But that's only one problem. One annoying thing with nuclear reactors is that it also creates lots of radioactive material (i.e. parts of the reactor become radioactive when receiving neutrons). That increases the amount of nuclear waste quite a bit. (note that I'm not anti-nuclear, but I'd like to see a real solution for waste)
Jesus fucking Christ.
Neutron-activated radioactivity is *short-lived*, and the things like the reactor vessel that are rendered radioactive as a result of neutron activation are considered *low-level waste*. It's a non-fucking-issue.
You want to see a real solution for nuclear waste? Why don't you want to see a real solution for waste from other generation schemes? Do you think dumping millions of pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere every year is a "real solution" to the waste from coal-fired plants? Do you think leaving all the arsenic, lead, mercury, and heavy metals that are scrubbed out of the exhaust from those plants lying around in big piles is a "real solution"? Do you think that the long-term storage and disposal of that waste is *any less* of an issue than disposing of the volumetrically miniscule amounts of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants? Neutron-induced radioactivity in a reactor vessel ceases to be an issue after several years, but arsenic is forever. Why do you only worry about the former when it comes to things like our air and water?
The Chicxulub impact alone could not have caused the mass extinction, because this impact predates the mass extinction.
For the Chicxulub impact to have caused the mass extinction, it *must* have predated the mass extinction. How's it going to cause a mass extinction if it takes place after the mass extinction occurs?
If they get captured, their captors are going to deal with them in the way that they want to, and this notion that foreigners don't have ideals, goals, and motivations of their own, and instead only react to what Americans do, is a particularly insidious form of racism. The notion that because we sign or uphold some treaty or another, some other guys in some other country will or will not comply with that treaty just because of that fact, isn't only silly, it's harmful.
That is entirely the point. If you talk to any member of the JAG corps about torture they will tell you that the reason the US did not permit its troops to torture others is that it is the only way that the US could protect its own troops.
Um...what?
Name the last enemy we've fought against that *didn't* torture prisoners.
No, no, no, before anyone starts blathering about what I'm not saying, I am *not* saying "They tortured ours so we can torture theirs." I'm saying that that idea you expressed right there, that we refrain from torture because it's the "only way" we can protect our own troops, is utter nonsense.
If our troops got captured in central America, they got tortured. If they got captured in the Gulf War, they got tortured. If they got captured in Vietnam, oh boy did they get tortured. If they got shot down over the Soviet Union, they got tortured. If they got captured in Korea, they got tortured. If they got captured in the Pacific, they got tortured. They occasionally got tortured even by the Germans, and even more typical treatment of American POWs would be considered "torture" today:
Marion Oltman spent the last eight months of World War II in a Nazi prisoner-of-war camp, and tears still fill his eyes when he recalls those desperate days.
After working all day to fill craters left from Allied bombing, each prisoner got a boiled potato and a slice of bread with sawdust used as filler. Oltman was given the task of slicing the bread to feed 12 men.
So, seriously, who are these people out there who think highly enough of our signature on the G.C. to not torture our soldiers? Only the people that we *wouldn't be fighting in the first place*.
And as a result US servicemen who are captured by Jihadis can expect to be treated as brutally as the Abu Graihb photographs.
Riiiight. Because US servicement captured by Jihadis would have been treated in full accord with the Geneva convention, were it not for Abu Ghraib. That's why US airmen shot down over Iraq in the first Gulf War were treated humanely, and didn't have the shit beat out of them by Hussein's thugs. That's why Daniel Pearl was treated to tea and cupcakes when he was taken prisoner: he didn't have anything to do with Abu Ghraib.
I have yet to see any store not sell a rated M game to someone who wants to buy one.
I certainly have. Went into Best Buy with my 16-year-old brother. I picked up a copy of Katamari Damacy, he grabbed a copy of God of War, and we went to the register. They refused to sell him God of War.
So we switched and I bought God of War and he bought Katamari. The store did exactly what it's supposed to do.
Jesus. We've sent, what, 5 probes close enough to get a look at Io, and every one of them saw significant vulcanism? Pretty safe bet then that it's erupting like that constantly, huge lakes of glowing lava and sulfur plumes 200 miles high.
Speaking as a person who has been "involved with electronics" for over 30 years, I have to say you are quite wrong. Even turned inside out to show the breadboard (as in the pic) the device in no way looks threatening.
