But you feel that you have the right to dictate the actions and allowances of someone who DOES have that capital? That they put up?
Yup, just like we can dictate that Shell Oil can't dump any waste in rivers. Starting a business does NOT give you the right to do whatever you want.
That they put up? That they risked losing by making a business that employs people? And despite the fact that they are the only ones taking the risk in a business, you think you can tell them what legal activities can and cannot take place there?
Thats the risk they chose to take. They also understand they must operate under certain rules, that they are NOT free to do whatever they may like. I absolutely have the right to tell an oil company not to pollute.
Oh by the way, once the ban (i.e. law) was passed, its not longer legal to smoke in a restraunt or bar or any of the other establishments described in the law. You're claiming its legal to smoke; this is true. Its no longer legal to smoke in certain places. Thats the law.
Are you fucking retarded? I'm willing to take a flamebait karma hit on this one because you obviously have no intention of making a rational argument.
I think you're the retarded one. My argument is simple, but apparently you're too stupid to follow it. You smoke. Someone else inhales the smoke that doesnt want to. Their rights have been violated. Smoke all you want; just dont' expect other people to have to inhale it. For some reason, you think that because you smoke, everyoen else secretly wants to. Go fuck yourself.
I DO LIVE SOMEPLACE(sic) taht(sic) doesn't have an active ban.
Good for you. Hopefully they'll wise up and put a ban in place soon though.
Then you have a serious problem with phantom smells.
Wow, thanks for telling me that those smells don't exist. Tell me, does the phone on my desk really exist? Shut up, asshat.
Are you one of those obnoxious assholes who starts mock-coughing every time they can see a cigarette in their field of vision?
Nope.
f someone is smoking 30 ft from you (and you aren't directly down-wind) you WILL NOT smell the smoke.
Wind shifts, people move.
If you do, it's either a freak of physics that the smoke managed to stay in an air pocket that long, or you are imagining it to prop up your bullshit offense. There simply are not enough smokers in the world to make sure you smell smoke EVERYWHERE, like you said.
Now you're just being ridiculous. I didn't say constantly, I said not a day goes by that I don't breath in some else's smoke at least once a day. I also know that in my city there were zero bars and restraunts (excluding the fast food type) that banned smoking.
No one has taken that away from you.
Sure they have. You told me that instead of a ban I just shouldn't go to any restraunt or bar that allowed smoking. Before the ban, there were none. So I would have had to give up going to a bar.
I'd like to do those things without being subjected to some fucking hick's body odor, but just imagine the laughing stock you would be if you suggested banning B.O.
I'm sure if you did smell offensive enough, a nicer restraunt would ask you to leave because other patrons would complain. The fact is though that smoke is not like BO. BO is offensive, smoke from cigerettes is poisonous and will cause health problems. So the two aren't very comparable.
But I should have to give up smoking because you are a selfish idiot who wrongly believes they have the right to live their life completely unoffended?
I never said you had to give it up. I said you can't do it around me, or anyone else that doesn't want cigerrete smoke around. Please, smoke all you want AT HOME or in other places where your smoke can't possibly get to another person that doesn't want to.
Get off you fucking high horse and stop trying to force everyone to live li
You had the awesome power to shape the world, and instead of wielding it, you asked the government to do it for you, reinforcing the view that we all need to be ruled for our own good. Well done, comrade.
Bull. Its no different than laws against punching someone in the face. There's nothing sociallist about it.
Well, Denver may not have needed a ban then. Its not like smokers only smoke in the restraunt though. I'm sure they smoke as they come out, and non-smokers still end up breathing it in just walking down the street.
I'm not sure on two of your assumptions: 1. That smokers will make decisions on where to eat based on whether or not they can smoke (over quality of food, location, price of food, etc.) 2. That there are SO MANY smokers that if a restaurant loses their business, that they will lose insane amounts of revenue.
Accoding to Wikipedia, most businesses do not suffer from banning smoking.
I didn't say those fears had any basis, just thats what the fears were. Indeed, it seemed to me at least that the bars / restraunts I went to got MORE crowded after the ban. Personally I expected that, but bar owners at the time probably wouldn't want to change the status quo because they didn't know what would happen. Since no one wanted to be the first, no one did..
It seems likely that a nonsmoker might make a decision on where to eat based on whether or not the air inside the restaurant was polluted, but the mirror of this probably doesn't hold true of smokers.
It may or may not.
