Water, glycerin, commonly used flavoring, and a little bit of nicotine that's mostly gone from the exhaled vapor and certainly not sufficient to affect you in any way.
Or the benzene or formaldehyde given that the ingredients on the liquid say water, glycerin, (widely used) flavoring and nicotine? What, did they use a broken unit with a leaky Ni-Cad battery in testing? Is that how we deal with a faulty device, ban the entire class of product?
I'm not buying it. This is an overreaction based on silly assumptions.
How is identifying who paid for an advertisement an infringement of anyone's rights? Do you have a right to know who is speaking to you? Keep in mind that this isn't speech you happen across, somebody paid a third party to show it to you.
Medieval Northern Europeans had to deal with plenty of cold pigs, so they built two story houses and put the pigs on the first floor. Both pigs and people stayed nice and warm.
Those are "issues of national interest", and if you ran them on any other medium you would face some regulation. Basically just identifying yourself as the one paying for them. Which is what makes marching around with a sign different - you're already identifying yourself.
Which ads get regulated is covered in the bill, and it seems they're using a fairly strict definition. Ads for or against a candidate and some issues of national interest.
What exactly is intelligent about melting down? As someone with a lapsed membership, ADD, social anxiety and major depressive disorder, I can tell you none of it has anything to do with external conditions. The causal arrows point the other way - depression comes first and colors perceptions of the world around you. It doesn't take a whole lot of intellect to recognize that since depression is a neurochemical condition affecting how you process information, the problem can't be the world around you. It's you.
Phones make a mess of intersections too. People on their phones tend to leave excessive space between them and the car in front (causing problems behind them) and take considerably longer to react when the light changes.
It's one thing if you're using it for maps, but it isn't possible to drive safely while making calls or texting. People seem to think they're exceptions, but there is no such thing as driving well while on the phone. People don't realize that they're weaving, that their speed is varying wildly, that they're wasting space at lights (two car lengths or more between them and car in front), not seeing signal changes, etc.
It's like people who think they're the ones who can safely drive drunk. They're just lucky, not safe.
You absolutely could fix it without crippling passengers or interfering with your map. Figure out how to determine who is a rider via accelerometer or camera data or just have some sort of test. Something that demands 10 seconds of both hands and both eyes is easy for a passenger, deadly for a driver. Reset it on acceleration so people can't just unlock at a light.
I mostly agree, but I think it's possible to determine if someone is driving so blocking passengers shouldn't be necessary. Either work out who isn't driving from accelerometer and/or camera data, or add a test that a non driver could easily pass but a driver couldn't.
Taylor Lorenz isn't overweight. She's a skinny "journalist" with Politico complaining because she thinks someone else's feelings could be hurt. Scrolling through the tweets, I noticed that the people who agreed and had pictures of themselves as avatars were also skinny.
The only comments from people who said they were overweight were in support of the feature and anti-Taylor.
I'm going to go ahead and call her an idiot. I'm going to follow that up with calling her parents idiots because her first name is a job she'll never have. Plus they raised an idiot.
Notice that it doesn't say "people with eating disorders lambasted the feature...". I think they may have been whining because they thought someone else's feelings might get hurt. Which makes them huge idiots, and Google even stupider for listening.
Slashdot Mirror
Compare it to farts. Or body odor. What you're inhaling from those is far nastier than what's in a vape or marijuana smoke.
Water, glycerin, commonly used flavoring, and a little bit of nicotine that's mostly gone from the exhaled vapor and certainly not sufficient to affect you in any way.
I'm not buying it. This is an overreaction based on silly assumptions.
How is identifying who paid for an advertisement an infringement of anyone's rights? Do you have a right to know who is speaking to you? Keep in mind that this isn't speech you happen across, somebody paid a third party to show it to you.
Medieval Northern Europeans had to deal with plenty of cold pigs, so they built two story houses and put the pigs on the first floor. Both pigs and people stayed nice and warm.
BEEF!
Identifying yourself when you run an ad is not an infringement on your speech. It's also the rule for every other medium.
Those are "issues of national interest", and if you ran them on any other medium you would face some regulation. Basically just identifying yourself as the one paying for them. Which is what makes marching around with a sign different - you're already identifying yourself.
These same rules apply to ads on any other medium and have not been found to infringe on the 1st. It's more like closing a loophole
Which ads get regulated is covered in the bill, and it seems they're using a fairly strict definition. Ads for or against a candidate and some issues of national interest.
I believe it's a synonym for "Propagandist". As in, "How do we write this story to advance our agenda?"
It just seems sleazy considering that there is a political component to it. Like he wants to force kids to share his fears about a possible future.
Or they could go to a museum, and the museum would have virtual exhibits.
Nope. You're talking about conditions that precede any awareness of "how things are".
What exactly is intelligent about melting down? As someone with a lapsed membership, ADD, social anxiety and major depressive disorder, I can tell you none of it has anything to do with external conditions. The causal arrows point the other way - depression comes first and colors perceptions of the world around you. It doesn't take a whole lot of intellect to recognize that since depression is a neurochemical condition affecting how you process information, the problem can't be the world around you. It's you.
Interesting idea, but it fails to account for the congenital nature of many of these conditions.
Phones make a mess of intersections too. People on their phones tend to leave excessive space between them and the car in front (causing problems behind them) and take considerably longer to react when the light changes.
It's one thing if you're using it for maps, but it isn't possible to drive safely while making calls or texting. People seem to think they're exceptions, but there is no such thing as driving well while on the phone. People don't realize that they're weaving, that their speed is varying wildly, that they're wasting space at lights (two car lengths or more between them and car in front), not seeing signal changes, etc. It's like people who think they're the ones who can safely drive drunk. They're just lucky, not safe.
I agree, but the problem is that they are riding instead of driving. In the driver's seat.
You absolutely could fix it without crippling passengers or interfering with your map. Figure out how to determine who is a rider via accelerometer or camera data or just have some sort of test. Something that demands 10 seconds of both hands and both eyes is easy for a passenger, deadly for a driver. Reset it on acceleration so people can't just unlock at a light.
Is that your attitude towards drunk driving too?
I mostly agree, but I think it's possible to determine if someone is driving so blocking passengers shouldn't be necessary. Either work out who isn't driving from accelerometer and/or camera data, or add a test that a non driver could easily pass but a driver couldn't.
And what's the alternative? Politely asking people to stop?
I'm going to go ahead and call her an idiot. I'm going to follow that up with calling her parents idiots because her first name is a job she'll never have. Plus they raised an idiot.
Notice that it doesn't say "people with eating disorders lambasted the feature...". I think they may have been whining because they thought someone else's feelings might get hurt. Which makes them huge idiots, and Google even stupider for listening.