Bullshit. The only way the device in the first picture "in no way appears threatening to you" is because you're not familiar with what improvised explosives and detonators can actually look like.
I'm an EE, so I know from being able to look at that picture of her device for a bit on a computer monitor that it appears to be a 9 volt battery driving some LEDs with current-limiting resistors in series with them.
I don't know that's what it is, I just know that's what it looks like. To verify that that's what it is, I'd need to be able to inspect it with my hands on it.
Now, what criteria would you suggest that non-EEs use to tell the difference between the harmless LED display in the first picture, and the deadly explosive detonator in the second picture? Oooh, the first one has an exposed breadboard. Well, so does the second one. Exposed wiring on both. Exposed circuit components on both. Both have a battery and glowy lights (There's a cellphone there, so it's going to have at least one LED on it, and it even has a nice fancy LCD display).
So what criteria would you suggest airport and security personnel use to evaluate such things that would allow them to accurately, at a glance, tell the difference between a hacked-together LED display, and a hacked-together IED? Especially when it's sitting there on the chest of someone who's walking into a crowded terminal.
ObRTFA: RTFA. It's not used *instead* of adaptive optics, it's used together with adaptive optics.
The camera works by recording the images produced by an adaptive optics front-end at high speed (20 frames per second or more). Software then checks each one to pick the sharpest ones. Many are still quite significantly smeared but a good percentage are unaffected. These are combined to produce the image that astronomers want. We call the technique "Lucky Imaging" because it depends on the chance fluctuations in the atmosphere sorting themselves out.
Reality check : Most programmers are under commercial pressures from managers and customers.
Reality check: Most engineers are under commercial pressures from managers and customers. That doesn't mean that if my boss wants me to use paper clips instead of my recommendation of high-tensile steel bolts, I'm on firm ethnical ground saying "Okay, paper clips it is." I have a professional, ethical responsibility to not build shoddy product. Don't programmers?
The laws dictating how different elements and ions react and combine with one another are not random. Chemistry is not random, it's stochastic. You don't combust hydrogen and oxygen on different days and get water on Monday and aluminum file cabinets on Wednesday. Nobody, but nobody other than creationists and other folks engaged in trying to misrepresent the position they're arguing against holds that DNA or anything else "randomly" assembled itself from a preexisting mix of chemicals.
Just for the record, have you read Michael Behe's book: Darwin's Black Box [amazon.com]?
Yes, I have.
I finally got around to reading it last year and was surprised to find a very reasonable argument.
No, it's not. It's a very long and drawn out argument from incredulity. Stephen Colbert took the piss out of his "irreducible complexity" nonsense with a single sentence:
Colbert: Talk a little about this 'irreducible complexity' thing.
Behe: Well, Darwin didn't know much about cells when he first wrote his theories. It turns out the cell is this incredibly complex little factory where, if you take one part out, it won't function at all. It's like a mousetrap - if you take one part out of a mousetrap, you no longer have a functioning machine.
Colbert: Right, you'd just have a block of wood and a spring and a metal hook. And you can't do anything else with those.
It's junk science. Wickramasinghe and Hoyle are the same two who concocted the absurd probabilistic "tornado in a junkyard" argument against evolution. Hell, during the SARS outbreak, Wickramasinghe suggested that SARS was an alien virus. Yep, it just happened to have a sequence remarkably similar to other earth-borne viruses, and just happened to fall to earth in a region where similar viruses infected wild animals. Yep, that's the ticket.
Hoyle at least used to be a real scientist. I'm not sure if Wickramasinghe ever was. He said " "The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747" in 1982, so he's been a crackpot for a long time. This guy's just one step less crazy than Behe and the other 'intelligent design' crackpots. The only difference is that the intelligent designer posited by Wickramasinghe and Hoyle is a natural one, not a supernatural one; all the other problems with their claims are the same.
Store it for 15-25 years, by then we will have cheap ion propulsion engines (running off nuclear power), to cleanly jettison the waste into mercury or the sun.
Jesus, why in the hell would you do that? Throw perfectly good fissile and fertile fuels into the sun? Design a reactor that *burns* that fuel, and extract more power out of it.
The only reason we call nuclear waste "waste" instead of "fuel" is because PWRs and LWRs are based around a fuel cycle chiefly designed around the military's need for nuclear weapons. Drop that requirement, and you can have a sane fuel cycle that doesn't result in 99% of the U-235 in a fuel rod being discarded as "waste" instead of being reprocessed into new fuel elements.