Also, if nonsmokers are so avid about avoiding smoke, then they can always start their own restaurant, right?
Nope, just because you like eating at a restraunt and don't want to inhale someone elses poision doesn't mean you know how to run a restraunt or have the capital.
So you prefer walking through the crowd of smokers on the way into the restaurant/building?
No, which is why smoking should be banned in ALL public places. You can smoke at your house, a cigar shop, your friends house (if they don't mind) or in your car with the windows up.
Yes, I'm a smoker. Yes, I wish I wasn't. No, I am not for "smokers rights". I think if people own something they should though have a say in what an what can not go on inside of it. If I visit your house I wouldn't smoke. Your house. Your rules.
Businesses don't have the same freedoms as individuals. The problem was that pretty much no place was banning smoking. At any rate, I think the businesses are happy now. With the ban in place, most bars and restraunts are MORE crowded. The fear they had was apparently unfounded.
An establishment needs a liquor license to sell liquior. Let them create a smoking license. If the place feels that adamant about letting people smoke let them fork over the cash for a license to do it.
Those same places with the liquior licenses were the same ones that allowed smoking. McDs never has (as long as I've known anyway). You end up back up in the same situtation as you did without the ban. most or all places would allow it.
Non and ex smokers are some of the most vocal people I have ever met. Do you really think they won't voice their opinion if they are bothered?
We're vocal about it because we're being posioned.
If it is legal to produce and sell, why is it not legal to use in a private establishment?
Its still a public place. All there were so many public places which allowed it, you really couldn't get away from it if you chose not to. So we chose to ban it. IIRC, this issue was voted on by the residents of the city.
Where do you live that smoking is allowed on MASS TRANSIT??
Not on the transit itself, but certainly at the station. Smokers can't smoke inside the subway station, so they may gather around the stairs leading to it. I nkow this wasa problem at my college that banned smoking in the buildings. Winter hit, so all the smokers huddled around the door so they could get back in quickly. You couldn't go in or out of the build without going through a cloud. Some bus stops around here are a small enclosure that's mostly open to the outside. If that, most are just a sign post you stand next to, and you are technically allow to smoke there.
Not to be an ass (too late), but you could always go to a place that doesn't allow smoking.
As I mentioned, they simply didn't exist where I lived. Believe me, I looked. It was always smoking or non.. but you could never get away from it.
I don't want to have anything to do with pollution, war, and many other things, yet I am forced to support them in a more direct way than you are forced to be around smoke, via taxes and the need to buy things to survive.
Nor do I. Unfortunatly those are harder problems to fix. I don't want to breath in the polution from my car or anyway elses. But banning cars would destroy the economy. Banning smoking in public places doesn't and has an immediate effect. In short, its an easier problem to solve.
Then buy one. Or establish one. No one is keeping you from doing it.
I don't have any capital, or experience managing a restraunt (as do most people that don't own one). I'm sure a bank won't be willing to lend the money. At any rate your logic is stupid; smokers get to smoke everywhere, and those of us that don't wish to breath it in have to build our own seperate areas? Why not the other way? Ban smoking everywhere except in a cigar shop. See, it goes both ways.
I've lived in one city and one town. The city (in WV) banned smoking in all public places.
Try living someplace taht doesn't have an active ban. FWIW, my city recently passed such a ban.
I've lived in one city and one town. The city (in WV) banned smoking in all public places.
which has nothing to do with the topic of banning smoking in public places. The fact that this council did so illegally doesn't have any bearing except in that city.
Anecdotal evidence can go both ways, YMMV.
I only brought out the anecdotal evidence in response to the OP's anecdotal evidence. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise.
You are trying to harm my freedom of choice as well as the freedom of choice of business owners.
You might as well say that laws prohibited assalt are harming your choice to punch someone in the face. Go smoke all you want at home, or in your car (with the windows rolled up). I don't care if you smoke, but I shouldn't have to breath it in when I try to enter or leave a building or enjoy a meal. Business owners don't have a choice; when you own a business you are regulated. Just like they don't have to choice to serve rotten meat.
That is an attack. Going to places that allow smoking and getting pissed because people smoke is NOT an attack.
Its not; the reality is that until the ban you couldn't go ANYWHERE without being exposed to smoke. Listen, smoke all you want, get cancer and die, I don't care. But when your activity by its nature affects others, expect not to be allowed to do that activity around others that choose not to be involved. But go ahead, keep claiming you have the right to poison someone while you're poison ing yourself. Keep telling people that they have to become shutins to avoid it.
