Best Buy can still capture your request to DNS-lookup amazon.com and block it outright. The patent says they can look at traffic and block it outright as one potential strategy. Therefor, Best Buy can block your DNS look-up to Amazon.com, thus blocking you from a price-check; Amazon now has a patent on doing just that.
Anti-GMO people are roughly-equivalent to anti-vaxxers, but with a different set of shit they don't understand at all yet about which formed powerful opinions.
Pretty much, yeah. They actually were commercially available in 1983, for $4,000.
Stuff is sold based on its cost. Luxury goods can take a higher profit margin because they cost too much to make: the market is smaller, risk is higher, and competition is thus lower. The price point which produces an increase in profit is further away from the actual cost. When you get a commodity good out there, it's got to be cheap enough for the common man; and in that case, the barrier to entry is low, and the conditions of success are also low (1% of 100,000,000 customers is a lot easier to keep your business floating on than 1% of 100,000).
Transistors were finicky things back then. The first transistors, back in the 1950s, were point-contact transistors. These were built in packages and then fused with a sudden high-voltage pulse, which destroyed most of them. You can build one by hand and then rebuild it if you burn it out trying to finish it; packaged ones have to be packaged, then fused, and so you do a lot of testing and get a lot of duds that cost more to rebuild than to just discard (we can probably break them down efficiently for recycling now).
So those types of transistors didn't cost the time-and-material to assemble one; the labor invested per transistor was the labor to produce several and then identify the one working unit.
When MOSFET, CMOS, and other such transistors came along, same deal: slow, labor-intensive production processes at first, multiplied by the finicky nature of production. You have to charge customers for the units you tried to make that came out bad; low yield means you just cost the customer a few times what it theoretically costs to make one, if (in theory) it all goes right the first time.
People don't understand technology. They think things cost $0 to make and you just price them to make profit. Look at any discussion of social policy and you'll see a bunch of people trying to violate the first law of thermodynamics.
Well, yeah, it's not a perfect system. Reduction requires some sort of attempt; the choice is restriction or education. We currently lean more toward restriction, limiting education to "drugs r bad, man". This is actually sad, because we expend an enormous amount of classroom time discussing drugs, and drugs are fascinating.
Amphetamine.
Amphetamine is an NDRI. Amphetamine is a type of substituted phenethylamine, which is built from a phenyl ring, an ethyl group, and an amonia ion (NH3). PHENyl-ETHYL-AMINE. Phenethylamine. Attach a methyl group to the alpha bond point and you get Alpha-Methyl-PHenyl-EThyl-AMINE, Amphetamine. Yes, the name physically describes the chemical.
Amphetamine is shaped similarly to a catecholamine--a type of substituted phenethylamine. It can enter a neuron that releases and re-uptakes Dopamine, enter the vacuole that stores dopamine, and displace it into the cell. This blocks dopamine reuptake at the transporter, and forces excess dopamine into the cell such that it begins to spill out of the transporter and into the brain. It also blocks norepinephrine reuptake.
Methamphetamine does this in the nucleus accumbens. It's also a 5HT transport inhibitor, and so floods the brain with serotonin, which essentially causes serious cardiovascular issues, makes you kind of crazy, and does all this while you feel awesome thanks to tons of dopamine.
Besides the blunt toxicity risks, amphetamine abuse causes down-regulation of the dopaminergic rewards system. The practical consequences of this is you eventually reach a point where you're never going to feel good again--many people take several years to begin feeling any form of pleasure after adderall abuse, and some people simply never recover.
Drugs r bad, mmkay?
In school, we got entire weeks with 2 hours each day devoted to explaining that there's heroin, it will give you HIV, and it's addictive, and bad; there's speed, and speed is a drug, and drugs r bad; there's cocaine, and cocaine is snorted, and anything snorted is bad for you, and cocaine is bad. They didn't bestow knowledge; they tried to drill in an ideal through repetition.
Good point. I would have assumed the wire is a conductor and would have an isolating coating (e.g. encased in borosilicate glass), but I guess I don't know how those things are constructed.
You could use bare wire, though: there's nothing to short to. You'd just have to replace the wire now and then; it'd be an extreme wear part.
If they have confirmation of pedophilia, that's pretty much it. You can't un-pedophile someone any more than you can un-gay them; all you can do is determine if they're liable to tie a cookie to a string and troll it through the nearest preschool yard.
