Now, of course your body may have imbalances when you have abused too much in one way or another, or a certain substance may have certain efects in your body, but that does not make it addictive.
Addiciont implies many things: the response of very specific parts of the brain, the absolute dependency from the substance (think hunger in a starvation situation). Caffeine, not even in the worst cases, provokes the same responses and dependency.
Do you want to stop abusing a substance? Good for you, abuse of anything is worth stoping, but don;t assume you are in the same league as a nicotine or crack addict.
This nonsense is repeated every time a discussion about addictions appears on the internet.
They are called addictions not for nothing, your body requires the substance, it is like suggesting to somebody that is hungry to be disciplined and stop eating.
Seriously people, there is enough information out there on why such an asinine comment as the one I am replying to is compete nonsense from a medical point of view.
When Bush was offered to negotiate an agreement for the free movement of workers with mexico he declined.
If workers comming form other countries would have a chance to work legally that would level the playing field for local workers.
As things stand now everybody is having a hard time and the only reality is that foreign workers will always be there, you either regulate according to reality or ignore realities at your own peril (like Bush and any US President not ready to deal with is with real, workable solutions).
Criminality in developed countries has been steadily decreasing according to official and serious statistics for the last few years (look it up yourself, ia am doing quite enough debunking your lies). If shooting don't decrease in the US is because USians are nuts, but aprt from that even in the US criminality is going down no up.
Poverty has also decreased steadily in all developed countries, the US specially.
Rich countries do not import poverty, pervert liar. Most people that travel to other countries either to work or looking for assylum stay in the countries closest to were they live (Afghans mainly went to Iran, Kurds to Turkey for example, we are talking millons here, not a few thousend that rich countries would allow) and generally people that can afford to travel are better educated people that make a net contribution to the economy. The whining of some people in rich countries for receiving a few thousend of migrants is frankly disgusting and just reflects some darker agendas which I don't wish to discuss here.
As for poor migrants, full economic sectors would collapse without the help of foreign low skilled workers. Just look at the south of the US (check who is doing all the gardening, janotorial and construction work) or the agriculutral sectors in France and the UK.
The US has been receiving poor migrant workers from Latin American countries for generations and at the same time its economy has grown and poverty has been diminished.
Ditto for the EU: when poor countries join the EU (Spain, Greece, Portugal, Ireland) supposedly people in richer countries were going to get poorer and jobless. Well guess what, it did not happened and all economies growed.
So no, your "predictions" are based in nonsense and as such have only value as a resource for this rethorical exercise.
Do you mean that keeping artificially high prices of something is good for a economy?
The bits of GNP that may be lost (mostly by propietary software providers) would be counterbalanced on balance sheets all accross the eonomy by the saings of other companies on software.
If that was the case Classical music could not be thought.
If they are studying only the musical aspects (that is why they need the recordings) then any band that can play the music to a proficient enough level (most can, they are musicians after all) would be able to convey a close enough experience.
In Classical music this is common day to day practice, whay it should not be the case with Rock and Roll?
If the UN passes a resolution is only up to the UN to enforce it.
No member country should prempt the policies of the UN and no country has the moral or politcal authotiry to decide to enforce any resolutions unilaterally.
If you are going to defend the invasion of Iraq at least do it on serious grounds and stop insulting our intelligence.
That Hussein's regime was the darling of the West until he unwisely invaded Iraq in 1991 (after mistakenly believing he have been given green light to do so by the US).
During all those years Human Rights activists were telling goverments in the West, but specially in Washington and London, the nature of this regime, but all fell on deaf ears. Even MPs in the UK raised the issue in the House of Commons (when the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja) but their complaints were swiftly ignored (no suprise there, Margaret Tatcher counts amongst her friends a certain Augusto Pinochet, whom also happened to be helped by the US goverment during his small terror reign).
So the US and UK discovering all this now is aking to a thieve to truns agisnt another and denounces him to the police.
To make it all worse, Human Rights concerns was a complete afterthought and when it becme apparent the big lie the WMDs is, it became the only saving grace of this whole fiasco.
The inavders of Iraq are acting like a thief that brakes into a house just to find a murderer (which happens to be an old buddy) just before executing somebody and saving the victim.
The thief may have stopped the bigger crime, but one still has to question his initial motives for breaking in without permission.
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." --Sen Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002
Which part of "IF left unchecked" you are unable to decode with your obviously damaged reading organ?
And how do you infer from "will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons" that Iraq actually had them?