You are in no way FORCED to breath in cigarette smoke in your day-to-day life.
Really? And what choice to I have when the entrances of buildings that I do have to enter are surrounded by smokers? When I'm walking down the sidewalk and someone else's smoke blows over to me? Or when someone in the car in front of me is smoking? Sorry, but I'd like to live my life, and that includes being able to go out to eat, drive to work, the bank, go to the movies, etc. I shouldn't have to give all that up become some selfish idiot thinks they have a right to smoke anywhere they want.
I agree that what you suggest is a possible outcome.
Its not just a possible outcome, it was reality up until my city banned smoking in all bars, restraunts and other businesses.
It could also be possible that folks as adamant as you are about smokers in their establishment would make their place completely smoke free.
Alas, I do not own any establishment. Which is the case of most people.
I'm in a city that's hasn't (yet) mandated all establishments be non-smoking, and I've noticed some are smoke free, which would suggest that the entire world may not be shut off to you and those who are offended by smoking.
I've lived in 3 different cities now, and never once had I found one that banned smoking. Consider yourself lucky, I doubt that's the norm. Oh, I'm not 'offended' by smoking. Someone else is causing harm to me by smoking near me. I consider that an attack.
I don't understand however is why people are so adamant about the issue. I am an ex-smoker, and as a result I think I'm more inclined to notice smoke - some part of my addiction still perks up when I smell it. I can count the times on one hand(with fingers left over) that smokers in a private establishment have been so offensive that it was bothersome.
You don't understand because you once were a smoker. As someone who's never smoked at all, I can tell you it gets 'bothersome' very quickly. Just like I find FL too be way too hot, because I live very close to Canada. Its always bothered me being in a smoke filled room; sometimes to the point where I had to leave because I was made physically ill from it. You literally could not see the door from across the other end of the pool hall / bar because the smoke was so thick.
If it's the secondhand smoke issue... I guess maybe it's that our viewpoints differ on the threat. If you find yourself bathed in smoke on a frequent basis, I could see where you might be harmed, but we suck in so much pollution and crap just walking on the side of a busy road.
So we're already breathing in so many toxins one more won't hurt?
You might live in a large, smog filled city, but I don't. Pollution in Vermont is pretty minimal, even in downtown Burlington.
I'm not trying to flame or even argue, just offering a differing viewpoint and trying to understand yours more.
Nor am I. I think you'll have a hard time understanding this at all, being an ex-smoker. Peronsally I don't care what people do, until it starts interfering with what I want to do. Anyone can smoke, but I don't feel like I should be forced to breath it in also just going about my day to day life.
The magnitude of the punishment isn't a deterrent, only the chance of getting caught is.
Isn't that basically what I said?
I'm not saying I like those cameras, I'm uncomfortable with the assymetric structure (they can see us, but we can't see them), but at least they might prevent crime.
So you're ok with giving up rights in the hope it MIGHT have some affect? I'd think if you want to stop muggings you let people carry weapons and train them in self defense. i think that would be pretty effective, and we won't have a useless police force which we have to pay for as well.
Certainly they should not. The problem is that no one establishment will ban smoking, for fear of pushing customers elsewhere. You quickly end up with there being zero establishments that put limits on smoking.
Those of us that do not wish to inhale any second hand smoke are left with the option of staying inside with the windows shut, 24/7. That's exactly the situation we were in before states or cities started banning smoking at certain establishments.
It's meant to act as a deterrent, the idea being that if it's so easy, so unlikely that you'll get caught and doesn't seem to hurt anyone, a sledgehammer punishment is the only thing that will stop prospective transgressors.
I doubt its a deterrent. After all, if your chance of getting caught is slim to begin with, why would it stop anyone? They'd have little or no fear of being caught in the first place.
Oh, I'm from America, I just live in another country and can see things from the outside (you should try it sometime)
Oh i see, since you've lived out of the states, you now have this unique insight. Wait no, its just your way of making yourself feel superior.
unwilling to create the taxes that are needed for what needs to be done (fighting wars, operating a functional nation, you know).
I'd argue there are quite a few things that the feds shouldn't be doing to begin with. Very few things require a federal government.
the sales tax issue will always be here, we'll always be rewarded for buying from Amazon rather than the shop down the street, which is not really a good thing, when you think about it.
