You do realize that it is a US based website in english don't you?
What has language got to do with it?
Sure people come from around the world but it is a US based site and will be from a US point of view. To complain about that is as rude as someone from the US going to a French site written in French and then complaining that they didn't put measurements in feet and inches as well as metric!
The vast majority of the population of the world doesn't have an idea what an inch is. The metric system is the standard measurement system, in a French website or other.
How closed minded and rude to come to a US website and not embrace the cultural differences!
Many Americans complain about the absurd measurement system that only you use, in this very website. I just agree with them.
So do the whiners spend as much time on the Top Gear website and sending letters to the editors, letters to the BBC, and complaining to the car companies about them using miles, gallons and so on as they do when a US based website does?
I have no idea, I don't live in the UK. Last time I was there, they were using the metric system in a half-assed way. They half-ass many things, like their membership in the EU, for instance.
You realise that this website, although US-based, is used by people all around the world, don't you?
Thanks for the information. Slashdot should adopt a policy, like Wikipedia, that all measurement units should be metric with the alternatives in parenthesis. This way, everybody would be happy. Slashdot has editors. Is it so hard for them to fix this?
Diesel engines don't use spark plugs. Since I bought a diesel car, my mechanical problems almost disappeared.
Re:This is not the logic you are looking for
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Ah, I love the deniers. The authorities shouldn't spend all that money on research, they should just have asked you. You seem to know it all.
Here in Portugal, 3 years after smoking was banned in closed public spaces, the numbers of ischemic heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have gone down for the first time ever in our history. Is this just a coincidence or your post is full of bullshit?
The Russian Empire had a feudal economy by the time of the 1917 revolution. It was only barely industrialised. Add two World Wars that caused an amount of destruction and killing never seen anywhere, in any time. It's almost a miracle they've turned a completely destroyed medieval country into a modern one in a few decades. You wouldn't expect them to to it while watching TV, dancing to Rock n' Roll and driving Cadillacs, would you?
I can't stand religion, I can't even understand religious sentiment, to me it's absurd. But, since I'm a tolerant person, I accept the religious and avoid disturbing their beliefs. I'm OK with them, as long as they don't try to mess with science and politics.
When stupid bullshit like this article come up trying to compare what is incomparable, I feel that religion is trying to step on my toes. And then my tolerance temporarily vanishes.
Please, religious guys, stop trying to compare Religion and Science. It's apples and oranges. Go back to your bearded guy in the sky and get off my loan. I don't need you to try to improve or injure my life, thank you. Ironically, Science improves the life of everybody, every day. Even of religious people. If you really mean your business, then refuse medicine, stop using mechanised transportation, etc. Pray to the bearded guy to cure you and carry you from one place to another.
Science has to be "dumbed down" to make sure the common man can understand it. Religious speech is esoteric and full of loopholes to make sure the common man doesn't understand it.
It's ironic. A few years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, this time it's the western democracies going down on a slippery slope towards totalitarian states. In this case, championed by an ultra-capitalist right-wing government like this of Monsieur Sarkozy.
One would expect that, after all the problems we had in the past, we'd be more vigilant. Nope. The times of corporatism/fascism are coming back again. I wonder if the European Union's hidden agenda was to create the IV Reich, this time without weapons?
The study is very interesting. But it doesn't contradict what I've posted.
A glass of wine a day will benefit your health and cause no harm to anyone around you. Unfortunately, alcohol is very addictive and widely available. In spite of millennia of adaptation, many people still can't control their alcohol consumption. Hence the huge harm caused to themselves and society.
Even if you smoke one cigarette a day, which most smokers don't, you are hurting your health and that of others around you.
A guy having a beer in the table next doesn't hurt me at all. I couldn't say the same if he was having a smoke.
Both are very addictive drugs. However, there are big differences.
Moderate consumption of alcohol has scientifically proven health benefits, specially if you drink red wine. Also, it doesn't harm anyone, as long as you don't get drunk and drive, or become violent, or bore someone to death.
I can't see any possible health benefit of smoking tobacco, be it moderately or not. And it hurts everybody around you.
Before the law, people used to smoke everywhere. And I don't get to choose to go to work, I have to. The same for the bank, the IRS, and many other public and private services. Do you really believe what you post or you're just trolling?
In some countries they don't need models to show that smokers cost less.
The UK for example. They get 10-12 billion pounds per year from tobacco taxes, and they estimate that smoking related costs to the NHS are about 1.5 to 3 billion.
So the smokers pay for themselves and help pay for other people too.:)
I find it very hard to believe. Care to back up those numbers with a citation? Your ass doesn't qualify as a source.
Yeah, sure. I must hurt my career because some jerk want to take a few smokes during work. I'm glad to see people concerned with what's really important.
"Ban smoking in ALL closed spaces"? You mean that I, as a homeowner, should not be able to smoke in my own home if I don't bung the windows wide open? Or in my car?
Ooops, I wasn't clear enough. I meant "all PUBLIC closed spaces". The regulation being prepared mentions this.