Now, Clinton spoke about "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction *program*". Notice how he never assumes that Iraq has acquired such weapons. Every single country with a bit of cloud will have a program, some for nastier bits of weapons than others (last time I checked the US has weapons, no programs, based on bioligical, chemical and nuclear technologies).
In other words the Clintons were on top of the money and you are trying to distort the meaning of their words by putting them out of context and actually ignore what they are actually saying.
You use a product for 5 minutes, compare it against products on which clearly you have incvested considerable time and effort to get results out of them and in an unsurprising fashion you declare a product you barely know "difficult to use".
Why was not Tim amongst them? Mmmh? Because he does fnot give a toss about fringe political issues?
Because he knows that the "British Empire" is a contraption with an empty meaning today and will take some time to be removed from British public life?
Because, unlike others posting here, he understands the spirit in which these honours are coveted in today's world?
Some guy that is friends with an obvious gun nutcase is having some vapourware dreams about something that may be useful.
Derided/.er thinks is clever to ask why, in spite most of humanity having two hands, we should use both of them.
Even more derided./ editor posts thsi nonsensical rambling.
And to top it all, guy forced to work on New Year's Eve day makes an insightful comment because has nothing better to do in his office for adundantly obvious reasons....
They keep producing Beattles' compilations that are very successful in the marketplace.
They are suing Apple for a very good reason: Apple promised to never ever get involved with the music business at all as part of a previous settlement. Comes iTunes, Apple (the record company) goes green of justified (IMHO) rage.
Slashdot Mirror
You USians never stop to amuse me, every problem is solved with something prepackaged and branded and ready to use.
Go, buy some furit, make the juice yourself.
Heatier than that, nothing.
First of all, I am not a doctor, but I will play one in /.
Caffeine is not addictive.
I will repeat it, in case you are not paying attention, caffeine is not addictive.
Now, of course your body may have imbalances when you have abused too much in one way or another, or a certain substance may have certain efects in your body, but that does not make it addictive.
Addiciont implies many things: the response of very specific parts of the brain, the absolute dependency from the substance (think hunger in a starvation situation). Caffeine, not even in the worst cases, provokes the same responses and dependency.
Do you want to stop abusing a substance? Good for you, abuse of anything is worth stoping, but don;t assume you are in the same league as a nicotine or crack addict.
So no wonder you did not have problems to stop it.
Any person with at least passing idea of what an addiction is knows this "advice" is rubish.
Having said that, I don't think caffeine is an addictive substance, but may be mistaken on this regard...
This nonsense is repeated every time a discussion about addictions appears on the internet.
They are called addictions not for nothing, your body requires the substance, it is like suggesting to somebody that is hungry to be disciplined and stop eating.
Seriously people, there is enough information out there on why such an asinine comment as the one I am replying to is compete nonsense from a medical point of view.
... if not by checking which bits are more POPular???
Just terribly curious....
If your problem is well defined there is only a maximum amount of "cut and paste" a Jr programmer can do in one working day.
When Bush was offered to negotiate an agreement for the free movement of workers with mexico he declined.
If workers comming form other countries would have a chance to work legally that would level the playing field for local workers.
As things stand now everybody is having a hard time and the only reality is that foreign workers will always be there, you either regulate according to reality or ignore realities at your own peril (like Bush and any US President not ready to deal with is with real, workable solutions).
Criminality in developed countries has been steadily decreasing according to official and serious statistics for the last few years (look it up yourself, ia am doing quite enough debunking your lies). If shooting don't decrease in the US is because USians are nuts, but aprt from that even in the US criminality is going down no up.
Poverty has also decreased steadily in all developed countries, the US specially.
Rich countries do not import poverty, pervert liar. Most people that travel to other countries either to work or looking for assylum stay in the countries closest to were they live (Afghans mainly went to Iran, Kurds to Turkey for example, we are talking millons here, not a few thousend that rich countries would allow) and generally people that can afford to travel are better educated people that make a net contribution to the economy. The whining of some people in rich countries for receiving a few thousend of migrants is frankly disgusting and just reflects some darker agendas which I don't wish to discuss here.
As for poor migrants, full economic sectors would collapse without the help of foreign low skilled workers. Just look at the south of the US (check who is doing all the gardening, janotorial and construction work) or the agriculutral sectors in France and the UK.
The US has been receiving poor migrant workers from Latin American countries for generations and at the same time its economy has grown and poverty has been diminished.