Whats wrong with buyg from Amazon rather than the stop down the street? If I buy alot of books from amazon, maybe that means I have more money to eat out at a restraunt down the street? The fact that Amazon doesn't increase traffic (as a traditional store would) is a good reason why your local store has to collect sales tax. After all, that store is taking space that could be used for something else, all those employees have to travel to the store, customers have to travel to the store. All that adds up to alot of wear and tear on roads. With amazon, its just the ups truck.
At least admit, if there were a single tax rate for the whole country, with no loss to states, it would be reasonable.
No, its not reasonable. I want less taxes, and less government. I already feel like they are taking too much.
I love America, but it can't seem to do anything right.
That's because you're a stuck up, know it all kid. Grow up; there have been plenty of things the US has done right.
Think of it this way; if all the states had more say, they'd all be different. the ones with good, workable ideas would thrive (and thus attract people from other states), the bad ones would be forced to fix their problems. With a strong federal goverment, you pretty much have to leave the US becuase you have pretty much no say anymore.
If you really love america, please go read some of the founders writings, and remember that they WANTED a weak federal government. In fact their first attempt failed because it was too weak, so they made it just strong enough to be workable, but no more... at least until 200 years of power hunger asshats corrupted it.
The ONLY way to solve this mess is if Congress makes a national sales tax, overriding state sales taxes.
Great, just what we need. The feds robbing the states of money, and then having to beg for it back.
What we need is LESS federal goverment, and more states rights. Personally I'm tired of the feds robbing us and then dictating 'lower your speed limits or no highway funds will go to you.' That was OUR money to begin with!
Set it at 8% and guarantee that oly 1-2% will be taken by the federal government, with the rest going right back where it should, to the communities/cities/states.
You're obviously not from America. Because there's no reason the feds would give the money back. Even if it started as 1% taken by the feds, that would go up.
It also ignores the differences in states; the northern states need more money for maintaining roads, because the winters help tear them apart. If we had LESS federal taxes, each state could tax according to what it actually needs. And its much easier to control your state government than the federal one.
Bottom line -- troubleshooting a Windows machine is largely a guessing game. Occassionally you might get lucky and have an easy issue that can be solved within a few guesses. Most of the time, I'm left scratching my head. It ends up being easier (And usually faster) to simply reinstall. Sad but true. Even for issues that should be relatively simple to resolve are difficult due to the lack of feedback from the system.
Bottom line is that you should be fired, because you clearly don't know what you are doing. What problems were you having that your only solution was a reformat? Personally the only one I can think of is a virus, but I haven't had one of those in over 10 years.
The US inherited the British constitution. The law being talked about was in the British constition before the US inherited that constition, so it's in the US constition too.
Really? Care to point out which article talks about that?
Sorry, the Declariation of Independance was just that; we declared that we were now idependant of Britian.
No, the parent is saying the Fourth Amendment is not about that. There are other laws aside those in the Constitution.
Right, but the idea that everyone has rights also includes the idea that you have those rights no matter what (unless you cause harm to another, that seems to be the only justification for infringing on one's rights). They don't exist because laws say they do, they exist no matter what the law says one way or the other. At least that's the mindset the framers had.
The fact that there is a law stating someone can't just take your stuff only codifies a specific right.. but even without such a law, you still have the right to property.
I'm sorry, you're saying that people (not the gov't) have the right to take my possesions any time they want? That they can just stop me in the street and search me? It doesn't make sense unless it applies to everyone.
DLink is probably fine normally, however when people like you have bad experiences, you're much more likely to say something (and rightfully so) than someone who has a good experience.
Sometimes I wonder when researching a product; are all those negative reviews accurate, or do they only represent 1% (or whatever) of people that bought the product?
That's exactly the problem I have with religous people. No matter how much evidence you give them, they refuse to rethink their position, they try to explain away the problem. 'Genesis is literal.' 'No, here is evidence it didn't happen that way.' 'Oh, well the its figurative.' How do you think that sounds? Not only does it seem to indicate a lack of faith on your part, it also makes your whole case weak when you keep having to back peddle to explain why you're beliefs are still valid.
Slashdot Mirror
But you feel that you have the right to dictate the actions and allowances of someone who DOES have that capital? That they put up?
Yup, just like we can dictate that Shell Oil can't dump any waste in rivers. Starting a business does NOT give you the right to do whatever you want.
That they put up? That they risked losing by making a business that employs people? And despite the fact that they are the only ones taking the risk in a business, you think you can tell them what legal activities can and cannot take place there?