Launching stuff into the sun is stupid for another reason. It's far less expensive to just give a payload solar escape velocity than it is to place it into a sun-intersecting orbit.
However, what if we (seriously) built enormous space tankers capable of making the trip to Jupiter and scraping H2 out of the surface of its atmosphere and compressing it into liquid to bring back ginormous amounts to earth?
This would be grotesquely less efficient than simply electrolyzing water to produce H2, which is itself so energy-intensive that it isn't how hydrogen gets produced commercially. Price per pound to geosynch orbits are something like $18,000 per pound with the cheapest available launch platforms. I can't even imagine what cost per pound to-Jupiter-and-back would be. And that doesn't even mention the technological hurdles in harvesting H2 from Jupiter; you're in orbit, traveling at thousands of miles per hour, so how do you get H2 from the atmosphere without the friction decelerating you into a death spiral? That would take propellant, which means you need to carry more with you, which means a higher launch cost. Then the harvesting tools would need to be able to stand the frictional heating. Then there's the fact that there's no launch platform large enough to even begin to do what you're proposing.
Seriously, as long as you're wishing, why not ask for a pony? There are so many problems with the proposal that you might as well say "However, what if we (seriously) just built enormous solar collection satellites capable of steadily beaming gigawatts of power down to microwave receivers on earth and used that power to crack ginormous amounts of hydrogen from the oceans?" That would actually be *easier*. Much easier.
The raw materials value and energy produced may be worth less than the cost of running the operation. However, it reduces the expense of landfilling the items
So I get to pay a fee to reduce the expenses of a landfill company? That's nothing less than a subsidy to the guy running the landfill.
The organics will burn in the charge, the fiberglass will melt into the slag, the metals will dissolve into the melt.
If it's profitable to obtain raw metals in this fashion, why do they need to charge a fee to do it?
You don't need to charge a fee to recycle aluminum cans. Well before recycling was widespread in the US, I remember hauling garbage bags full of empties down to a local recycling center, which then paid *us* for delivering valuable aluminum to them. If nobody's willing to pay you for your old computer components, then trying to recycle them is a pretty dumb idea.
Perhaps, since it is so obvious, someone can explain to me how addressing one of the many complications with using fuel cells?
It's not even a significant complication. What, a 1,000-degree internal operating temperature represents some kind of obstacle to using a technology to drive vehicles? I wonder why we're so heavily-invested in gasoline engines, which see combustion temperatures that are well in excess of 1,000 degrees.
So what? For laptop batteries and portable electronics, having a fuel cell capable of working at 50 or 100 degrees instead of 1000 makes a big difference, but addressing that issue isn't going to do a thing to make them popular for cars; the obstacles preventing their widespread use in that application are a lot more significant.
For me, that particular patch installation failed. Then the windows update service informed me updates were available, including that patch. Let it try again. Failure. To stop the update service from informing me that this broken patch was available for me to try to install, I had to tell it to ignore that particular patch.
First of all, Games Workshop does *not* produce miniatures of any sort. The miniature models come from Citadel Miniatures. Games Workshop produces games.
This is a meaningless distinction. Citadel Miniatures is a *brand* of Games Workshop. What you just said is akin to saying "General Motors does not produce cars of any sort. The cars come from Chevrolet."
I would, in fact, make the case that the universe is more important to their income than the "games" are. I know plenty of people who play Warhammer with pretty major departures from the rules, but I don't know anyone who plays Warhammer without Orcs.
And the ironic part is that the Orcs are what aren't necessary to play the game. They make (relatively) inexpensive rulebooks and horrifically expensive miniatures. It would be entirely possible to play the game by buying the inexpensive rulebooks and using a bunch of scraps of paper with "Orc" written on them in crayon in lieu of the expensive orc miniatures. But as you said, nobody does that.
They're an an enviable position of having valuable IP that's *hard to reproduce*. But they still end up being dicks over it.
, and then proceed to give him a DIFFERENT way put carcinogens into his body.
Yes, a much safer way to put carcinogens in his body. The point is to delivery nicotine, which isn't a carcinogen. Since he didn't want to smoke, I pointed out a much safer alternative. The notion that smokeless tobacco is as bad for you as cigarettes is utter nonsense.
Am I the only person that's noticed that nicotine comes in patch now?
