not really. software loses value as it becomes older and the rest of the world moves on to new software. while it is true that software doesn't physically degrade, it does lose value. (would you pay $150 for Windows 95?)
that article is only one of the many pointing out that the evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful, is not scientific evidence. the studies fail to meet the standards of science. most other reports which reach the same conclusion aren't even studies, they are reports on the original study.
yo, i'm willing to be swayed. show me a scientific study, peer reviewed, double-blind, whatever it needs to be credible, which reaches a solid conclusion that there is a statistically significant health detriment from secondhand smoke, and i'll concede the point. yo, tobacco smoke makes my body feel crappy, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the science came to the apparent conclusion that secondhand smoke is demonstrably bad for nonsmokers; but so long as i choose to base this kind of belief on real evidence, i exercise my prerogative to be skeptical.
for you, you can jump to any conclusions you want. that's your prerogative, too.
i guess my general accusation is that it is self-richeous to beef on smokers for (this is a typical claim) "killing" nonsmokers without any evidence that in fact secondhand smoke is harmful. the two caveats to that are 1.) if you don't base your beliefs on science, then you can claim anything you want; and 2.) the science of harm may be forthcoming, at which point nonsmokers might make a case. another caveat: i could be ignorant of valid studies showing real connections between secondhand smoke and illness; but it's an issue i follow so i hope that's not the case.
i'm not a smoker, and in fact tobacco smoke really bothers my eyes, nose, and throat -- like, a lot. but i'm also libertarian-leaning, and i believe in the right to smoke tobacco if you choose, outdoors, or in private establishments, or anywhere else that an American might expect his liberties to be upheld. i have a love-hate relationship about smoking bans because i *really* like smoke-free bars, but i *really* hate overburdensome laws. even IF i like smoke-free bars, i haven't concluded yet that my personal preference and comfort trumps the freedom and liberty of my countrymen.
i've been to cities with smoking bans, but what's a "no smoking ban"? do you force a pack of Camels into the hands of everyone who comes to town?
Re:Safe? they should find a more efficient way
on
Safe Cigarettes?
·
· Score: 1
Smoking does not gain you anything, there are much more efficient ways you could ingest nicotine
i smoke, but i don't smoke tobacco. the drug in my smokable plant of choice can also be delivered in other forms, but i can tell you that the other forms don't matter -- i smoke it because i enjoy the smoking. i can tell you aren't a smoker because you don't seem to be familiar with the enjoyment of the act of smoking, you seem to assume that people smoke only to deliver the target drug into the body. that is not so: smoking itself is enjoyable.
furthermore, second hand smoke doesn't cause real harm, it is merely bothersome. "bother" may still be above your threshold for a ban, but "bother" isn't so strong a reason as "harm".
finally it's disingenuous to say that humans don't have the "right" to spoil the air that others might breathe. if you insist on continuing that claim, please apply the argument to all the other, far more significant, forms of air pollution first.
now you have been informed, so you may revise your argument.
PS shit, you know, i just read the last paragraph of your post and realize you were trolling! ha! that's awesome, you totally had me going. nice of you to throw in the nazi thing at the end, so we all know you were intentionally trying to be an idiot asshole.
Its a drug, that has no benefits, is toxic in every respect, and it should be just as outlawed as heroin.
you don't count as a benefit making people happy? bringing a little enjoyment? making a good time better? happiness or contentedness isn't good enough for you? who are you, the Grinch?
PS caffiene is worse than tobacco. you probably already think caffeine should be criminalized, but if you don't, add that to your list of things you want to force other people not to enjoy.
(i'm not a tobacco smoker, i think it's a dirty smelly herb)
do you really deny that many people simply enjoy smoking tobacco? if so, you are ignorant. if not, i don't understand your argument. it is true that many tobacco smokers, perhaps a majority, are addicted such that they would stop if it were trivial for them to do so, but it is not true that the tobacco phenomenon can be dismissed as a product of addiction.
what i'm saying is, if (big if here) a safe cigarette could be developed, why would you beef people for smoking it? it brings them pleasure (apparently) and causes no harm (apparently). explain your beef.
same goes for just about everything. if people are willing to trade off some liability for some pleasure -- which everybody does every day in just about evey human activity -- then what conceivable reason could you have for not supporting the reduction of the liability, while keeping the pleasure constant?
it's fine to believe that second hand smoke causes (real, actual, not imagined or pretend or alleged) harm, but i don't want anyone to think that there is any actual science to support that claim.
so if you base your beliefs on science, rethink your assumption that secondhand smoke is actually harmful, instead of just bothersome (which might still warrant a ban, but then again maybe not). and you can rethink the assumption once again if real evidence of harm is found.
offer the second guy and the fourth guy one stone each; the others get none. if the vote were to ever pass to the 2nd and 4th players, their plans would always be voted against by the other greedy players, thus neither #2 nor #4 will get anything at all, unless you offer them something.
