Until age 56 annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers. Obese individuals held an intermediate position. Alternative values of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions did not alter these conclusions.
In plain words, smokers die first, then obese people then healthy people and that's the reason healthy people cost more **over the course of a lifetime**.
Kinda don't sound the same when put that way do it?
His was a partial quote (below) attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler.
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
Taylor's alleged quote is born out by history (simply observe the current clamor for freebies), yours is empirically incorrect. I'll throw my weight in with Taylor's.
And which one of the thousands of ACs are you and why in hell should anyone believe what you wrote? As far as I know, you're an eighteen year old who simply wants to disagree.
Tolerance:
a permissive or liberal attitude toward beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own : sympathy or indulgence for diversity in thought or conduct : breadth of spirit or of viewpoint
if you are winning in a game of chance with the odds firmly tilted in the houses favour then you must be cheating. It's that simple.
No it is not. Highly improbable events occur all the time and people do indeed win with some visible frequency. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that they indeed cheated and were proved to be doing so with empirical evidence.
... when casinoes call people cheaters; they are the ones who invite people to come and throw their money out against overwhelming odds:..."
The people cheating ARE cheaters and you provide zero proof the casinos cheat.
"You MIGHT win" - yeah, and all the air molecules in the room might suddenly end up in one corner. After all, it is only probability that keeps it from happening."
People DO win and air molecules NEVER wind up in one corner. You consider that an equivalent comparison? I don't. People who gamble are not unaware of the "overwhelming" odds.
I'll have to presume that the "decency" you claim to stand for is simply not allowing people to make their own decisions as to how to spend their leisure time.
Yep. Glaringly obvious difference is a casino owns their own house. Unless of course, you believe the government owns the country and not the other way 'round.
Indeed. And you will find people on the other side constructing equally absurd rationales, like people who disagree with a particular agenda are "phobes" instead of simply not being in disagreement. One could even label them heterophobes. Kinda interesting how labeling people works.
Bad example, IMO, I'd rather have the current judge. He's letting them hang themselves. Bean was simply a murderer with a posse. Hanged dozens of completely innocent people.
If and only if you consider that, regardless of anything you did, you still wind up trapped alone in a room of books for your perusal (which you can't read or interact with) "open ended".
Context sensitivity should only effect the help that is asked for. It was the intrusion people didn't like. It forced you to stop and answer, no ignoring it. I always x'd it, 'cause he just hovered there doing annoying little movements like you were boring him.
One of the most sought after searches was on how to turn it off.
Slashdot Mirror
In plain words, smokers die first, then obese people then healthy people and that's the reason healthy people cost more **over the course of a lifetime**.
Kinda don't sound the same when put that way do it?
Taylor's alleged quote is born out by history (simply observe the current clamor for freebies), yours is empirically incorrect. I'll throw my weight in with Taylor's.
Yes, and your bigotry for anyone not of your ilk supports the truth of your argument.
"As a small business owner, I cannot agree."
And which one of the thousands of ACs are you and why in hell should anyone believe what you wrote? As far as I know, you're an eighteen year old who simply wants to disagree.
Webster's Unabridged
Tolerance:
a permissive or liberal attitude toward beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own : sympathy or indulgence for diversity in thought or conduct : breadth of spirit or of viewpoint
Please explain how he used the word incorrectly.
And those ships utilizing sonar carry medical supplies. Like you said, it's a tradeoff.
You make a good argument that wind generators are a serious problem.
But equally as damaging as sonar is to whales, which was the point.
No it is not. Highly improbable events occur all the time and people do indeed win with some visible frequency. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that they indeed cheated and were proved to be doing so with empirical evidence.
Sure. They weren't letting everyone go home with a blue ribbon.
The people cheating ARE cheaters and you provide zero proof the casinos cheat.
People DO win and air molecules NEVER wind up in one corner. You consider that an equivalent comparison? I don't. People who gamble are not unaware of the "overwhelming" odds.
I'll have to presume that the "decency" you claim to stand for is simply not allowing people to make their own decisions as to how to spend their leisure time.
Yep. Glaringly obvious difference is a casino owns their own house. Unless of course, you believe the government owns the country and not the other way 'round.
A better reason is your misquoting him to misrepresent what he said. He gave a reason - "If the goal is to get them to stop talking, ..."
If that is not your goal, he wasn't talking to you.
Indeed. And you will find people on the other side constructing equally absurd rationales, like people who disagree with a particular agenda are "phobes" instead of simply not being in disagreement. One could even label them heterophobes. Kinda interesting how labeling people works.
I'm sorry, you must have missed the Proposition 8 encounter where gay advocates pushed and shoved an elderly woman, took her crucifix and spat on her.
Yes, it at times ends in violence. All sides have their psychos.
McDonald's is big in France.
And.... the anonymous political screed spewing lies that targets only one of the two horrid parties we have here in the US.
Your agenda and methodology are known and don't work effectively anymore.
Bullshit. You're reading in. Nothing at all supports your argument except your id.
Never cared for her, but this is the right thing to do and I have to admire it.
I'm in the US. I'm looking at the right Alt key adjacent to the space bar as I type.
A lefty I know mouses with his left hand. Can't vouch for certain, but it's likely he uses the right set.
Bad example, IMO, I'd rather have the current judge. He's letting them hang themselves. Bean was simply a murderer with a posse. Hanged dozens of completely innocent people.
If and only if you consider that, regardless of anything you did, you still wind up trapped alone in a room of books for your perusal (which you can't read or interact with) "open ended".
Absolutely the worst result in a game ever.
Context sensitivity should only effect the help that is asked for. It was the intrusion people didn't like. It forced you to stop and answer, no ignoring it. I always x'd it, 'cause he just hovered there doing annoying little movements like you were boring him.
One of the most sought after searches was on how to turn it off.
I've read both Windows and Linux aficionados quote user base percentages in arguments. Both sides use quantity sold as a metric.