Thats the risk they chose to take. They also understand they must operate under certain rules, that they are NOT free to do whatever they may like. I absolutely have the right to tell an oil company not to pollute.
Oh by the way, once the ban (i.e. law) was passed, its not longer legal to smoke in a restraunt or bar or any of the other establishments described in the law. You're claiming its legal to smoke; this is true. Its no longer legal to smoke in certain places. Thats the law.
Are you fucking retarded? I'm willing to take a flamebait karma hit on this one because you obviously have no intention of making a rational argument.
I think you're the retarded one. My argument is simple, but apparently you're too stupid to follow it. You smoke. Someone else inhales the smoke that doesnt want to. Their rights have been violated. Smoke all you want; just dont' expect other people to have to inhale it. For some reason, you think that because you smoke, everyoen else secretly wants to. Go fuck yourself.
I DO LIVE SOMEPLACE(sic) taht(sic) doesn't have an active ban.
Good for you. Hopefully they'll wise up and put a ban in place soon though.
Then you have a serious problem with phantom smells.
Wow, thanks for telling me that those smells don't exist. Tell me, does the phone on my desk really exist? Shut up, asshat.
Are you one of those obnoxious assholes who starts mock-coughing every time they can see a cigarette in their field of vision?
Nope.
f someone is smoking 30 ft from you (and you aren't directly down-wind) you WILL NOT smell the smoke.
Wind shifts, people move.
If you do, it's either a freak of physics that the smoke managed to stay in an air pocket that long, or you are imagining it to prop up your bullshit offense. There simply are not enough smokers in the world to make sure you smell smoke EVERYWHERE, like you said.
Now you're just being ridiculous. I didn't say constantly, I said not a day goes by that I don't breath in some else's smoke at least once a day. I also know that in my city there were zero bars and restraunts (excluding the fast food type) that banned smoking.
No one has taken that away from you.
Sure they have. You told me that instead of a ban I just shouldn't go to any restraunt or bar that allowed smoking. Before the ban, there were none. So I would have had to give up going to a bar.
I'd like to do those things without being subjected to some fucking hick's body odor, but just imagine the laughing stock you would be if you suggested banning B.O.
I'm sure if you did smell offensive enough, a nicer restraunt would ask you to leave because other patrons would complain. The fact is though that smoke is not like BO. BO is offensive, smoke from cigerettes is poisonous and will cause health problems. So the two aren't very comparable.
But I should have to give up smoking because you are a selfish idiot who wrongly believes they have the right to live their life completely unoffended?
I never said you had to give it up. I said you can't do it around me, or anyone else that doesn't want cigerrete smoke around. Please, smoke all you want AT HOME or in other places where your smoke can't possibly get to another person that doesn't want to.
Get off you fucking high horse and stop trying to force everyone to live li
You had the awesome power to shape the world, and instead of wielding it, you asked the government to do it for you, reinforcing the view that we all need to be ruled for our own good. Well done, comrade.
Bull. Its no different than laws against punching someone in the face. There's nothing sociallist about it.
Well, Denver may not have needed a ban then. Its not like smokers only smoke in the restraunt though. I'm sure they smoke as they come out, and non-smokers still end up breathing it in just walking down the street.
I'm not sure on two of your assumptions:
1. That smokers will make decisions on where to eat based on whether or not they can smoke (over quality of food, location, price of food, etc.)
2. That there are SO MANY smokers that if a restaurant loses their business, that they will lose insane amounts of revenue.
Accoding to Wikipedia, most businesses do not suffer from banning smoking.
I didn't say those fears had any basis, just thats what the fears were. Indeed, it seemed to me at least that the bars / restraunts I went to got MORE crowded after the ban. Personally I expected that, but bar owners at the time probably wouldn't want to change the status quo because they didn't know what would happen. Since no one wanted to be the first, no one did..
It seems likely that a nonsmoker might make a decision on where to eat based on whether or not the air inside the restaurant was polluted, but the mirror of this probably doesn't hold true of smokers.
It may or may not.
Also, if nonsmokers are so avid about avoiding smoke, then they can always start their own restaurant, right?
Nope, just because you like eating at a restraunt and don't want to inhale someone elses poision doesn't mean you know how to run a restraunt or have the capital.
So you prefer walking through the crowd of smokers on the way into the restaurant/building?
No, which is why smoking should be banned in ALL public places. You can smoke at your house, a cigar shop, your friends house (if they don't mind) or in your car with the windows up.