Psh. I have no friends and am schizoid, and people have tried to use this in political debates about welfare to argue that a sociopath obviously has no valid political opinion on social welfare (I literally score 0 on the sociopath test some days; the threshold is a mile and a half away).
Oddly enough, being tossed under the bus hasn't had an impact on me; it's just plain old not having a need to mesh into a social group that makes me question things. You could argue, in an abstract way, that maybe you get to be the next guy tossed under the bus. If you're Mexican or look kind of Arab, that's you today. Slashdotters really don't like brown people because they blame them for something something jerbs.
There it is, 2/3 of the way down the comments: this won't work because the air around the CPU will warm up and the CPU will overheat. Even convection isn't enough; you need an active blower.
Anyone else notice how the headline is "MICROSOFT WINS AGAIN!" and even the summary is "we have rules for a reason, and the reasons here are particularly-important so people don't just keep fucking you and then pulling out just after you scream rape each time"?
That's true, and it makes a lot of sense regarding today's medical addicts who weren't properly evaluated, identified, and tapered after medical treatment with opiates.
My problem is with drugs which are sufficiently dangerous with overuse. As I said: caffeine overuse is common today. Look as well at people who go to parties and pound loads of alcohol (or alcohol with red bull). Those are your uninformed victims of circumstance--people who weren't properly looked-after and told they can have a thing, but first we must explain to you the things about that thing so anything you do to yourself is your own fault.
With opiates, amphetamines, and the like, such casual usage patterns are much more deleterious to health. In short: opium is a worse chronic poison than caffeine, and a weekend binge on amphetamines is going to hurt you more than a weekend binge on vodka (usually). As you said: most didn't spiral out of control.
As well, some people just want to abuse the drug. Again, their fault; however, at least if you gate it, you can counsel them, detect them, and maybe provide some additional medical services to protect people against those secondary risks. For some people, it's not that their life is driving them to drink so much as they just want to party (genetic addicts typically dislike their own behavior and become seriously-averse to addictive stimuli as a defense), and you can't do anything about them really.
Culture changes. Caffeine+Alcohol is a recent cultural phenomena, as is butt-chugging. As well, today we recognize addiction as a health problem, whereas long ago we didn't. The risks move around, and sometimes people go unappraised; we should at least make sure people are sufficiently warned in some clear way. "Drugs r bad, man" doesn't cut it; drugs aren't all the same thing, and have vastly-different risks. People are all about informed consent when we get into date-rape drugs, but then seem to believe we should just regulate all the drugs so they're safe and unadulterated and let people go wild--forgetting that you can reliably assume most people aren't informed just because there's a prescription packet or OTC drug facts label on the bottle.
The first several comments included a bunch of stuff about how this will just let the stupid people sort themselves out of our society, or how we should just end the war on drugs because it tramples on some essential liberties. I get that most people don't care to abuse drugs, and that an iron fist does more harm than good; and I still maintain that people are at-risk so long as we don't ensure they've got a reasonable understanding of what they're handling before we hand it over to them. Put a little more trust in people and control into their own hands? Sure. Just don't pretend they're all well-appraised of the dangers, or that they won't naturally dig themselves a nice, deep hole. We've all now and then learned the hard way that we knew less about a thing than we thought; when that's a dangerous thing, we have a duty to ensure others don't walk into the same situation.
They also had to memorize answers. If they had them on another open window, there might be odd mouse movements; if they had them on another monitor, then they would have less to think about. Everyone has to read all the answers and compare with their own memory; struggling with recall is potentially-detectable, and this may only show how well someone learned something. If the data isn't memorized at all, are the artifacts as large?
Why would there be a test for pedophilia? Is that for use in a clinical setting? I know some issues are... tricky for people to deal with. Self-denial and all. I'm not 100% certain how detection is helpful, though, considering a person who is aware of some issue and willing to accept the potential shouldn't have trouble introspecting and identifying that they maybe are kind-of bisexual or whatever it is they're choking on.
I'd imagine test for pedophilia would be... problematic in other situations. Huge invasion of privacy, at least here in the U.S.. We can't take legal action against someone who hasn't taken actual criminal action (no thought-crime), and discrimination against a person for such a diagnostic result would be devastating. We have legal protections for discrimination and privacy invasion if you're gay or something.
Do you see anyone injecting purified ethanol into their veins?
