If you are using something as a pain killer and the pain returns when you stop taking it that's not a withdrawal symptom and says nothing about addiction.
Caffeine is clearly addictive. It blocks adenosine and take enough of it and more adenosine receptors will grow to compensate, then take away they caffeine and fatigue results from the excess adenosine. It also restrict blood vessels resulting in lower blood flow (and higher blood pressure), take it away and get forced to expand by the greater flow and a headache results.
Marijuana doesn't seem to be so addictive (though I don't care enough to research).
Essentially anything that "feels good" is addictive because you "get used" to the dopamine and hence need more of the thing to get the same amount of "feel good"ness. But I don't think that's what is meant by addictive in the context of justification for having a drug illegal. Since sugar is very addictive by that metric - heck is meets the usual "will a rat starve to death chasing the 'high'" ridiculous experiment.
Why would you use alcohol as the benchmark. It's very addictive and very bad for you, but it' grandfathered in because we have been using it for thousands of years and it's become an important part of society (and hence attempts to remove it tend to fail badly).
If you think the government should prevent people from using things which are addictive or things that are bad for them then clearly you would want alcohol and other drugs made illegal. You may skip alcohol because your hypocritical or don't want to deal with the negative reaction of course.
If you think the government should let people do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others then clearly none of those things should be illegal.
And I'm pretty sure more people waste their live watching television and eating twinkies than do so smoking pot. That something is enjoyable does not make that thing addictive.
Nobody cares and nobody expects anyone to care. There is no experiment. There is no measurement.
There's a well known equation e=mc^2. An equation that lots of people who have no idea what it means have heard of. This is a simple application of it put out as a throw away joke that might just educate someone by some tiny amount.
Because the lender doesn't pay interest on the money they borrow in order to lend to the student.
You assume that the lender is just a middle man. At some point there is a "lender" who has to have the actual cash. If the lender is a government or national bank, then perhaps they do not pay interest.
The government certainly pays interest, at least in the US where they they spend more than their revenue. And the national bank better not be in the business of printing money to make direct loans to students - well I guess if lots of inflation is the goal.
And there's no opportunity cost in not lending it out as credit card debt or anything.
Why would government be concerned with this? This should not be a concern for student loans.
What does "After that it's all profit" have to with the government caring or not caring about anything?
$100,000 today is worth exactly $100,000 in 12 years time.
I pointed out profit is offset by inflation. However, student loan interest rate can also be linked to inflation e.g. the UK is switching 2011 student loan rates to RPI+3%.
You pointed out inflation as applying only to the profit. And of course even with 0% inflation $100,000 today is worth more than $100,000 in a decade.
Because the lender doesn't pay interest on the money they borrow in order to lend to the student. And there's no opportunity cost in not lending it out as credit card debt or anything. And of course there's no time value associated with money, $100,000 today is worth exactly $100,000 in 12 years time.
Say the US dollar dropped in value to 1/100 of what it is now. US labor is now cheaper than Chinese labor. Yes the standard of living in the US also plummets - but that's a given anyway.
Chinese wages are already rising rapidly anyway - which is unavoidable especially since the whole game of forcing the US dollar to be overvalued drives up inflation in China.
You also have a generation of people who believe they are entitled to government hand outs. The bulk of your industry (and the knowledge that goes with it) has been moved overseas. And everyone's 401k/IRA/etc wiped out.
But yes it would have been brilliant if you just hadn't blown all the wealth the US was accumuting from the rest of the world on lead painted toys, shitty clothing, and on commissions and fees collected by banks/etc for trading crappy houses/stocks/etc back and forth at widly inflated prices.
And I doubt you have a few decades until it hits the fan.
1. The US can print dollars and exchange them directly for oil. Of course doing so too blatantly would cause oil to not be traded in dollars anymore, but it gives the US something they wouldn't have if oil was traded in euros/etc. 2. It means countries that want to buy oil need to first buy dollars. Which applies creates demand for US dollars and hence makes them worth more. This should be countered by those selling oil getting dollars and then selling the dollars - except since trade is in dollars they just keep the dollars in their reserves directly (well as treasuries because 1% interest is better than 0%).