Yes, and it's only approved for the treatment of nicotine addiction. No doctor who cares about his license is going to prescribe it for you for, say, the treatment of depression.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's only one problem. One annoying thing with nuclear reactors is that it also creates lots of radioactive material (i.e. parts of the reactor become radioactive when receiving neutrons). That increases the amount of nuclear waste quite a bit. (note that I'm not anti-nuclear, but I'd like to see a real solution for waste)
Jesus fucking Christ.
Neutron-activated radioactivity is *short-lived*, and the things like the reactor vessel that are rendered radioactive as a result of neutron activation are considered *low-level waste*. It's a non-fucking-issue.
You want to see a real solution for nuclear waste? Why don't you want to see a real solution for waste from other generation schemes? Do you think dumping millions of pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere every year is a "real solution" to the waste from coal-fired plants? Do you think leaving all the arsenic, lead, mercury, and heavy metals that are scrubbed out of the exhaust from those plants lying around in big piles is a "real solution"? Do you think that the long-term storage and disposal of that waste is *any less* of an issue than disposing of the volumetrically miniscule amounts of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants? Neutron-induced radioactivity in a reactor vessel ceases to be an issue after several years, but arsenic is forever. Why do you only worry about the former when it comes to things like our air and water?
Seems like much ado about nothing.
"law enforcement including domestic riot control."
It's including domestic riot control, not only domestic riot control. Domestic riot control is an example of a permitted use, not an exclusive list.
The Chicxulub impact alone could not have caused the mass extinction, because this impact predates the mass extinction.
For the Chicxulub impact to have caused the mass extinction, it *must* have predated the mass extinction. How's it going to cause a mass extinction if it takes place after the mass extinction occurs?
Get this:
There is "no way" to protect the troops.
If they get captured, their captors are going to deal with them in the way that they want to, and this notion that foreigners don't have ideals, goals, and motivations of their own, and instead only react to what Americans do, is a particularly insidious form of racism. The notion that because we sign or uphold some treaty or another, some other guys in some other country will or will not comply with that treaty just because of that fact, isn't only silly, it's harmful.
Um...what?
Name the last enemy we've fought against that *didn't* torture prisoners.
No, no, no, before anyone starts blathering about what I'm not saying, I am *not* saying "They tortured ours so we can torture theirs." I'm saying that that idea you expressed right there, that we refrain from torture because it's the "only way" we can protect our own troops, is utter nonsense.
If our troops got captured in central America, they got tortured. If they got captured in the Gulf War, they got tortured. If they got captured in Vietnam, oh boy did they get tortured. If they got shot down over the Soviet Union, they got tortured. If they got captured in Korea, they got tortured. If they got captured in the Pacific, they got tortured. They occasionally got tortured even by the Germans, and even more typical treatment of American POWs would be considered "torture" today:
So, seriously, who are these people out there who think highly enough of our signature on the G.C. to not torture our soldiers? Only the people that we *wouldn't be fighting in the first place*.
And as a result US servicemen who are captured by Jihadis can expect to be treated as brutally as the Abu Graihb photographs.
Riiiight. Because US servicement captured by Jihadis would have been treated in full accord with the Geneva convention, were it not for Abu Ghraib. That's why US airmen shot down over Iraq in the first Gulf War were treated humanely, and didn't have the shit beat out of them by Hussein's thugs. That's why Daniel Pearl was treated to tea and cupcakes when he was taken prisoner: he didn't have anything to do with Abu Ghraib.
Oh, wait...
I have yet to see any store not sell a rated M game to someone who wants to buy one.
I certainly have. Went into Best Buy with my 16-year-old brother. I picked up a copy of Katamari Damacy, he grabbed a copy of God of War, and we went to the register. They refused to sell him God of War.
So we switched and I bought God of War and he bought Katamari. The store did exactly what it's supposed to do.
Did you catch a look at those Io shots?
Jesus. We've sent, what, 5 probes close enough to get a look at Io, and every one of them saw significant vulcanism? Pretty safe bet then that it's erupting like that constantly, huge lakes of glowing lava and sulfur plumes 200 miles high.
I'll take my chances with Europa.
Speaking as a person who has been "involved with electronics" for over 30 years, I have to say you are quite wrong. Even turned inside out to show the breadboard (as in the pic) the device in no way looks threatening.
