough that he had to pay damages.
As a rule, in the US you can be terminated for any reason or none at all, except for the special protections: race, gender, age, religion, etc.
The liability issue alone should be enough to make vaccination mandatory. Liability both ways; employees who sue Disney after they catch measles from a customer, and customers who catch measles from an employee. No court is going to argue against that. But we live in an era when a US senator can argue that it's an infringement on the rights of a business to require it to require employees to wash hands after going to the bathroom; and that the remedy for this government overreach is for the government to require them to post a sign saying that they don't require employees to wash their hands. So apparently the issue isn't government regulation, it's just washing hands that worries him.
torture is an issue that's very much up in the air as to being reasonable to use - but there's no question the people it was used against were ACTUALLY criminals.
Nothing says "false moral equivalence" more than equating making known terrorists who have been captured in combat a little uncomfortable for a while.
What's sad is that you believe this is true.
"The waterboarding technique was physically harmful, inducing convulsions and vomiting. Abu Zubaydah, for example, became "completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth. " Internal CIA records describe the waterboarding of Khalid Shaykh Mohammad as evolving into a "series of near drownings."
Sleep deprivation involved keeping detainees awake for up to 180 hours, usually standing or in stress positions, at times with hands shackled above heads. At least five detainees experienced disturbing hallucinations during prolonged sleep deprivation and, in at least two of the cases, the CIA continued the sleep deprivation.
Contrary to CIA representations to the Department of Justice, the CIA instructed personnel that the interrogation of Abu Zbaydah would take precedence over his medical care, resulting in the deterioration of a bullet wound Abu Zubaydah incurred during his capture. In at least two other cases, the CIA used its enhanced interrogation despite warnings from CIA medical personnel that the techniques could exacerbate physical injuries. CIA medical personnel treated at least one detainee for swelling in order to allow the continued use of standing sleep deprivation.
At least five CIA detainees were subjected to "rectal rehydration" or rectal feeding without documented medical necessity. The CIA placed detainees in ice water "baths." The CIA led several detainees to believe they would never be allowed to leave CIA custody alive, suggesting to one detainee that he would only leave in a coffin-shaped box. One interrogator told another detainee that he would never go to court, because "we can never let the world know what I have done to you." CIA officers also threatened at least three detainees with harm to their families - to include threats to harm the children of a detainee, threats to sexually abuse the mother of a detainee, and a threat to "cut [a detainee' s] mother' s throat."
...
Of the 119 known detainees, at least 26 were wrongfully held and did not meet the detention standard in the September 2001 Memorandum of Notification (MON). These included an "intellectually challenged" man whose CIA detention was used solely as leverage to get a family member to provide information, two individuals who were intelligence sources for foreign liaison services and were former CIA sources, and two individuals whom the CIA assessed to be connected to al-Qa'ida based solely on information fabricated by a CIA detainee subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. Detainees often remained in custody for months after the CIA determined that they did not meet the MON standard. CIA records provide insufficient information to justify the detention of many other detainees." -Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program
And once again, we see that the most voluble proponents of the necessity of the Second Amendment to allow the citizens of the United States to stop their government from engaging in tyranny and oppression are also the most voluble proponents of government tyranny and oppression, as long as it's directed towards others.
Especially the DEA, I've been to a few gun shows, not a lot of dopers at them.
A few drunks though.
Take the bus. Too much effort to save America from tyranny? Sheesh.
it would be a parallel niverse, then?
a management truism; as a company treats its employees, so shall its employees treat customers.
please. this is a family forum. use the word a*terisk.
dummy whore asshole bitch
doodah, doodah
dummy whore asshole bitch
all the doodah day
" Putting $100,000,000,000 toward the wrong program means a lot of people die needlessly, because that $100,000,000,000 spent wisely could save a lot of people."
For instance, for only ten times that we were able to kill half a million Iraqis. Who would want to detract from that to deal with something that only 97% of people who know what they're talking about consider a looming threat?
We've got plenty of threats, domestic and foreign, that require us to kill lots of people; we haven't got the luxury of addressing threats which do not involve killing anybody.