People get the reward from smoking opium, sure. They'll avoid the high-test stuff because it's more-dangerous and too much. As you pointed out, when you tighten down on it, you get people who go away and people who seek a replacement. Some people are going for the hard shit regardless; others dilute the population if they can get the light stuff.
That doesn't mean opiates aren't a dangerous tool. Some people take Tylenol 2-3 days per week; and we have many addicted to diphenhydramine from using OTC sleeping pills all the time. Likewise, people take Dextromethorphan in high doses to hallucinate; people pound over a gram of caffeine a day; and some folks chain smoke while using several nicotine patches because why the hell not?
That people are a touch better at self-regulating than most people think doesn't mean we aren't playing with dangerous tools here. Even if you ignore the mindshare issue (how many people really considered they even could get a harder version of opium back then, without having to inject heroin? Who injects shit into their body?), some people will overuse a good, workable drug without intent of getting super-high or harming themselves; they just don't realize a certain behavioral pattern will take them into a dangerous behavior. This is why we banned food products containing a combination of alcohol and stimulants. You at least need to counsel people before they can have access to such things.
Acetaldehyde is the flavoring in banana, strawberry, and peach. Like, the actual chemical in fruit. It's a beer fault. The chemical is a ketone and is absorbed through the lungs and processed as energy; your body will produce it when low on glycogen, and your brain runs more efficiently on that than on glucose.
Acetic acid is vinegar. It's safe in low concentrations, dangerous in high concentrations. Inhale the fumes off 20% dilute acetic acid and your lungs will melt.
Cadmium, nickel, lead, and copper are heavy metals. Typically not present in e-cigarette fluids. Low-grade fluids may have some impurities.
Benzine, butyl-anything, and aromatic hydrocarbons are roughly the same thing. Aromatic anything needs a ring hydrocarbon structure, and generally aromatic compounds contain a benzine ring. These are volatile and evaporate out of solution rapidly.
The market of e-cigarette fluid is pretty unregulated, and there's some nasty low-end crap. Decent stuff is generally an aromatic flavorant (fragrance oil), propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin, and nicotine. "Decent" encompasses anything that's not the lowest of low in this particular business; it wasn't always that way.
So it's between most of that stuff not being in most cigarette fluid and most of that stuff not being toxic.
Trump practically bankrupt a business by altering and extending contracts, promising to pay, and then not making payments. He paid for like $25k of what turned into a $200k job remodeling part of his corporate HQ.
It's not that last month-to-month installment, but the whole bill. Write bad checks, change terms, promise extra pay for a rush schedule due to a sudden urgency; then pay nothing.
The headline says e-cigarettes are harmful; the actual article says they tested a new device by putting chemicals and DNA in, generating metabolites, and reacting them to the DNA to see if the metabolites damage DNA.
So they did a little chemical mixing without testing things like dilution in blood, protective environments of the cell, transport across cell membranes, and so forth.
You're moving the goalposts from "less-harmful than inhaling the fumes off a burning mass of toxic plant matter soaked in toxic chemicals" to "harmless".
Nicotine in e-cigarettes found just as harmful as nicotine in regular cigarettes.
UConn researchers found that e-cigarettes loaded with a nicotine-based liquid are potentially as harmful as unfiltered cigarettes when it comes to causing DNA damage.
Oh, and it gets even better:
UConn’s scientists decided to look into whether the chemicals in e-cigarettes could cause damage to human DNA while testing a new electro-optical screening device they developed in their lab. The small 3-D printed device is believed to be the first of its kind capable of quickly detecting DNA damage, or genotoxicity, in environmental samples in the field, the researchers say.
First test of our new device to detect DNA damage!
The device is unique in that it converts chemicals into their metabolites during testing, which replicates what happens in the human body, Kadimisetty says.
Sorry, first test of our new device to simulate biological processes and see if they produce chemicals that can cause DNA.
... talk about non-rigorous, unethical journalistic reporting.
E-cigarettes still don't contain smoke, 676 chemical additives (flame retardants, colorants, preservatives, pesticides, etc.), carbon monoxide, or the like. As well, the chemical additives are generally propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin, which are both generally safe (vegetable glycerin is absorbed as a metabolizable carbohydrate-like food, more of a ketone; propylene glycol is apparently actually less-harmful than that).
Most businesses don't play those kinds of games because it's not worth losing good faith, for reasons you've noticed. People want to work with you and are willing to take low bids if that 3% profit margin is off a rather large amount of revenue from all the work you're sending them. They don't want to work with you if that 10% profit margin is contingent on somehow dealing with all your blatant abuse.
