But the "site owner" can't possibly KNOW what his or her "own agenda" is.
That's neither true nor relevant. I have certain opinions on varouus political questions, such as Iraq, stem-cell research and so on. If I were running a political forum, I'd rather see posts supporting my position than attacking it. To the extent that I'd have an agenda, that would be it. However, even if I didn't understand that, I could still keep that forum nonpartisan. All I'd have to do is allow posts on all sides of those questions, never censoring those I disagree with, my site would be as non-partisan as is needed.
The oversight that isn't there would be making sure that the money was spent on providing green alternatives to oil for energy. I'd also like to see some targets set and requirements that continued funding is conditional on achievement them. Instead, what we have is a new set of political apointees spending the public's money with no control other than that the proported goal of the spending is increasing alternative energy.
I'm using the expressin "tax and spend" because of its implication that the goals aren't well thought out and the process isn't properly supervised. "Tax and spend" usually boils down to "let's tax people because we can and spend money because we have it," and that's what this entire proposition sounds like to me.
Not only that, the supporters of the bill are playing the "guilt by association" card. They're making a big thing out of the fact that the oil companies are funding the opposition as though they're EVIL to oppose the bill and we should all vote for it just because the oil companies are opposing it. The supporters of the cigarette tax are doing the same thing, by the way, painting the tobacco companies as EVIL because they're fighting the unfair tax. I'm voting against both bills for two reasons: one, they're bad bills, and two, i always suspect anybody using ad hominum attacks to support their position because if they had good arguments on their side they wouldn't need to descend to that level.
The tax is only on oil pumped in California. If the oil companies aren't allowed to pass the cost on to consumers, they'll stop pumping here. All our oil will be brought in from the outside, and they'll have every right to pass the extra transportation costs on to us. In the end, all this will do is raise gas prices at the pump, one way or another.
Oh, and have you noticed that there are no requirements for oversight on how the money is spent, or any requirements that the money spent do anything at all about providing other forms of energy? it's just another tax and spend bill, with no real limits on how the money is spent.
Did I claim that the energy of the impact would knock you down? I did not! I said that you would be knocked down, and that you will. I never gave a reason because that wasn't important. The 1911A was designed to have ample knock-down and that's what it's got no matter why. Please stop reading more into the posts here than the posters wrote, even if it is a way of life at Slashdot.
My local science fiction club, LASFS, had a BBS for a while, and LoRD was our most popular game. When it folded, we put the various BBS games on one of the club's game computers. You could only play each character once per day, but could have many characters. I had to hide the editing program after a bit to keep munchkins from cheating. I also added a character called "Baby Huey" but never played him, so that he looked like a great chump for people to wack. What they didn't know is that I'd edited his stats to the point he was almost unkillable. The one or two players who recognized the characters name knew better than to bother him!
There is a difference between knocking people off their feet and, say, picking them up and either carrying them 10 feet or more across the room and into a wall or picking them bodily off the ground by 3 feet or more and slamming them shoulders first into the ground.
Oh, of course. However, the OP was claiming that being hit by a bullet probably wouldn't even make you fall down, and I wanted to point out that that's not, by any means, always true.
people fly in the air after catching a bullet, when in reality they wouldn't even fall over.
That all depends on what they're hit with. Take a shot from a.38 police special, and you're right; you probably won't go down. Take one from a Colt.45 1911A and you will go down because that's what it was designed to do: knock people off their feet.
A waitress last night spent 5 minutes trying to convince me that I needed to buy pie.
I've run across that a few times too. In my case, I have wn iron-clad way to stop them: "I'd love to have it, but I'm diabetic; I don't dare." I've never yet had a witer/waitress fail to back off when I tell them that. Of course, it happens to be true.
If this isn't an option, just tell them no. If they insist, ask them the old question, "What part of 'no' didn't you understand?" That almost always gets their attention. If that doesn't work, ask for the manager and register a complaint. Even if they're following companuy policy, because that will thell the Pointy Haird Manager that came up with the "push deserts no matter what the customer says" policy how stupid it is.
But maybe the waiter knows that you shouldn't eat the lamb because the meat had a green fungus covering it.
Sometimes mold is a sign it's bad, sometimes it isn't. With lamb you're better off not eating it if there's something growing on it, but it's quite different with cheese. Would you refuse to eat a piece of cheese because I told you there was blue mold in it? Phrased that way, you might, and reject a fine blue cheese. I might add that if it's chedder, swiss or some other cheese, all you need to do is trim the moldy part off and the rest's just fine. (Not that I'd consider that with meat, mind you.) What if I told you there was white mold covering a cheese? Would you reject it? If so, you'll never eat either brie or camembert. How about if you saw a salami and it had white, powdery mold on the outside? San Francisco style Italian Salami either has mold on the casing or it's no good!
