Yes, and an idiot who hasn't read Marx yet uses it as some derogatory insult.
I'm sorry that we can have a sensible debate when every asshat defends his ignorance unabashed.
You know what. I am not an economist, I know very little about political science. But I *do know* the GP has no fucking idea what Marx wrote or stood for. Just like he has no idea about Thomas Jefferson, Emerson, Madison, Smith, etc.
Simply stating "gun control" is too sweeping. As you may have noticed in the comments that followed yours, it's a heated debate without any stated factual basis.
I don't doubt that you have a point, but please be more specific. Else you will get a mirrored and equally passionate reaction.
One thing is clear, violent crime rates are higher in cities that have lax gun regulations and registration. Even further, the cities that allow concealed weapons have the highest violent crime rates per capita (e.g. St. Louis).
Strange. You know, as Dostoyevsky and others reiterated and echoed stories of power obtained by making the masses dependent upon a loaf of bread... I think they were on to something. I guess that makes our complex system theorists the naive ones?
And as much as the U.S. has been bitching about socialism and communism, I see 99% of this country incapable of growing their own food or being self-susficient. Even the millionaires are the worse cases of intolerable, incompetent human beings who'd fall first as a fawn to a lion would.
Oh, was Dostoyevsky not just speaking about Russia?
You're right. If you have at least 1 acre of farmable land (preferably virgin), you can feed your whole family throughout the winter while relying upon the occasional kill. Several of my family's houses were and are stacked full of cellars throughout the winter.
I should have said something about corn. Growing corn is like a security net due to government subsidies. It will never bring you a livable profit, especially after you spent 150K on your machines.
Rice, you ain't going to see rice growing here in the U.S. much; it's easier to import. You're going to see wheat and soybean as alternative staples instead of corn. Actually, potatoes might be a good bet in the future. Depending upon the climate, they are the farmers go-to for self-sustainability.
That means that if there is a major disruption somewhere in the supply chain(oil supplies disrupted), another summer or two like this past one, or some major event like a large volcanic eruption on the scale of Krakatoa with global weather impact and the United States is 3 months away from having no food. This isn't the price becomes too high for people to afford, this is literally THERE IS NO FOOD. The physical supply doesn't exist. And that's kind of scary.
Being a farmer these days is pretty much like working the stock market. A few years ago, I knew someone who made a over a million USD off several acres of wheat when China was in demand.
My family has roughly about 7000 acres. Some is leased out for farming to cover the taxes. Sometimes it's a gamble for them; too much of a gamble that my family doesn't farm anymore.
Obviously I'm not denying the current studies. The studies are avoiding the elephant in the room. In the U.S., you are at equal risk of getting cancer by drinking milk, eating cheese and beef everyday. Beef contains the same amount of radioactivity as tobacco.
Since I established that natural organic tobacco can be "safe," let's analyze the current state of affairs:
At one point, I wanted to grow, farm, and sell organic natural tobacco at a premium price. It *could be* marketed as safe-ish. Needless to say, it's an uphill battle against taxation and regulation (I think you can't turn $100K profit seasonally without being classed), bogus science, and massive corporations that cannot fail. Gov. taxation and regulation secures this money for the corporations; no mom and pop shop can dare to enter the playing field.
What's ironic is the more taxation, the more cancer-causing tobacco will become; the conglomerates will find more ways to skirt the costs. A pack of "premium" cigarettes costs less than $1 USD. The rest is taxation by the feds, state, county, and city. That means a premium, safe-ish cigarette without taxation would cost you the same price as picking up a cancerous pack of Camels or Marlboros.
Tobacco is one of or the most highly taxed and profitable commodities. The industry is so rooted into politics, and more so than any other American industry. All this is not without design or motive.
Since benzene is a naturally byproduct, it's safe to presume burning natural tobacco and marijuana would emit similar levels. I completely agree marijuana usage is nearly benign. Natural, homegrown tobacco can be equally so.
Food for thought: Tobacco usage predates marijuana and has been used for millenniums. It has never been known to cause health issues prior to the rise of the industrial age.
My objection to simply saying tobacco is linked to cancer, is a failure to ask why. By not doing so, is ultimately contrary to scientific method towards understanding. It's like killing cats to stop the black plague.
Not one of those studies links tobacco to cancer. From the link you posted:
Even single poisons can lead to substantial cancer risks. For example, benzene is a known cause of leukaemia. One study estimated that the benzene in cigarettes is responsible for between 10-50% of the leukaemia deaths caused by smoking. 39
Some studies have suggested that radioactive polonium-210 could account for much of the lung cancer risk caused by smoking. Polonium-210 becomes concentrated in hotspots in smokers' airways, subjecting them to very high doses of high-energy alpha-radiation. 40, 41 One study estimated that smoking 1.5 packs a day leads to as much radiation exposure as having 300 chest X-rays a year. 42
Re-read my comment. These chemicals are not naturally found in tobacco but are introduced in production, primarily from the fertilizer (superphosphate fertilizers are used to guarantee a higher yield). The fertilizer contains two decay products of uranium: Radan 444 and Polonium 210. Obviously, radan doesn't pose the risk.