Once they're done attacking smokers and fat people, they'll go after those who have other recreational activities. Video games? No, sorry, you've used up your allotment of one hour a week, go outside instead, and if we catch you playing a video game between now and Monday, then you're banned for the next month, etc. How far are we willing to let the government intrude into our personal lives and choices?
Ah, I love the straw men. Smoking causes air pollution, that severely affects all the others around the smoker. Playing games is innocuous. Drinking is innocuous to others, until you get drunk. In that moment, the Law steps in and prevents you from being noxious to others. Your freedom ends when the others' freedoms start.
It's a bad idea to ban smoking in closed spaces. You lose potential tax revenue and you reduce freedom.
Where is my freedom when I'm forced to sit in an office all day with smoking co-workers?
In my country civil servants get pensions for as long as they live. Many of them smoke. So more of them smoking and thus dying not too long after retirement is good for the country's economics.
Check this.
The amount of taxes paid in cigarettes covers only a tiny fraction of the problems caused by smoke. Smokers don't only die earlier, they live decades with very debilitating chronic diseases that cost fortunes in treatment and lost productivity. And they cause the same problems to the unfortunate around them. Want an example? Before the ban I would always have 3 or 4 days a year of sick leave, because of second-hand smoke. And this was only when I couldn't even speak or breathe. I used to have periods when I just coughed the whole day for weeks and weeks. Measure your productivity when you can't stop coughing until your whole body hurts, just to preserve the "freedom" of the smokestacks around you.
Yes you should educate and discourage people from smoking - it is bad for them. But there are zillions of things which are bad for us that we like doing. If people insist on "helping" the country why ban them from doing so?;)
Read my lips: I don't give a fuck if people want to kill themselves slowly and painfully. I object that they want to take me and my family with them. I thought I made it pretty explicit before.
Going to a pub occasionally isn't going to get anyone killed from second-hand smoke.
Whenever I go to a pub, the next day I want to die. And it's not the hangover, it's asthma. So, as far as I'm concerned, hell yes. I want to fuck over everyone who smokes.
Wrong. Specially in a permissive country like mine, where people are traditionally cautious to exert their rights. You can't stop people from smoking in the office unless there's a law for that. Otherwise the smokers will ignore the complaints and go on smoking. As to the bars and cafés, it's a race to the bottom. The owner who bans smoking will feel he's losing customers to the competition. Fortunately things are changing a bit, because mentalities are changing after the ban was created. It's usual to see coffee shops and restaurants where smoking is banned full of families, while the smoking places are full of winos and bums. Before the end of the smokers' dictatorship, people hadn't realised how good it is to breathe clean air.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that it is a US based website in english don't you?
What has language got to do with it?
Sure people come from around the world but it is a US based site and will be from a US point of view. To complain about that is as rude as someone from the US going to a French site written in French and then complaining that they didn't put measurements in feet and inches as well as metric!
The vast majority of the population of the world doesn't have an idea what an inch is. The metric system is the standard measurement system, in a French website or other.
How closed minded and rude to come to a US website and not embrace the cultural differences!
Many Americans complain about the absurd measurement system that only you use, in this very website. I just agree with them.
So do the whiners spend as much time on the Top Gear website and sending letters to the editors, letters to the BBC, and complaining to the car companies about them using miles, gallons and so on as they do when a US based website does?
I have no idea, I don't live in the UK. Last time I was there, they were using the metric system in a half-assed way. They half-ass many things, like their membership in the EU, for instance.
You realise that this website, although US-based, is used by people all around the world, don't you?
Thanks for the information. Slashdot should adopt a policy, like Wikipedia, that all measurement units should be metric with the alternatives in parenthesis. This way, everybody would be happy. Slashdot has editors. Is it so hard for them to fix this?
There are definitely rights you cannot sell (such as the right to live).
I'm not so sure. Make it legal to sell one's life and people will do it.
Diesel engines don't use spark plugs. Since I bought a diesel car, my mechanical problems almost disappeared.
Ah, I love the deniers. The authorities shouldn't spend all that money on research, they should just have asked you. You seem to know it all.
Here in Portugal, 3 years after smoking was banned in closed public spaces, the numbers of ischemic heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have gone down for the first time ever in our history. Is this just a coincidence or your post is full of bullshit?
He picked his crime very well. If he had committed copyright infringement, Sarkozy would've got him guillotined!
The Russian Empire had a feudal economy by the time of the 1917 revolution. It was only barely industrialised. Add two World Wars that caused an amount of destruction and killing never seen anywhere, in any time. It's almost a miracle they've turned a completely destroyed medieval country into a modern one in a few decades. You wouldn't expect them to to it while watching TV, dancing to Rock n' Roll and driving Cadillacs, would you?
On the other hand, having had my stomach examined a few times, this sounds like heaven. Not even mentioning the guys that took it in the other end...
I'm from Portugal, you insensitive clod!
. . .
Ok, how much do you need to reverse your statement? I'm sure we can arrange something...