Drugs are tools. Amphetamines, opiates, and paracetamol are dangerous. People overuse caffeine; it's less-dangerous than amphetamine, and provides a sort of illustration about why we don't just give you a stock of 2.5mg d-AMP capsules instead of morning coffee.
The kind of pain for which you need opiates will fuck you up. Pain does extreme psychological damage, and chronic pain is debilitating. Opiates provide an important component of a barely-adequate essential medical system.
Opiates will also fuck you up if misused.
Deal with it. There's a reason we have Codeine and Morphine, but don't use Diamorphine: it's ridiculously-addictive, physically harmful, and generally just no good for pain management. Diamorphine will work, but damn.
I'd be okay with more latitude for self-care. Allow pharmacy technicians to prescribe more drugs after brief counseling; give patients with physician-approval a limited allowance to self-prescribe or to have a pharmacy tech prescribe. My doctor knows I'm not trying to get high and would have little problem just writing up sleeping med prescriptions--which has been done now and then, and I've found I really don't work well with GABA drugs; I don't have a standing Rx for Suvorexant or any Rx ever for Ramelteon, and I can't just walk into a pharmacy and get myself 10 of those to have on-hand or to test how they affect me. It would not be unreasonable for my doctor to have sent a class-based approval that allows me to say "I have X and want to try fixing it with Y" and get the pharmacist's opinion on that, followed by a pharmacy-tech prescription, no doctor's visit.
There is, however, a reason we don't just let you walk into Rite-Aid and pick up a bottle of Adderall off the shelf. That doesn't mean Amphetamine is bad; it's just a very dangerous tool. Same with opiates.
That kind of action can provide grounds to pierce the corporate veil and bypass the limited liability of a corporation, thus giving the plaintiff the right to directly garner your wages until the end of time.
To be like Trump, they'd have to have their HQ redone, then refuse to pay for the work under the justification that any lawsuit against them would be so expensive that they'd win by default.
Slashdot Mirror
Best Buy can still capture your request to DNS-lookup amazon.com and block it outright. The patent says they can look at traffic and block it outright as one potential strategy. Therefor, Best Buy can block your DNS look-up to Amazon.com, thus blocking you from a price-check; Amazon now has a patent on doing just that.
Anti-GMO people are roughly-equivalent to anti-vaxxers, but with a different set of shit they don't understand at all yet about which formed powerful opinions.
Pretty much, yeah. They actually were commercially available in 1983, for $4,000.
Stuff is sold based on its cost. Luxury goods can take a higher profit margin because they cost too much to make: the market is smaller, risk is higher, and competition is thus lower. The price point which produces an increase in profit is further away from the actual cost. When you get a commodity good out there, it's got to be cheap enough for the common man; and in that case, the barrier to entry is low, and the conditions of success are also low (1% of 100,000,000 customers is a lot easier to keep your business floating on than 1% of 100,000).
Transistors were finicky things back then. The first transistors, back in the 1950s, were point-contact transistors. These were built in packages and then fused with a sudden high-voltage pulse, which destroyed most of them. You can build one by hand and then rebuild it if you burn it out trying to finish it; packaged ones have to be packaged, then fused, and so you do a lot of testing and get a lot of duds that cost more to rebuild than to just discard (we can probably break them down efficiently for recycling now).
So those types of transistors didn't cost the time-and-material to assemble one; the labor invested per transistor was the labor to produce several and then identify the one working unit.
When MOSFET, CMOS, and other such transistors came along, same deal: slow, labor-intensive production processes at first, multiplied by the finicky nature of production. You have to charge customers for the units you tried to make that came out bad; low yield means you just cost the customer a few times what it theoretically costs to make one, if (in theory) it all goes right the first time.
People don't understand technology. They think things cost $0 to make and you just price them to make profit. Look at any discussion of social policy and you'll see a bunch of people trying to violate the first law of thermodynamics.
I wouldn't have anticipated a Chess site as being that popular. I'd more have expected this to happen to GoKGS or something.
So find an incompetent contractor and then strong-arm them into going away.
Well, yeah, it's not a perfect system. Reduction requires some sort of attempt; the choice is restriction or education. We currently lean more toward restriction, limiting education to "drugs r bad, man". This is actually sad, because we expend an enormous amount of classroom time discussing drugs, and drugs are fascinating.