We used to do 5 Minute Mysteries. My favorite was "Four men are found dead in a cabin in the woods, all sitting in seats facing the same direction. What happened?"
It's not really a riddle because there is supposed to be a question-answer discussion leading eventually to the solution, but all the details to solve the problem are in fact already given.
so is it a mistake in the original problem that, if each prisoner will be brought out X times, the king can bring out the first prisoner all X times before ever going back to the next prisoner? because if he can do that, he can bring out the counter all X times, and foil the prisoners' plan.
maybe. but the wording of the question, as i think we all agree is atrocious, allows the king to call in the counter all X times before ever bringing out any of the other prisoners. so worded, the count must be recognizable by *any* prisoner, not just a designated counter.
is there a known initial state to the chalice? do the prisoners know K? do the prisoners know the number of times they will be taken fron their cell beforehand?
if K is unbounded, that gives the king arbitrary control over the state of the chalice. he could simply undo every move made by the prisoners. they would have no ability to interact whatsoever.
Not just that, but space tourism is a fantastic idea. One way to look at it is simple economics: there is a demand for space flight, and there is an incredibly limited supply, which of course increases the price to astronomical heights, if you'll pardon the pun; but so long as the exchange is 'profitable' to the 'supplier', which in this case it is, it will naturally lead to an increase in supply. Maybe in a few years it will only cost a million dollars. That will be in the price range of a lot of people. Not you and me, but a lot of people.
Slashdot Mirror
what about the article made you assume that the woman was telling the truth?
holy shit. the year 1582 had fifteen months?
what's the name of that month? pentakaidecacember?
yes. you didn't know that?
not really. software loses value as it becomes older and the rest of the world moves on to new software. while it is true that software doesn't physically degrade, it does lose value. (would you pay $150 for Windows 95?)
yeah, it's not news like the Hurricane Rita wasn't news, nor fires set in Paris.
you got it right when you said it was news because people are still falling for it.
that article is only one of the many pointing out that the evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful, is not scientific evidence. the studies fail to meet the standards of science. most other reports which reach the same conclusion aren't even studies, they are reports on the original study.
yo, i'm willing to be swayed. show me a scientific study, peer reviewed, double-blind, whatever it needs to be credible, which reaches a solid conclusion that there is a statistically significant health detriment from secondhand smoke, and i'll concede the point. yo, tobacco smoke makes my body feel crappy, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the science came to the apparent conclusion that secondhand smoke is demonstrably bad for nonsmokers; but so long as i choose to base this kind of belief on real evidence, i exercise my prerogative to be skeptical.
for you, you can jump to any conclusions you want. that's your prerogative, too.
i guess my general accusation is that it is self-richeous to beef on smokers for (this is a typical claim) "killing" nonsmokers without any evidence that in fact secondhand smoke is harmful. the two caveats to that are 1.) if you don't base your beliefs on science, then you can claim anything you want; and 2.) the science of harm may be forthcoming, at which point nonsmokers might make a case. another caveat: i could be ignorant of valid studies showing real connections between secondhand smoke and illness; but it's an issue i follow so i hope that's not the case.
i'm not a smoker, and in fact tobacco smoke really bothers my eyes, nose, and throat -- like, a lot. but i'm also libertarian-leaning, and i believe in the right to smoke tobacco if you choose, outdoors, or in private establishments, or anywhere else that an American might expect his liberties to be upheld. i have a love-hate relationship about smoking bans because i *really* like smoke-free bars, but i *really* hate overburdensome laws. even IF i like smoke-free bars, i haven't concluded yet that my personal preference and comfort trumps the freedom and liberty of my countrymen.
jolly good then, carry on; a good gag, that
i've been to cities with smoking bans, but what's a "no smoking ban"? do you force a pack of Camels into the hands of everyone who comes to town?