Bullshit. The only way the device in the first picture "in no way appears threatening to you" is because you're not familiar with what improvised explosives and detonators can actually look like.
This is her device:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/btrosko/fakeboom.jpg
This is the detonator for an IED:
http://fusion94.org/images/missed_call.jpg
I'm an EE, so I know from being able to look at that picture of her device for a bit on a computer monitor that it appears to be a 9 volt battery driving some LEDs with current-limiting resistors in series with them.
I don't know that's what it is, I just know that's what it looks like. To verify that that's what it is, I'd need to be able to inspect it with my hands on it.
Now, what criteria would you suggest that non-EEs use to tell the difference between the harmless LED display in the first picture, and the deadly explosive detonator in the second picture? Oooh, the first one has an exposed breadboard. Well, so does the second one. Exposed wiring on both. Exposed circuit components on both. Both have a battery and glowy lights (There's a cellphone there, so it's going to have at least one LED on it, and it even has a nice fancy LCD display).
So what criteria would you suggest airport and security personnel use to evaluate such things that would allow them to accurately, at a glance, tell the difference between a hacked-together LED display, and a hacked-together IED? Especially when it's sitting there on the chest of someone who's walking into a crowded terminal.
but if I were in charge of a media company, I would not be doing anything nearly this stupid and reckless.
That works both ways, though: if you wouldn't be doing anything nearly this stupid and reckless, you wouldn't be in charge of a media company.
The line was already drawn by US v. Miller, in which the USSC ruled that weapons of no utility to a militia aren't protected.
That would pretty clearly rule out nukes. It would pretty clearly rule in man-portable small arms.
Reality check : Most programmers are under commercial pressures from managers and customers.
Reality check: Most engineers are under commercial pressures from managers and customers. That doesn't mean that if my boss wants me to use paper clips instead of my recommendation of high-tensile steel bolts, I'm on firm ethnical ground saying "Okay, paper clips it is." I have a professional, ethical responsibility to not build shoddy product. Don't programmers?
In other words, it's still a strawman.
The laws dictating how different elements and ions react and combine with one another are not random. Chemistry is not random, it's stochastic. You don't combust hydrogen and oxygen on different days and get water on Monday and aluminum file cabinets on Wednesday. Nobody, but nobody other than creationists and other folks engaged in trying to misrepresent the position they're arguing against holds that DNA or anything else "randomly" assembled itself from a preexisting mix of chemicals.
The simplest thing we have that is theorized to be capable of evolving is a bacterium
Nonsense. Any replicator subjected to differential survival pressure is capable of evolving, and there are simpler replicators than bacteria.
Yes, I have.
I finally got around to reading it last year and was surprised to find a very reasonable argument.
No, it's not. It's a very long and drawn out argument from incredulity. Stephen Colbert took the piss out of his "irreducible complexity" nonsense with a single sentence:
It's junk science. Wickramasinghe and Hoyle are the same two who concocted the absurd probabilistic "tornado in a junkyard" argument against evolution. Hell, during the SARS outbreak, Wickramasinghe suggested that SARS was an alien virus. Yep, it just happened to have a sequence remarkably similar to other earth-borne viruses, and just happened to fall to earth in a region where similar viruses infected wild animals. Yep, that's the ticket.
Hoyle at least used to be a real scientist. I'm not sure if Wickramasinghe ever was. He said "
"The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747" in 1982, so he's been a crackpot for a long time. This guy's just one step less crazy than Behe and the other 'intelligent design' crackpots. The only difference is that the intelligent designer posited by Wickramasinghe and Hoyle is a natural one, not a supernatural one; all the other problems with their claims are the same.
Store it for 15-25 years, by then we will have cheap ion propulsion engines (running off nuclear power), to cleanly jettison the waste into mercury or the sun.
Jesus, why in the hell would you do that? Throw perfectly good fissile and fertile fuels into the sun? Design a reactor that *burns* that fuel, and extract more power out of it.
Oh, that's right, we already did that.
The only reason we call nuclear waste "waste" instead of "fuel" is because PWRs and LWRs are based around a fuel cycle chiefly designed around the military's need for nuclear weapons. Drop that requirement, and you can have a sane fuel cycle that doesn't result in 99% of the U-235 in a fuel rod being discarded as "waste" instead of being reprocessed into new fuel elements.
Launching stuff into the sun is stupid for another reason. It's far less expensive to just give a payload solar escape velocity than it is to place it into a sun-intersecting orbit.