Amphetamine.
Amphetamine is an NDRI. Amphetamine is a type of substituted phenethylamine, which is built from a phenyl ring, an ethyl group, and an amonia ion (NH3). PHENyl-ETHYL-AMINE. Phenethylamine. Attach a methyl group to the alpha bond point and you get Alpha-Methyl-PHenyl-EThyl-AMINE, Amphetamine. Yes, the name physically describes the chemical.
Amphetamine is shaped similarly to a catecholamine--a type of substituted phenethylamine. It can enter a neuron that releases and re-uptakes Dopamine, enter the vacuole that stores dopamine, and displace it into the cell. This blocks dopamine reuptake at the transporter, and forces excess dopamine into the cell such that it begins to spill out of the transporter and into the brain. It also blocks norepinephrine reuptake.
Methamphetamine does this in the nucleus accumbens. It's also a 5HT transport inhibitor, and so floods the brain with serotonin, which essentially causes serious cardiovascular issues, makes you kind of crazy, and does all this while you feel awesome thanks to tons of dopamine.
Besides the blunt toxicity risks, amphetamine abuse causes down-regulation of the dopaminergic rewards system. The practical consequences of this is you eventually reach a point where you're never going to feel good again--many people take several years to begin feeling any form of pleasure after adderall abuse, and some people simply never recover.
Drugs r bad, mmkay?
In school, we got entire weeks with 2 hours each day devoted to explaining that there's heroin, it will give you HIV, and it's addictive, and bad; there's speed, and speed is a drug, and drugs r bad; there's cocaine, and cocaine is snorted, and anything snorted is bad for you, and cocaine is bad. They didn't bestow knowledge; they tried to drill in an ideal through repetition.
Good point. I would have assumed the wire is a conductor and would have an isolating coating (e.g. encased in borosilicate glass), but I guess I don't know how those things are constructed.
You could use bare wire, though: there's nothing to short to. You'd just have to replace the wire now and then; it'd be an extreme wear part.
If they have confirmation of pedophilia, that's pretty much it. You can't un-pedophile someone any more than you can un-gay them; all you can do is determine if they're liable to tie a cookie to a string and troll it through the nearest preschool yard.
Psh. I have no friends and am schizoid, and people have tried to use this in political debates about welfare to argue that a sociopath obviously has no valid political opinion on social welfare (I literally score 0 on the sociopath test some days; the threshold is a mile and a half away).
Oddly enough, being tossed under the bus hasn't had an impact on me; it's just plain old not having a need to mesh into a social group that makes me question things. You could argue, in an abstract way, that maybe you get to be the next guy tossed under the bus. If you're Mexican or look kind of Arab, that's you today. Slashdotters really don't like brown people because they blame them for something something jerbs.
There it is, 2/3 of the way down the comments: this won't work because the air around the CPU will warm up and the CPU will overheat. Even convection isn't enough; you need an active blower.
Anyone else notice how the headline is "MICROSOFT WINS AGAIN!" and even the summary is "we have rules for a reason, and the reasons here are particularly-important so people don't just keep fucking you and then pulling out just after you scream rape each time"?
That's true, and it makes a lot of sense regarding today's medical addicts who weren't properly evaluated, identified, and tapered after medical treatment with opiates.
My problem is with drugs which are sufficiently dangerous with overuse. As I said: caffeine overuse is common today. Look as well at people who go to parties and pound loads of alcohol (or alcohol with red bull). Those are your uninformed victims of circumstance--people who weren't properly looked-after and told they can have a thing, but first we must explain to you the things about that thing so anything you do to yourself is your own fault.
With opiates, amphetamines, and the like, such casual usage patterns are much more deleterious to health. In short: opium is a worse chronic poison than caffeine, and a weekend binge on amphetamines is going to hurt you more than a weekend binge on vodka (usually). As you said: most didn't spiral out of control.
As well, some people just want to abuse the drug. Again, their fault; however, at least if you gate it, you can counsel them, detect them, and maybe provide some additional medical services to protect people against those secondary risks. For some people, it's not that their life is driving them to drink so much as they just want to party (genetic addicts typically dislike their own behavior and become seriously-averse to addictive stimuli as a defense), and you can't do anything about them really.