The idea is to slow down once you recover though. The US has just kept the speeding up, doing that trick to avoid a ditch and then speeding up some more.
There comes point at which is doesn't matter, you are going to hit the next ditch no matter what you do. And the US passed that point half a decade ago.
If the government stopped borrowing money it wouldn't be cheaper to manufacture products overseas. Since China wouldn't have a way of funneling their trade surplus back into US dollars, which would cause the US dollar to collapse and suddenly American workers are cheaper than Chinese workers.
Running of a runway is a crash. No there have been no deaths, I didn't take issue with that half of the claim. Yes none of their planes has ever fallen out of the sky and if you had to be in a plane crash that'd be the one you'd want to be in.
They have crashed. After all 1988 is 23 years ago and unsurprisingly a few thing have changed in the since then.
You may also be surprised to hear that contrary to all the other 1988 (and prior) fictional films you are taking as documentaries for current times there's no Berlin Wall anymore. There has also been some other minor events you have missed out on, something on 9/11/11. A few wars. A minor economic glitch. A black President. And so on.
What about the Pepsi which he may or may not like to be offered depending on if he's sleepy or not? What I took away from this is that he wants to be a spokesman for Free Software, but not if it inconveniences him in any way or requires him to leave his comfort zone.
That's your persepective. What I took away was "Please provide two cans of Pepsi (not Coke or diet), but don't be surprised if I don't drink them". And that he is verbose and can't help going off on tangents.
I'm pretty sure drowning would be rather unpleasant.
Not that I've ever drowned, but I have been under water long enough for my "must have air" drive to override my "must hold my breath" decision and "breath" some water. It was very unpleasant.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what your point is.
If you are using something as a pain killer and the pain returns when you stop taking it that's not a withdrawal symptom and says nothing about addiction.
Caffeine is clearly addictive. It blocks adenosine and take enough of it and more adenosine receptors will grow to compensate, then take away they caffeine and fatigue results from the excess adenosine. It also restrict blood vessels resulting in lower blood flow (and higher blood pressure), take it away and get forced to expand by the greater flow and a headache results.
Marijuana doesn't seem to be so addictive (though I don't care enough to research).
Essentially anything that "feels good" is addictive because you "get used" to the dopamine and hence need more of the thing to get the same amount of "feel good"ness. But I don't think that's what is meant by addictive in the context of justification for having a drug illegal. Since sugar is very addictive by that metric - heck is meets the usual "will a rat starve to death chasing the 'high'" ridiculous experiment.
Why would you use alcohol as the benchmark. It's very addictive and very bad for you, but it' grandfathered in because we have been using it for thousands of years and it's become an important part of society (and hence attempts to remove it tend to fail badly).
If you think the government should prevent people from using things which are addictive or things that are bad for them then clearly you would want alcohol and other drugs made illegal. You may skip alcohol because your hypocritical or don't want to deal with the negative reaction of course.
If you think the government should let people do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others then clearly none of those things should be illegal.
And I'm pretty sure more people waste their live watching television and eating twinkies than do so smoking pot. That something is enjoyable does not make that thing addictive.
it detects anyway?
Nobody cares and nobody expects anyone to care. There is no experiment. There is no measurement.
There's a well known equation e=mc^2. An equation that lots of people who have no idea what it means have heard of. This is a simple application of it put out as a throw away joke that might just educate someone by some tiny amount.
Because the lender doesn't pay interest on the money they borrow in order to lend to the student.
You assume that the lender is just a middle man. At some point there is a "lender" who has to have the actual cash. If the lender is a government or national bank, then perhaps they do not pay interest.
The government certainly pays interest, at least in the US where they they spend more than their revenue. And the national bank better not be in the business of printing money to make direct loans to students - well I guess if lots of inflation is the goal.
And there's no opportunity cost in not lending it out as credit card debt or anything.
Why would government be concerned with this? This should not be a concern for student loans.
What does "After that it's all profit" have to with the government caring or not caring about anything?
$100,000 today is worth exactly $100,000 in 12 years time.
I pointed out profit is offset by inflation. However, student loan interest rate can also be linked to inflation e.g. the UK is switching 2011 student loan rates to RPI+3%.