My point? Just knowing something has mold on it isn't enough to decide if it's edible or not; it all depends on what the food is and the type of mold.
I think you misunderstand what the submitter was talking about. It looks to me like he's trying to set up a forum that takes no political stand of its own and lets people of all parties and convictions discuss politics. It's not the discussions that are non partisan it's that the site's owner doesn't use it to push his own agenda.
Using animals as sensors to detect contaminants isn't exactly a new idea. Coal miners have been using canaries to detect coal damp and other noxious gases for at least a century. The only new thing is using fish instead of birds. Nice idea, though, and a lot more cost effective than trying to design something sensative enough to be useful.
Why not quit? Well, why should I if I enjoy it and am willing to take whatever risks there are? I have far more important health issues, such as Type II diabetes (Probably caused by Agent Orange when I was on the Gun Line in '72) to worry about and don't think that at my age the risks are that great. However, I'm also not going to try to persuade you to smoke if you prefer not to.
But by your description of the study, there wasn't a control group in which households with no smokers were studied, and thus the critical metric was not even examined. Which means that this study that allegedly disproves the danger of second hand smoke is bad pseudo-science, and your misrepresntation of the real claims about second hand smoke and the conclusions of this study are intentional lies.
The study I cited is, as I wrote, the original study by the Surgeon General's Office. At the time, nobody had even thought that Second Hand Smoke might be an issue, so they had no reason to take it into account.
I agree that claiming that Second Hand Smoke is worse than smoking is retarded, but I've heard people claim that. (Not, I'll admit, people in the main-stream of anti-smoking, but there are people who will take anything to extremes.)
No, there's no need to inhale either pipe or cigar smoke to enjoy it. You simply puff on it; that is, you take it into your mouth, enjoy the taste then blow it out without it ever getting into your lungs.
Replace it with throat and they don't. Considering that lung and throat cancers are the most likely forms developed by cigarette smokers, the probability of a pipe or cigar smoker developing any form of cancer is almost the same as a non-smoker. Now, if you wanted to talk about possible heart disease...
Because it's true? The Myth of Second Hand Smoke claims that inhaling smoke from somebody else's tobacco is at least as dangerous as being a smoker, if not more so. This directly controdicts the statistical methodology used by the Surgeon General's Office in developing its original report. In that report, a study was made of a large number of households with two adults, one a smoker, one not. It was found that the percentage of smokers in the study that developed lung/throat cancers was significantly higher than that of the non-smokers. If The Myth of Second Hand Smoke were true, that relationship would either not have existed or have been reversed. Thus, claims that Second Hand Smoke is dangerous are bad pseudo-science at best, intentional lies at worst.
Slashdot Mirror
That's neither true nor relevant. I have certain opinions on varouus political questions, such as Iraq, stem-cell research and so on. If I were running a political forum, I'd rather see posts supporting my position than attacking it. To the extent that I'd have an agenda, that would be it. However, even if I didn't understand that, I could still keep that forum nonpartisan. All I'd have to do is allow posts on all sides of those questions, never censoring those I disagree with, my site would be as non-partisan as is needed.
This just in: computer analysis has revealed that Han Solo did, in fact, shoot first!
I'm using the expressin "tax and spend" because of its implication that the goals aren't well thought out and the process isn't properly supervised. "Tax and spend" usually boils down to "let's tax people because we can and spend money because we have it," and that's what this entire proposition sounds like to me.
Not only that, the supporters of the bill are playing the "guilt by association" card. They're making a big thing out of the fact that the oil companies are funding the opposition as though they're EVIL to oppose the bill and we should all vote for it just because the oil companies are opposing it. The supporters of the cigarette tax are doing the same thing, by the way, painting the tobacco companies as EVIL because they're fighting the unfair tax. I'm voting against both bills for two reasons: one, they're bad bills, and two, i always suspect anybody using ad hominum attacks to support their position because if they had good arguments on their side they wouldn't need to descend to that level.
Oh, and have you noticed that there are no requirements for oversight on how the money is spent, or any requirements that the money spent do anything at all about providing other forms of energy? it's just another tax and spend bill, with no real limits on how the money is spent.
Did I claim that the energy of the impact would knock you down? I did not! I said that you would be knocked down, and that you will. I never gave a reason because that wasn't important. The 1911A was designed to have ample knock-down and that's what it's got no matter why. Please stop reading more into the posts here than the posters wrote, even if it is a way of life at Slashdot.