Culture changes. Caffeine+Alcohol is a recent cultural phenomena, as is butt-chugging. As well, today we recognize addiction as a health problem, whereas long ago we didn't. The risks move around, and sometimes people go unappraised; we should at least make sure people are sufficiently warned in some clear way. "Drugs r bad, man" doesn't cut it; drugs aren't all the same thing, and have vastly-different risks. People are all about informed consent when we get into date-rape drugs, but then seem to believe we should just regulate all the drugs so they're safe and unadulterated and let people go wild--forgetting that you can reliably assume most people aren't informed just because there's a prescription packet or OTC drug facts label on the bottle.
The first several comments included a bunch of stuff about how this will just let the stupid people sort themselves out of our society, or how we should just end the war on drugs because it tramples on some essential liberties. I get that most people don't care to abuse drugs, and that an iron fist does more harm than good; and I still maintain that people are at-risk so long as we don't ensure they've got a reasonable understanding of what they're handling before we hand it over to them. Put a little more trust in people and control into their own hands? Sure. Just don't pretend they're all well-appraised of the dangers, or that they won't naturally dig themselves a nice, deep hole. We've all now and then learned the hard way that we knew less about a thing than we thought; when that's a dangerous thing, we have a duty to ensure others don't walk into the same situation.
They also had to memorize answers. If they had them on another open window, there might be odd mouse movements; if they had them on another monitor, then they would have less to think about. Everyone has to read all the answers and compare with their own memory; struggling with recall is potentially-detectable, and this may only show how well someone learned something. If the data isn't memorized at all, are the artifacts as large?
Why would there be a test for pedophilia? Is that for use in a clinical setting? I know some issues are ... tricky for people to deal with. Self-denial and all. I'm not 100% certain how detection is helpful, though, considering a person who is aware of some issue and willing to accept the potential shouldn't have trouble introspecting and identifying that they maybe are kind-of bisexual or whatever it is they're choking on.
I'd imagine test for pedophilia would be ... problematic in other situations. Huge invasion of privacy, at least here in the U.S.. We can't take legal action against someone who hasn't taken actual criminal action (no thought-crime), and discrimination against a person for such a diagnostic result would be devastating. We have legal protections for discrimination and privacy invasion if you're gay or something.
Do you see anyone injecting purified ethanol into their veins?
People get the reward from smoking opium, sure. They'll avoid the high-test stuff because it's more-dangerous and too much. As you pointed out, when you tighten down on it, you get people who go away and people who seek a replacement. Some people are going for the hard shit regardless; others dilute the population if they can get the light stuff.
That doesn't mean opiates aren't a dangerous tool. Some people take Tylenol 2-3 days per week; and we have many addicted to diphenhydramine from using OTC sleeping pills all the time. Likewise, people take Dextromethorphan in high doses to hallucinate; people pound over a gram of caffeine a day; and some folks chain smoke while using several nicotine patches because why the hell not?
That people are a touch better at self-regulating than most people think doesn't mean we aren't playing with dangerous tools here. Even if you ignore the mindshare issue (how many people really considered they even could get a harder version of opium back then, without having to inject heroin? Who injects shit into their body?), some people will overuse a good, workable drug without intent of getting super-high or harming themselves; they just don't realize a certain behavioral pattern will take them into a dangerous behavior. This is why we banned food products containing a combination of alcohol and stimulants. You at least need to counsel people before they can have access to such things.
Acetaldehyde is the flavoring in banana, strawberry, and peach. Like, the actual chemical in fruit. It's a beer fault. The chemical is a ketone and is absorbed through the lungs and processed as energy; your body will produce it when low on glycogen, and your brain runs more efficiently on that than on glucose.
Acetic acid is vinegar. It's safe in low concentrations, dangerous in high concentrations. Inhale the fumes off 20% dilute acetic acid and your lungs will melt.
Cadmium, nickel, lead, and copper are heavy metals. Typically not present in e-cigarette fluids. Low-grade fluids may have some impurities.
Benzine, butyl-anything, and aromatic hydrocarbons are roughly the same thing. Aromatic anything needs a ring hydrocarbon structure, and generally aromatic compounds contain a benzine ring. These are volatile and evaporate out of solution rapidly.
The market of e-cigarette fluid is pretty unregulated, and there's some nasty low-end crap. Decent stuff is generally an aromatic flavorant (fragrance oil), propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin, and nicotine. "Decent" encompasses anything that's not the lowest of low in this particular business; it wasn't always that way.
So it's between most of that stuff not being in most cigarette fluid and most of that stuff not being toxic.