Yes, I'm a smoker. Yes, I wish I wasn't. No, I am not for "smokers rights". I think if people own something they should though have a say in what an what can not go on inside of it. If I visit your house I wouldn't smoke. Your house. Your rules.
Businesses don't have the same freedoms as individuals. The problem was that pretty much no place was banning smoking. At any rate, I think the businesses are happy now. With the ban in place, most bars and restraunts are MORE crowded. The fear they had was apparently unfounded.
An establishment needs a liquor license to sell liquior. Let them create a smoking license. If the place feels that adamant about letting people smoke let them fork over the cash for a license to do it.
Those same places with the liquior licenses were the same ones that allowed smoking. McDs never has (as long as I've known anyway). You end up back up in the same situtation as you did without the ban. most or all places would allow it.
Non and ex smokers are some of the most vocal people I have ever met. Do you really think they won't voice their opinion if they are bothered?
We're vocal about it because we're being posioned.
If it is legal to produce and sell, why is it not legal to use in a private establishment?
Its still a public place. All there were so many public places which allowed it, you really couldn't get away from it if you chose not to. So we chose to ban it. IIRC, this issue was voted on by the residents of the city.
Where do you live that smoking is allowed on MASS TRANSIT??
Not on the transit itself, but certainly at the station. Smokers can't smoke inside the subway station, so they may gather around the stairs leading to it. I nkow this wasa problem at my college that banned smoking in the buildings. Winter hit, so all the smokers huddled around the door so they could get back in quickly. You couldn't go in or out of the build without going through a cloud. Some bus stops around here are a small enclosure that's mostly open to the outside. If that, most are just a sign post you stand next to, and you are technically allow to smoke there.
Not to be an ass (too late), but you could always go to a place that doesn't allow smoking.
As I mentioned, they simply didn't exist where I lived. Believe me, I looked. It was always smoking or non.. but you could never get away from it.
I don't want to have anything to do with pollution, war, and many other things, yet I am forced to support them in a more direct way than you are forced to be around smoke, via taxes and the need to buy things to survive.
Nor do I. Unfortunatly those are harder problems to fix. I don't want to breath in the polution from my car or anyway elses. But banning cars would destroy the economy. Banning smoking in public places doesn't and has an immediate effect. In short, its an easier problem to solve.
Then buy one. Or establish one. No one is keeping you from doing it.
I don't have any capital, or experience managing a restraunt (as do most people that don't own one). I'm sure a bank won't be willing to lend the money. At any rate your logic is stupid; smokers get to smoke everywhere, and those of us that don't wish to breath it in have to build our own seperate areas? Why not the other way? Ban smoking everywhere except in a cigar shop. See, it goes both ways.
I've lived in one city and one town. The city (in WV) banned smoking in all public places.
Try living someplace taht doesn't have an active ban. FWIW, my city recently passed such a ban.
I've lived in one city and one town. The city (in WV) banned smoking in all public places.
which has nothing to do with the topic of banning smoking in public places. The fact that this council did so illegally doesn't have any bearing except in that city.
Anecdotal evidence can go both ways, YMMV.
I only brought out the anecdotal evidence in response to the OP's anecdotal evidence. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise.
You are trying to harm my freedom of choice as well as the freedom of choice of business owners.
You might as well say that laws prohibited assalt are harming your choice to punch someone in the face. Go smoke all you want at home, or in your car (with the windows rolled up). I don't care if you smoke, but I shouldn't have to breath it in when I try to enter or leave a building or enjoy a meal. Business owners don't have a choice; when you own a business you are regulated. Just like they don't have to choice to serve rotten meat.
That is an attack. Going to places that allow smoking and getting pissed because people smoke is NOT an attack.
Its not; the reality is that until the ban you couldn't go ANYWHERE without being exposed to smoke. Listen, smoke all you want, get cancer and die, I don't care. But when your activity by its nature affects others, expect not to be allowed to do that activity around others that choose not to be involved. But go ahead, keep claiming you have the right to poison someone while you're poison ing yourself. Keep telling people that they have to become shutins to avoid it.
You are in no way FORCED to breath in cigarette smoke in your day-to-day life.
Really? And what choice to I have when the entrances of buildings that I do have to enter are surrounded by smokers? When I'm walking down the sidewalk and someone else's smoke blows over to me? Or when someone in the car in front of me is smoking? Sorry, but I'd like to live my life, and that includes being able to go out to eat, drive to work, the bank, go to the movies, etc. I shouldn't have to give all that up become some selfish idiot thinks they have a right to smoke anywhere they want.