You pointed out inflation as applying only to the profit. And of course even with 0% inflation $100,000 today is worth more than $100,000 in a decade.
GE paid taxes last year, and the year before, and the year before. And will again this year and next year.
Because the lender doesn't pay interest on the money they borrow in order to lend to the student. And there's no opportunity cost in not lending it out as credit card debt or anything. And of course there's no time value associated with money, $100,000 today is worth exactly $100,000 in 12 years time.
Say the US dollar dropped in value to 1/100 of what it is now. US labor is now cheaper than Chinese labor. Yes the standard of living in the US also plummets - but that's a given anyway.
Chinese wages are already rising rapidly anyway - which is unavoidable especially since the whole game of forcing the US dollar to be overvalued drives up inflation in China.
You also have a generation of people who believe they are entitled to government hand outs. The bulk of your industry (and the knowledge that goes with it) has been moved overseas. And everyone's 401k/IRA/etc wiped out.
But yes it would have been brilliant if you just hadn't blown all the wealth the US was accumuting from the rest of the world on lead painted toys, shitty clothing, and on commissions and fees collected by banks/etc for trading crappy houses/stocks/etc back and forth at widly inflated prices.
And I doubt you have a few decades until it hits the fan.
Who thinks it's better to answer all their questions and take a poligraph rather than saying "I'll speak to you when I have a lawyer present".
It makes a huge difference.
1. The US can print dollars and exchange them directly for oil. Of course doing so too blatantly would cause oil to not be traded in dollars anymore, but it gives the US something they wouldn't have if oil was traded in euros/etc.
2. It means countries that want to buy oil need to first buy dollars. Which applies creates demand for US dollars and hence makes them worth more. This should be countered by those selling oil getting dollars and then selling the dollars - except since trade is in dollars they just keep the dollars in their reserves directly (well as treasuries because 1% interest is better than 0%).
The idea is to slow down once you recover though. The US has just kept the speeding up, doing that trick to avoid a ditch and then speeding up some more.
There comes point at which is doesn't matter, you are going to hit the next ditch no matter what you do. And the US passed that point half a decade ago.
Except that the Fed has bought treasuries. Guess how they pay for them.
If the government stopped borrowing money it wouldn't be cheaper to manufacture products overseas. Since China wouldn't have a way of funneling their trade surplus back into US dollars, which would cause the US dollar to collapse and suddenly American workers are cheaper than Chinese workers.
Running of a runway is a crash. No there have been no deaths, I didn't take issue with that half of the claim. Yes none of their planes has ever fallen out of the sky and if you had to be in a plane crash that'd be the one you'd want to be in.
I'm sure I made a typo, then again I'm sure you can find something that happened last month too.
They have crashed. After all 1988 is 23 years ago and unsurprisingly a few thing have changed in the since then.
You may also be surprised to hear that contrary to all the other 1988 (and prior) fictional films you are taking as documentaries for current times there's no Berlin Wall anymore. There has also been some other minor events you have missed out on, something on 9/11/11. A few wars. A minor economic glitch. A black President. And so on.
It isn't learrning from the past. It is making stuff up and then launching into wild conjecture from that fictional starting point.
What about the Pepsi which he may or may not like to be offered depending on if he's sleepy or not? What I took away from this is that he wants to be a spokesman for Free Software, but not if it inconveniences him in any way or requires him to leave his comfort zone.
That's your persepective. What I took away was "Please provide two cans of Pepsi (not Coke or diet), but don't be surprised if I don't drink them". And that he is verbose and can't help going off on tangents.
And yet Shechtman managed to publish his research in the usual channels the entire time.
But of course you can't see the difference.
Pennies aren't coins by your made up definition.
Because mine implies doing some work to find something that already exists. Wheras mint implies doing something with something you've already got.
I'm pretty sure drowning would be rather unpleasant.
Not that I've ever drowned, but I have been under water long enough for my "must have air" drive to override my "must hold my breath" decision and "breath" some water. It was very unpleasant.
That makes less sense since espresso can be made with a wide range of roasts.
But it does require the beans, so calling them espresso beans doesn't seem such a stretch.
Chargeback. Are you an idiot or something?