Trump practically bankrupt a business by altering and extending contracts, promising to pay, and then not making payments. He paid for like $25k of what turned into a $200k job remodeling part of his corporate HQ.
It's not that last month-to-month installment, but the whole bill. Write bad checks, change terms, promise extra pay for a rush schedule due to a sudden urgency; then pay nothing.
The headline says e-cigarettes are harmful; the actual article says they tested a new device by putting chemicals and DNA in, generating metabolites, and reacting them to the DNA to see if the metabolites damage DNA.
So they did a little chemical mixing without testing things like dilution in blood, protective environments of the cell, transport across cell membranes, and so forth.
You're moving the goalposts from "less-harmful than inhaling the fumes off a burning mass of toxic plant matter soaked in toxic chemicals" to "harmless".
Uh, the headline is misleading.
Nicotine in e-cigarettes found just as harmful as nicotine in regular cigarettes.
UConn researchers found that e-cigarettes loaded with a nicotine-based liquid are potentially as harmful as unfiltered cigarettes when it comes to causing DNA damage.
Oh, and it gets even better:
UConn’s scientists decided to look into whether the chemicals in e-cigarettes could cause damage to human DNA while testing a new electro-optical screening device they developed in their lab. The small 3-D printed device is believed to be the first of its kind capable of quickly detecting DNA damage, or genotoxicity, in environmental samples in the field, the researchers say.
First test of our new device to detect DNA damage!
The device is unique in that it converts chemicals into their metabolites during testing, which replicates what happens in the human body, Kadimisetty says.
Sorry, first test of our new device to simulate biological processes and see if they produce chemicals that can cause DNA.
E-cigarettes still don't contain smoke, 676 chemical additives (flame retardants, colorants, preservatives, pesticides, etc.), carbon monoxide, or the like. As well, the chemical additives are generally propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin, which are both generally safe (vegetable glycerin is absorbed as a metabolizable carbohydrate-like food, more of a ketone; propylene glycol is apparently actually less-harmful than that).
Most businesses don't play those kinds of games because it's not worth losing good faith, for reasons you've noticed. People want to work with you and are willing to take low bids if that 3% profit margin is off a rather large amount of revenue from all the work you're sending them. They don't want to work with you if that 10% profit margin is contingent on somehow dealing with all your blatant abuse.
So you'd personally drive yourself to ruin and destitution because someone was a dick to you once?
Chainsaws are extremely dangerous if mishandled.
Drugs are tools. Amphetamines, opiates, and paracetamol are dangerous. People overuse caffeine; it's less-dangerous than amphetamine, and provides a sort of illustration about why we don't just give you a stock of 2.5mg d-AMP capsules instead of morning coffee.
The kind of pain for which you need opiates will fuck you up. Pain does extreme psychological damage, and chronic pain is debilitating. Opiates provide an important component of a barely-adequate essential medical system.
Opiates will also fuck you up if misused.
Deal with it. There's a reason we have Codeine and Morphine, but don't use Diamorphine: it's ridiculously-addictive, physically harmful, and generally just no good for pain management. Diamorphine will work, but damn.
I'd be okay with more latitude for self-care. Allow pharmacy technicians to prescribe more drugs after brief counseling; give patients with physician-approval a limited allowance to self-prescribe or to have a pharmacy tech prescribe. My doctor knows I'm not trying to get high and would have little problem just writing up sleeping med prescriptions--which has been done now and then, and I've found I really don't work well with GABA drugs; I don't have a standing Rx for Suvorexant or any Rx ever for Ramelteon, and I can't just walk into a pharmacy and get myself 10 of those to have on-hand or to test how they affect me. It would not be unreasonable for my doctor to have sent a class-based approval that allows me to say "I have X and want to try fixing it with Y" and get the pharmacist's opinion on that, followed by a pharmacy-tech prescription, no doctor's visit.
There is, however, a reason we don't just let you walk into Rite-Aid and pick up a bottle of Adderall off the shelf. That doesn't mean Amphetamine is bad; it's just a very dangerous tool. Same with opiates.
That kind of action can provide grounds to pierce the corporate veil and bypass the limited liability of a corporation, thus giving the plaintiff the right to directly garner your wages until the end of time.
To be like Trump, they'd have to have their HQ redone, then refuse to pay for the work under the justification that any lawsuit against them would be so expensive that they'd win by default.