Let me repeat: there are no studies linking *natural, organic* tobacco consumption to cancer. Tobacco of itself does not contain carcinogens.
True. That's a great method; something to consider adhering to. However, the best code isn't always written in those steps.
Here, let me tell you what no one on this thread can deduce it to: Comments are meant for bullet points: objectives. That's all.
There are no scientific studies that link tobacco with cancer. There are studies that link tobacco production with cancer (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium ). The same studies also link cancer to the American Beef and Diary Industries (see Harvard studies.)
We've known this for five decades; the industry has known it, the US Surgeon General has known it since the early 70s, everyone except the mainstream public (unfortunately this includes a good percentage of/.) who still accepts statistics backed by pseudo-science and industry funded studies. These studies are disproven over and over; time and time again. Yet they are not accountable to correct multi-million dollar PR campaigns; politics at its finest.
TFA is a troll by a psychologist and we should all know how little science actually places a role in human psychology. This is coming from a person who does not understand psychology (else he'd understand the power of renunciation) nor science. It's all flame bait.
There is actually no link between tobacco and lung cancer. There are no scientific studies to support this. However, what has been widely known for five decades, is the process of *mass production* of tobacco makes it cancer causing.
No studies show organic tobacco to contain carcinogens.
Right. Because we all know authors get paid while they're living.
Not only is performing and recording music an entirely different medium and art form than a large body of literary work, but we kill off our writers, they are forced into poverty, left to starve in the streets; hence why we no longer have a decent contemporary writer or poet.
Musicians on the other hand at least have the ability to perform to support their art and livelihood.
if you have nothing better to do in life than sit around and inhale a drug to "get high" and have psychodelic hallucinations then you're probably not destined for greatness
Um. Name any great artist that we revere. Nine out of ten have indulged in drug use at some point in their life.
Different strokes for different folks. I feel awkward typing on anything other than a mac keyboard. I also use a magic mouse and can't seem to transition from it; it feels like a *real* response due to its design and weight.
I also have had the same experience with mac hardware. It's definitely reliable. I have two iMacs, an aged MBP transformed into a free-for-all desktop, and an Air for my primary machine. Plus, if shit breaks, you got reliable service even when you have a deadline in two days.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't believe Mi
Yes, and an idiot who hasn't read Marx yet uses it as some derogatory insult.
I'm sorry that we can have a sensible debate when every asshat defends his ignorance unabashed.
You know what. I am not an economist, I know very little about political science. But I *do know* the GP has no fucking idea what Marx wrote or stood for. Just like he has no idea about Thomas Jefferson, Emerson, Madison, Smith, etc.
Simply stating "gun control" is too sweeping. As you may have noticed in the comments that followed yours, it's a heated debate without any stated factual basis.
I don't doubt that you have a point, but please be more specific. Else you will get a mirrored and equally passionate reaction.
One thing is clear, violent crime rates are higher in cities that have lax gun regulations and registration. Even further, the cities that allow concealed weapons have the highest violent crime rates per capita (e.g. St. Louis).
Now, back to the TFS, I suppose.
I think if you already have the real world experience, obtaining a CS degrees /may/ help your corp cred. Is this advisable? I don't know.
You are certainly going to have to do more on the sidelines to make your degree applicable.
So basically he does what every heartland North American can do? Where's our photo op?
Strange. You know, as Dostoyevsky and others reiterated and echoed stories of power obtained by making the masses dependent upon a loaf of bread... I think they were on to something. I guess that makes our complex system theorists the naive ones? And as much as the U.S. has been bitching about socialism and communism, I see 99% of this country incapable of growing their own food or being self-susficient. Even the millionaires are the worse cases of intolerable, incompetent human beings who'd fall first as a fawn to a lion would. Oh, was Dostoyevsky not just speaking about Russia?
Lil' Putin had a cocaine come down and/or woke up.
Hopefully our Russian brethren will too.
You're right. If you have at least 1 acre of farmable land (preferably virgin), you can feed your whole family throughout the winter while relying upon the occasional kill. Several of my family's houses were and are stacked full of cellars throughout the winter.
Your mistake is choosing tomatoes.
Yes, I know you were trying to be funny.
I should have said something about corn. Growing corn is like a security net due to government subsidies. It will never bring you a livable profit, especially after you spent 150K on your machines.
Rice, you ain't going to see rice growing here in the U.S. much; it's easier to import. You're going to see wheat and soybean as alternative staples instead of corn. Actually, potatoes might be a good bet in the future. Depending upon the climate, they are the farmers go-to for self-sustainability.
Corn is destined to crash.
Being a farmer these days is pretty much like working the stock market. A few years ago, I knew someone who made a over a million USD off several acres of wheat when China was in demand.