I agree that what you suggest is a possible outcome.
Its not just a possible outcome, it was reality up until my city banned smoking in all bars, restraunts and other businesses.
It could also be possible that folks as adamant as you are about smokers in their establishment would make their place completely smoke free.
Alas, I do not own any establishment. Which is the case of most people.
I'm in a city that's hasn't (yet) mandated all establishments be non-smoking, and I've noticed some are smoke free, which would suggest that the entire world may not be shut off to you and those who are offended by smoking.
I've lived in 3 different cities now, and never once had I found one that banned smoking. Consider yourself lucky, I doubt that's the norm. Oh, I'm not 'offended' by smoking. Someone else is causing harm to me by smoking near me. I consider that an attack.
I don't understand however is why people are so adamant about the issue. I am an ex-smoker, and as a result I think I'm more inclined to notice smoke - some part of my addiction still perks up when I smell it. I can count the times on one hand(with fingers left over) that smokers in a private establishment have been so offensive that it was bothersome.
You don't understand because you once were a smoker. As someone who's never smoked at all, I can tell you it gets 'bothersome' very quickly. Just like I find FL too be way too hot, because I live very close to Canada. Its always bothered me being in a smoke filled room; sometimes to the point where I had to leave because I was made physically ill from it. You literally could not see the door from across the other end of the pool hall / bar because the smoke was so thick.
If it's the secondhand smoke issue... I guess maybe it's that our viewpoints differ on the threat. If you find yourself bathed in smoke on a frequent basis, I could see where you might be harmed, but we suck in so much pollution and crap just walking on the side of a busy road.
So we're already breathing in so many toxins one more won't hurt?
You might live in a large, smog filled city, but I don't. Pollution in Vermont is pretty minimal, even in downtown Burlington.
I'm not trying to flame or even argue, just offering a differing viewpoint and trying to understand yours more.
Nor am I. I think you'll have a hard time understanding this at all, being an ex-smoker. Peronsally I don't care what people do, until it starts interfering with what I want to do. Anyone can smoke, but I don't feel like I should be forced to breath it in also just going about my day to day life.
The magnitude of the punishment isn't a deterrent, only the chance of getting caught is.
Isn't that basically what I said?
I'm not saying I like those cameras, I'm uncomfortable with the assymetric structure (they can see us, but we can't see them), but at least they might prevent crime.
So you're ok with giving up rights in the hope it MIGHT have some affect? I'd think if you want to stop muggings you let people carry weapons and train them in self defense. i think that would be pretty effective, and we won't have a useless police force which we have to pay for as well.
They certainly should. It is their establishment.
Certainly they should not. The problem is that no one establishment will ban smoking, for fear of pushing customers elsewhere. You quickly end up with there being zero establishments that put limits on smoking.
Those of us that do not wish to inhale any second hand smoke are left with the option of staying inside with the windows shut, 24/7. That's exactly the situation we were in before states or cities started banning smoking at certain establishments.
It's meant to act as a deterrent, the idea being that if it's so easy, so unlikely that you'll get caught and doesn't seem to hurt anyone, a sledgehammer punishment is the only thing that will stop prospective transgressors.
I doubt its a deterrent. After all, if your chance of getting caught is slim to begin with, why would it stop anyone? They'd have little or no fear of being caught in the first place.
Oh, I'm from America, I just live in another country and can see things from the outside (you should try it sometime)
Oh i see, since you've lived out of the states, you now have this unique insight. Wait no, its just your way of making yourself feel superior.
unwilling to create the taxes that are needed for what needs to be done (fighting wars, operating a functional nation, you know).
I'd argue there are quite a few things that the feds shouldn't be doing to begin with. Very few things require a federal government.
the sales tax issue will always be here, we'll always be rewarded for buying from Amazon rather than the shop down the street, which is not really a good thing, when you think about it.
Whats wrong with buyg from Amazon rather than the stop down the street? If I buy alot of books from amazon, maybe that means I have more money to eat out at a restraunt down the street? The fact that Amazon doesn't increase traffic (as a traditional store would) is a good reason why your local store has to collect sales tax. After all, that store is taking space that could be used for something else, all those employees have to travel to the store, customers have to travel to the store. All that adds up to alot of wear and tear on roads. With amazon, its just the ups truck.