My local science fiction club, LASFS, had a BBS for a while, and LoRD was our most popular game. When it folded, we put the various BBS games on one of the club's game computers. You could only play each character once per day, but could have many characters. I had to hide the editing program after a bit to keep munchkins from cheating. I also added a character called "Baby Huey" but never played him, so that he looked like a great chump for people to wack. What they didn't know is that I'd edited his stats to the point he was almost unkillable. The one or two players who recognized the characters name knew better than to bother him!
FREE THE ASSOCIATION SEVEN!
Oh, of course. However, the OP was claiming that being hit by a bullet probably wouldn't even make you fall down, and I wanted to point out that that's not, by any means, always true.
That all depends on what they're hit with. Take a shot from a
Still getting that error at almost midnight, Pacific. Man, have we ever hosed that server!
I've run across that a few times too. In my case, I have wn iron-clad way to stop them: "I'd love to have it, but I'm diabetic; I don't dare." I've never yet had a witer/waitress fail to back off when I tell them that. Of course, it happens to be true.
If this isn't an option, just tell them no. If they insist, ask them the old question, "What part of 'no' didn't you understand?" That almost always gets their attention. If that doesn't work, ask for the manager and register a complaint. Even if they're following companuy policy, because that will thell the Pointy Haird Manager that came up with the "push deserts no matter what the customer says" policy how stupid it is.
Sometimes mold is a sign it's bad, sometimes it isn't. With lamb you're better off not eating it if there's something growing on it, but it's quite different with cheese. Would you refuse to eat a piece of cheese because I told you there was blue mold in it? Phrased that way, you might, and reject a fine blue cheese. I might add that if it's chedder, swiss or some other cheese, all you need to do is trim the moldy part off and the rest's just fine. (Not that I'd consider that with meat, mind you.) What if I told you there was white mold covering a cheese? Would you reject it? If so, you'll never eat either brie or camembert. How about if you saw a salami and it had white, powdery mold on the outside? San Francisco style Italian Salami either has mold on the casing or it's no good!
My point? Just knowing something has mold on it isn't enough to decide if it's edible or not; it all depends on what the food is and the type of mold.
I think you misunderstand what the submitter was talking about. It looks to me like he's trying to set up a forum that takes no political stand of its own and lets people of all parties and convictions discuss politics. It's not the discussions that are non partisan it's that the site's owner doesn't use it to push his own agenda.
You must be really new here!
Using animals as sensors to detect contaminants isn't exactly a new idea. Coal miners have been using canaries to detect coal damp and other noxious gases for at least a century. The only new thing is using fish instead of birds. Nice idea, though, and a lot more cost effective than trying to design something sensative enough to be useful.
Being Slashdot, I first read the AC as Anonymous Coward and it made perfect sense.
Why not quit? Well, why should I if I enjoy it and am willing to take whatever risks there are? I have far more important health issues, such as Type II diabetes (Probably caused by Agent Orange when I was on the Gun Line in '72) to worry about and don't think that at my age the risks are that great. However, I'm also not going to try to persuade you to smoke if you prefer not to.
The study I cited is, as I wrote, the original study by the Surgeon General's Office. At the time, nobody had even thought that Second Hand Smoke might be an issue, so they had no reason to take it into account.
I agree that claiming that Second Hand Smoke is worse than smoking is retarded, but I've heard people claim that. (Not, I'll admit, people in the main-stream of anti-smoking, but there are people who will take anything to extremes.)
Thank you. I'm not saying smoking a pipe is more healthy than smoking cigarettes, I'm saying it's less dangerous.
No argument from me on that. That's why I was very careful to limit myself to lung and throat cancers. Thanx for pointing it out.
You're implying here that they all died of smoking-related causes. True, or just a coincidence?
No, there's no need to inhale either pipe or cigar smoke to enjoy it. You simply puff on it; that is, you take it into your mouth, enjoy the taste then blow it out without it ever getting into your lungs.
Replace it with throat and they don't. Considering that lung and throat cancers are the most likely forms developed by cigarette smokers, the probability of a pipe or cigar smoker developing any form of cancer is almost the same as a non-smoker. Now, if you wanted to talk about possible heart disease...
Because it's true? The Myth of Second Hand Smoke claims that inhaling smoke from somebody else's tobacco is at least as dangerous as being a smoker, if not more so. This directly controdicts the statistical methodology used by the Surgeon General's Office in developing its original report. In that report, a study was made of a large number of households with two adults, one a smoker, one not. It was found that the percentage of smokers in the study that developed lung/throat cancers was significantly higher than that of the non-smokers. If The Myth of Second Hand Smoke were true, that relationship would either not have existed or have been reversed. Thus, claims that Second Hand Smoke is dangerous are bad pseudo-science at best, intentional lies at worst.