Smoking does not gain you anything, there are much more efficient ways you could ingest nicotine
i smoke, but i don't smoke tobacco. the drug in my smokable plant of choice can also be delivered in other forms, but i can tell you that the other forms don't matter -- i smoke it because i enjoy the smoking. i can tell you aren't a smoker because you don't seem to be familiar with the enjoyment of the act of smoking, you seem to assume that people smoke only to deliver the target drug into the body. that is not so: smoking itself is enjoyable.
furthermore, second hand smoke doesn't cause real harm, it is merely bothersome. "bother" may still be above your threshold for a ban, but "bother" isn't so strong a reason as "harm".
finally it's disingenuous to say that humans don't have the "right" to spoil the air that others might breathe. if you insist on continuing that claim, please apply the argument to all the other, far more significant, forms of air pollution first.
now you have been informed, so you may revise your argument.
PS shit, you know, i just read the last paragraph of your post and realize you were trolling! ha! that's awesome, you totally had me going. nice of you to throw in the nazi thing at the end, so we all know you were intentionally trying to be an idiot asshole.
Its a drug, that has no benefits, is toxic in every respect, and it should be just as outlawed as heroin.
you don't count as a benefit making people happy? bringing a little enjoyment? making a good time better? happiness or contentedness isn't good enough for you? who are you, the Grinch?
PS caffiene is worse than tobacco. you probably already think caffeine should be criminalized, but if you don't, add that to your list of things you want to force other people not to enjoy.
(i'm not a tobacco smoker, i think it's a dirty smelly herb)
do you really deny that many people simply enjoy smoking tobacco? if so, you are ignorant. if not, i don't understand your argument. it is true that many tobacco smokers, perhaps a majority, are addicted such that they would stop if it were trivial for them to do so, but it is not true that the tobacco phenomenon can be dismissed as a product of addiction.
what i'm saying is, if (big if here) a safe cigarette could be developed, why would you beef people for smoking it? it brings them pleasure (apparently) and causes no harm (apparently). explain your beef.
same goes for just about everything. if people are willing to trade off some liability for some pleasure -- which everybody does every day in just about evey human activity -- then what conceivable reason could you have for not supporting the reduction of the liability, while keeping the pleasure constant?
it's fine to believe that second hand smoke causes (real, actual, not imagined or pretend or alleged) harm, but i don't want anyone to think that there is any actual science to support that claim.
link
so if you base your beliefs on science, rethink your assumption that secondhand smoke is actually harmful, instead of just bothersome (which might still warrant a ban, but then again maybe not). and you can rethink the assumption once again if real evidence of harm is found.
are you saying you advocate physical violence against a person who is merely passively bothering you, not harming you?
dude, our parents' generation is totally fucked up. take a look around.
good one
offer the second guy and the fourth guy one stone each; the others get none. if the vote were to ever pass to the 2nd and 4th players, their plans would always be voted against by the other greedy players, thus neither #2 nor #4 will get anything at all, unless you offer them something.
everyone guess the same color. as long as there is a "red" hat, then someone will get it right.
We used to do 5 Minute Mysteries. My favorite was "Four men are found dead in a cabin in the woods, all sitting in seats facing the same direction. What happened?"
It's not really a riddle because there is supposed to be a question-answer discussion leading eventually to the solution, but all the details to solve the problem are in fact already given.
so is it a mistake in the original problem that, if each prisoner will be brought out X times, the king can bring out the first prisoner all X times before ever going back to the next prisoner? because if he can do that, he can bring out the counter all X times, and foil the prisoners' plan.
maybe. but the wording of the question, as i think we all agree is atrocious, allows the king to call in the counter all X times before ever bringing out any of the other prisoners. so worded, the count must be recognizable by *any* prisoner, not just a designated counter.
if that's the answer to your riddle, you are an idiot. it's not within the constraints of the problem.
is there a known initial state to the chalice? do the prisoners know K? do the prisoners know the number of times they will be taken fron their cell beforehand?
if K is unbounded, that gives the king arbitrary control over the state of the chalice. he could simply undo every move made by the prisoners. they would have no ability to interact whatsoever.
moot
Not just that, but space tourism is a fantastic idea. One way to look at it is simple economics: there is a demand for space flight, and there is an incredibly limited supply, which of course increases the price to astronomical heights, if you'll pardon the pun; but so long as the exchange is 'profitable' to the 'supplier', which in this case it is, it will naturally lead to an increase in supply. Maybe in a few years it will only cost a million dollars. That will be in the price range of a lot of people. Not you and me, but a lot of people.