At least admit, if there were a single tax rate for the whole country, with no loss to states, it would be reasonable.
No, its not reasonable. I want less taxes, and less government. I already feel like they are taking too much.
I love America, but it can't seem to do anything right.
That's because you're a stuck up, know it all kid. Grow up; there have been plenty of things the US has done right.
Think of it this way; if all the states had more say, they'd all be different. the ones with good, workable ideas would thrive (and thus attract people from other states), the bad ones would be forced to fix their problems. With a strong federal goverment, you pretty much have to leave the US becuase you have pretty much no say anymore.
If you really love america, please go read some of the founders writings, and remember that they WANTED a weak federal government. In fact their first attempt failed because it was too weak, so they made it just strong enough to be workable, but no more... at least until 200 years of power hunger asshats corrupted it.
Good, now you have the state taxes. What about the local sales tax?
And how exactly would they prove that gold statue wasn't a bunch of coins?
The ONLY way to solve this mess is if Congress makes a national sales tax, overriding state sales taxes.
Great, just what we need. The feds robbing the states of money, and then having to beg for it back.
What we need is LESS federal goverment, and more states rights. Personally I'm tired of the feds robbing us and then dictating 'lower your speed limits or no highway funds will go to you.' That was OUR money to begin with!
Set it at 8% and guarantee that oly 1-2% will be taken by the federal government, with the rest going right back where it should, to the communities/cities/states.
You're obviously not from America. Because there's no reason the feds would give the money back. Even if it started as 1% taken by the feds, that would go up.
It also ignores the differences in states; the northern states need more money for maintaining roads, because the winters help tear them apart. If we had LESS federal taxes, each state could tax according to what it actually needs. And its much easier to control your state government than the federal one.
The whole dilemma with online purchases boils down to figuring out where the "transaction" really occurred.
Its already been figured out. You have this exact same 'problem' with mail order.
Is there any reason for a user-level app to not get a 'chrooted' version of the registry that only allows write access under a certain tree node?
I mean, assuming Microsoft cared about security.
The registry already supports ACLs, the they won't help if you're always running as an administrator.
Bottom line -- troubleshooting a Windows machine is largely a guessing game. Occassionally you might get lucky and have an easy issue that can be solved within a few guesses. Most of the time, I'm left scratching my head. It ends up being easier (And usually faster) to simply reinstall. Sad but true. Even for issues that should be relatively simple to resolve are difficult due to the lack of feedback from the system.
Bottom line is that you should be fired, because you clearly don't know what you are doing. What problems were you having that your only solution was a reformat? Personally the only one I can think of is a virus, but I haven't had one of those in over 10 years.
It will allow drinkers to experience all of the enjoyable, intoxicating effects of alcohol without unpleasant side-effects like hangovers.
IIRC, you didn't get the intoxicating effects either, it just had the taste of alcohol.
The US inherited the British constitution. The law being talked about was in the British constition before the US inherited that constition, so it's in the US constition too.
Really? Care to point out which article talks about that?
Sorry, the Declariation of Independance was just that; we declared that we were now idependant of Britian.
No, the parent is saying the Fourth Amendment is not about that. There are other laws aside those in the Constitution.
Right, but the idea that everyone has rights also includes the idea that you have those rights no matter what (unless you cause harm to another, that seems to be the only justification for infringing on one's rights). They don't exist because laws say they do, they exist no matter what the law says one way or the other. At least that's the mindset the framers had.
The fact that there is a law stating someone can't just take your stuff only codifies a specific right.. but even without such a law, you still have the right to property.
I'm sorry, you're saying that people (not the gov't) have the right to take my possesions any time they want? That they can just stop me in the street and search me? It doesn't make sense unless it applies to everyone.
DLink is probably fine normally, however when people like you have bad experiences, you're much more likely to say something (and rightfully so) than someone who has a good experience.
Sometimes I wonder when researching a product; are all those negative reviews accurate, or do they only represent 1% (or whatever) of people that bought the product?
I have to disagree; I have nothing be dlink routers and wireless adapaters, and they all work fine for me. I never had a problem with them.
That's exactly the problem I have with religous people. No matter how much evidence you give them, they refuse to rethink their position, they try to explain away the problem. 'Genesis is literal.' 'No, here is evidence it didn't happen that way.' 'Oh, well the its figurative.' How do you think that sounds? Not only does it seem to indicate a lack of faith on your part, it also makes your whole case weak when you keep having to back peddle to explain why you're beliefs are still valid.