However, what if we (seriously) built enormous space tankers capable of making the trip to Jupiter and scraping H2 out of the surface of its atmosphere and compressing it into liquid to bring back ginormous amounts to earth?
This would be grotesquely less efficient than simply electrolyzing water to produce H2, which is itself so energy-intensive that it isn't how hydrogen gets produced commercially. Price per pound to geosynch orbits are something like $18,000 per pound with the cheapest available launch platforms. I can't even imagine what cost per pound to-Jupiter-and-back would be. And that doesn't even mention the technological hurdles in harvesting H2 from Jupiter; you're in orbit, traveling at thousands of miles per hour, so how do you get H2 from the atmosphere without the friction decelerating you into a death spiral? That would take propellant, which means you need to carry more with you, which means a higher launch cost. Then the harvesting tools would need to be able to stand the frictional heating. Then there's the fact that there's no launch platform large enough to even begin to do what you're proposing.
Seriously, as long as you're wishing, why not ask for a pony? There are so many problems with the proposal that you might as well say "However, what if we (seriously) just built enormous solar collection satellites capable of steadily beaming gigawatts of power down to microwave receivers on earth and used that power to crack ginormous amounts of hydrogen from the oceans?" That would actually be *easier*. Much easier.
The raw materials value and energy produced may be worth less than the cost of running the operation. However, it reduces the expense of landfilling the items
So I get to pay a fee to reduce the expenses of a landfill company? That's nothing less than a subsidy to the guy running the landfill.
The organics will burn in the charge, the fiberglass will melt into the slag, the metals will dissolve into the melt.
If it's profitable to obtain raw metals in this fashion, why do they need to charge a fee to do it?
You don't need to charge a fee to recycle aluminum cans. Well before recycling was widespread in the US, I remember hauling garbage bags full of empties down to a local recycling center, which then paid *us* for delivering valuable aluminum to them. If nobody's willing to pay you for your old computer components, then trying to recycle them is a pretty dumb idea.
Perhaps, since it is so obvious, someone can explain to me how addressing one of the many complications with using fuel cells?
It's not even a significant complication. What, a 1,000-degree internal operating temperature represents some kind of obstacle to using a technology to drive vehicles? I wonder why we're so heavily-invested in gasoline engines, which see combustion temperatures that are well in excess of 1,000 degrees.
So what? For laptop batteries and portable electronics, having a fuel cell capable of working at 50 or 100 degrees instead of 1000 makes a big difference, but addressing that issue isn't going to do a thing to make them popular for cars; the obstacles preventing their widespread use in that application are a lot more significant.
For me, that particular patch installation failed. Then the windows update service informed me updates were available, including that patch. Let it try again. Failure. To stop the update service from informing me that this broken patch was available for me to try to install, I had to tell it to ignore that particular patch.
Woo, QC.
First of all, Games Workshop does *not* produce miniatures of any sort. The miniature models come from Citadel Miniatures. Games Workshop produces games.
This is a meaningless distinction. Citadel Miniatures is a *brand* of Games Workshop. What you just said is akin to saying "General Motors does not produce cars of any sort. The cars come from Chevrolet."
I would, in fact, make the case that the universe is more important to their income than the "games" are. I know plenty of people who play Warhammer with pretty major departures from the rules, but I don't know anyone who plays Warhammer without Orcs.
And the ironic part is that the Orcs are what aren't necessary to play the game. They make (relatively) inexpensive rulebooks and horrifically expensive miniatures. It would be entirely possible to play the game by buying the inexpensive rulebooks and using a bunch of scraps of paper with "Orc" written on them in crayon in lieu of the expensive orc miniatures. But as you said, nobody does that.
They're an an enviable position of having valuable IP that's *hard to reproduce*. But they still end up being dicks over it.
, and then proceed to give him a DIFFERENT way put carcinogens into his body.
Yes, a much safer way to put carcinogens in his body. The point is to delivery nicotine, which isn't a carcinogen. Since he didn't want to smoke, I pointed out a much safer alternative. The notion that smokeless tobacco is as bad for you as cigarettes is utter nonsense.
Am I the only person that's noticed that nicotine comes in patch now?
Yes, and it's only approved for the treatment of nicotine addiction. No doctor who cares about his license is going to prescribe it for you for, say, the treatment of depression.