Ditto for the EU: when poor countries join the EU (Spain, Greece, Portugal, Ireland) supposedly people in richer countries were going to get poorer and jobless. Well guess what, it did not happened and all economies growed.
So no, your "predictions" are based in nonsense and as such have only value as a resource for this rethorical exercise.
Do you mean that keeping artificially high prices of something is good for a economy?
The bits of GNP that may be lost (mostly by propietary software providers) would be counterbalanced on balance sheets all accross the eonomy by the saings of other companies on software.
So actually it all adds up to zero.
Nice try though, it was quite entretaining.
I have not seen or read a single case in which companies are putting off Linux adoption due to this.
... I kid you not, I did not hear any French spoken.
Plenty of Punjabi and Pashtun.
... is a popular ISP over there....
... nakedness is not penalized anymore.
If that was the case Classical music could not be thought.
If they are studying only the musical aspects (that is why they need the recordings) then any band that can play the music to a proficient enough level (most can, they are musicians after all) would be able to convey a close enough experience.
In Classical music this is common day to day practice, whay it should not be the case with Rock and Roll?
Right Click, select Properties, select General tab, click Advanced button. It should be right there....
Teach her how to type it on her browser.
Tell her ho to include it on her Bookmarks.
Send her a quick email when you do an update.
Or send your HTML document as an attachment.
If the UN passes a resolution is only up to the UN to enforce it.
No member country should prempt the policies of the UN and no country has the moral or politcal authotiry to decide to enforce any resolutions unilaterally.
If you are going to defend the invasion of Iraq at least do it on serious grounds and stop insulting our intelligence.
That Hussein's regime was the darling of the West until he unwisely invaded Iraq in 1991 (after mistakenly believing he have been given green light to do so by the US).
During all those years Human Rights activists were telling goverments in the West, but specially in Washington and London, the nature of this regime, but all fell on deaf ears. Even MPs in the UK raised the issue in the House of Commons (when the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja) but their complaints were swiftly ignored (no suprise there, Margaret Tatcher counts amongst her friends a certain Augusto Pinochet, whom also happened to be helped by the US goverment during his small terror reign).
So the US and UK discovering all this now is aking to a thieve to truns agisnt another and denounces him to the police.
To make it all worse, Human Rights concerns was a complete afterthought and when it becme apparent the big lie the WMDs is, it became the only saving grace of this whole fiasco.
The inavders of Iraq are acting like a thief that brakes into a house just to find a murderer (which happens to be an old buddy) just before executing somebody and saving the victim.
The thief may have stopped the bigger crime, but one still has to question his initial motives for breaking in without permission.
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." --Sen Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002
Which part of "IF left unchecked" you are unable to decode with your obviously damaged reading organ?
And how do you infer from "will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons" that Iraq actually had them?
Now, Clinton spoke about "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction *program*". Notice how he never assumes that Iraq has acquired such weapons. Every single country with a bit of cloud will have a program, some for nastier bits of weapons than others (last time I checked the US has weapons, no programs, based on bioligical, chemical and nuclear technologies).
In other words the Clintons were on top of the money and you are trying to distort the meaning of their words by putting them out of context and actually ignore what they are actually saying.
Lame.
You use a product for 5 minutes, compare it against products on which clearly you have incvested considerable time and effort to get results out of them and in an unsurprising fashion you declare a product you barely know "difficult to use".
My logic organ hurts.
Why was not Tim amongst them? Mmmh? Because he does fnot give a toss about fringe political issues?
Because he knows that the "British Empire" is a contraption with an empty meaning today and will take some time to be removed from British public life?
Because, unlike others posting here, he understands the spirit in which these honours are coveted in today's world?
Some guy that is friends with an obvious gun nutcase is having some vapourware dreams about something that may be useful.
/.er thinks is clever to ask why, in spite most of humanity having two hands, we should use both of them.
./ editor posts thsi nonsensical rambling.
Derided
Even more derided
And to top it all, guy forced to work on New Year's Eve day makes an insightful comment because has nothing better to do in his office for adundantly obvious reasons....
This is the way the UK celbrates its citizens achievements.
The system is in dire need of a revamp, but being the only way available I think it is better than nothing.
They keep producing Beattles' compilations that are very successful in the marketplace.
They are suing Apple for a very good reason: Apple promised to never ever get involved with the music business at all as part of a previous settlement. Comes iTunes, Apple (the record company) goes green of justified (IMHO) rage.