My family has roughly about 7000 acres. Some is leased out for farming to cover the taxes. Sometimes it's a gamble for them; too much of a gamble that my family doesn't farm anymore.
Obviously I'm not denying the current studies. The studies are avoiding the elephant in the room. In the U.S., you are at equal risk of getting cancer by drinking milk, eating cheese and beef everyday. Beef contains the same amount of radioactivity as tobacco.
Since I established that natural organic tobacco can be "safe," let's analyze the current state of affairs:
At one point, I wanted to grow, farm, and sell organic natural tobacco at a premium price. It *could be* marketed as safe-ish. Needless to say, it's an uphill battle against taxation and regulation (I think you can't turn $100K profit seasonally without being classed), bogus science, and massive corporations that cannot fail. Gov. taxation and regulation secures this money for the corporations; no mom and pop shop can dare to enter the playing field.
What's ironic is the more taxation, the more cancer-causing tobacco will become; the conglomerates will find more ways to skirt the costs. A pack of "premium" cigarettes costs less than $1 USD. The rest is taxation by the feds, state, county, and city. That means a premium, safe-ish cigarette without taxation would cost you the same price as picking up a cancerous pack of Camels or Marlboros.
Tobacco is one of or the most highly taxed and profitable commodities. The industry is so rooted into politics, and more so than any other American industry. All this is not without design or motive.
Since benzene is a naturally byproduct, it's safe to presume burning natural tobacco and marijuana would emit similar levels. I completely agree marijuana usage is nearly benign. Natural, homegrown tobacco can be equally so.
Food for thought: Tobacco usage predates marijuana and has been used for millenniums. It has never been known to cause health issues prior to the rise of the industrial age.
My objection to simply saying tobacco is linked to cancer, is a failure to ask why. By not doing so, is ultimately contrary to scientific method towards understanding. It's like killing cats to stop the black plague.
C-64 or Vic-20. I can imagine if he/she is really into computers and technology, he/she will find interest in the old machines. Here's a good resource: http://www.vandenbrande.com/wp/2009/06/breadbox64-a-twitter-client-for-the-c64/
Not one of those studies links tobacco to cancer. From the link you posted:
Re-read my comment. These chemicals are not naturally found in tobacco but are introduced in production, primarily from the fertilizer (superphosphate fertilizers are used to guarantee a higher yield). The fertilizer contains two decay products of uranium: Radan 444 and Polonium 210. Obviously, radan doesn't pose the risk.
Let me repeat: there are no studies linking *natural, organic* tobacco consumption to cancer. Tobacco of itself does not contain carcinogens.
Good luck!
True. That's a great method; something to consider adhering to. However, the best code isn't always written in those steps. Here, let me tell you what no one on this thread can deduce it to: Comments are meant for bullet points: objectives. That's all.
Tell that to Keith Richards. That man should be dead already.
There are no scientific studies that link tobacco with cancer. There are studies that link tobacco production with cancer (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium ). The same studies also link cancer to the American Beef and Diary Industries (see Harvard studies.) We've known this for five decades; the industry has known it, the US Surgeon General has known it since the early 70s, everyone except the mainstream public (unfortunately this includes a good percentage of /.) who still accepts statistics backed by pseudo-science and industry funded studies. These studies are disproven over and over; time and time again. Yet they are not accountable to correct multi-million dollar PR campaigns; politics at its finest.
TFA is a troll by a psychologist and we should all know how little science actually places a role in human psychology. This is coming from a person who does not understand psychology (else he'd understand the power of renunciation) nor science. It's all flame bait.
There is actually no link between tobacco and lung cancer. There are no scientific studies to support this. However, what has been widely known for five decades, is the process of *mass production* of tobacco makes it cancer causing. No studies show organic tobacco to contain carcinogens.
Right. Because we all know authors get paid while they're living. Not only is performing and recording music an entirely different medium and art form than a large body of literary work, but we kill off our writers, they are forced into poverty, left to starve in the streets; hence why we no longer have a decent contemporary writer or poet. Musicians on the other hand at least have the ability to perform to support their art and livelihood.
Another alternative: http://developer.yahoo.com/weather/
Um. Name any great artist that we revere. Nine out of ten have indulged in drug use at some point in their life.
Holy shit! Thank you so much!
I'm pulling an all-nighter and am glad I decided to browse /.
As soon as I installed f.lux, I had an immediate physical reaction! No more headaches, neck aches, and sore eyes!! Fucking wow! Thank you!
Different strokes for different folks. I feel awkward typing on anything other than a mac keyboard. I also use a magic mouse and can't seem to transition from it; it feels like a *real* response due to its design and weight. I also have had the same experience with mac hardware. It's definitely reliable. I have two iMacs, an aged MBP transformed into a free-for-all desktop, and an Air for my primary machine. Plus, if shit breaks, you got reliable service even when you have a deadline in two days.