I can't stand religion, I can't even understand religious sentiment, to me it's absurd. But, since I'm a tolerant person, I accept the religious and avoid disturbing their beliefs. I'm OK with them, as long as they don't try to mess with science and politics.
When stupid bullshit like this article come up trying to compare what is incomparable, I feel that religion is trying to step on my toes. And then my tolerance temporarily vanishes.
Please, religious guys, stop trying to compare Religion and Science. It's apples and oranges. Go back to your bearded guy in the sky and get off my loan. I don't need you to try to improve or injure my life, thank you. Ironically, Science improves the life of everybody, every day. Even of religious people. If you really mean your business, then refuse medicine, stop using mechanised transportation, etc. Pray to the bearded guy to cure you and carry you from one place to another.
Science has to be "dumbed down" to make sure the common man can understand it. Religious speech is esoteric and full of loopholes to make sure the common man doesn't understand it.
It's ironic. A few years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, this time it's the western democracies going down on a slippery slope towards totalitarian states. In this case, championed by an ultra-capitalist right-wing government like this of Monsieur Sarkozy.
One would expect that, after all the problems we had in the past, we'd be more vigilant. Nope. The times of corporatism/fascism are coming back again. I wonder if the European Union's hidden agenda was to create the IV Reich, this time without weapons?
The study is very interesting. But it doesn't contradict what I've posted.
A glass of wine a day will benefit your health and cause no harm to anyone around you. Unfortunately, alcohol is very addictive and widely available. In spite of millennia of adaptation, many people still can't control their alcohol consumption. Hence the huge harm caused to themselves and society.
Even if you smoke one cigarette a day, which most smokers don't, you are hurting your health and that of others around you.
A guy having a beer in the table next doesn't hurt me at all. I couldn't say the same if he was having a smoke.
Both are very addictive drugs. However, there are big differences.
Moderate consumption of alcohol has scientifically proven health benefits, specially if you drink red wine. Also, it doesn't harm anyone, as long as you don't get drunk and drive, or become violent, or bore someone to death.
I can't see any possible health benefit of smoking tobacco, be it moderately or not. And it hurts everybody around you.
Before the law, people used to smoke everywhere. And I don't get to choose to go to work, I have to. The same for the bank, the IRS, and many other public and private services. Do you really believe what you post or you're just trolling?
It's better than the tranny of the smokers, which used to be the norm. You had to smoke, even if you didn't want to.
In some countries they don't need models to show that smokers cost less. The UK for example. They get 10-12 billion pounds per year from tobacco taxes, and they estimate that smoking related costs to the NHS are about 1.5 to 3 billion. So the smokers pay for themselves and help pay for other people too. :)
I find it very hard to believe. Care to back up those numbers with a citation? Your ass doesn't qualify as a source.
Yeah, sure. I must hurt my career because some jerk want to take a few smokes during work. I'm glad to see people concerned with what's really important.
"Ban smoking in ALL closed spaces"? You mean that I, as a homeowner, should not be able to smoke in my own home if I don't bung the windows wide open? Or in my car?
Ooops, I wasn't clear enough. I meant "all PUBLIC closed spaces". The regulation being prepared mentions this.
Once they're done attacking smokers and fat people, they'll go after those who have other recreational activities. Video games? No, sorry, you've used up your allotment of one hour a week, go outside instead, and if we catch you playing a video game between now and Monday, then you're banned for the next month, etc. How far are we willing to let the government intrude into our personal lives and choices?
Ah, I love the straw men. Smoking causes air pollution, that severely affects all the others around the smoker. Playing games is innocuous. Drinking is innocuous to others, until you get drunk. In that moment, the Law steps in and prevents you from being noxious to others. Your freedom ends when the others' freedoms start.
It's a bad idea to ban smoking in closed spaces. You lose potential tax revenue and you reduce freedom.
Where is my freedom when I'm forced to sit in an office all day with smoking co-workers?
In my country civil servants get pensions for as long as they live. Many of them smoke. So more of them smoking and thus dying not too long after retirement is good for the country's economics.
Check this. The amount of taxes paid in cigarettes covers only a tiny fraction of the problems caused by smoke. Smokers don't only die earlier, they live decades with very debilitating chronic diseases that cost fortunes in treatment and lost productivity. And they cause the same problems to the unfortunate around them. Want an example? Before the ban I would always have 3 or 4 days a year of sick leave, because of second-hand smoke. And this was only when I couldn't even speak or breathe. I used to have periods when I just coughed the whole day for weeks and weeks. Measure your productivity when you can't stop coughing until your whole body hurts, just to preserve the "freedom" of the smokestacks around you.
Yes you should educate and discourage people from smoking - it is bad for them. But there are zillions of things which are bad for us that we like doing. If people insist on "helping" the country why ban them from doing so? ;)
Read my lips: I don't give a fuck if people want to kill themselves slowly and painfully. I object that they want to take me and my family with them. I thought I made it pretty explicit before.
Going to a pub occasionally isn't going to get anyone killed from second-hand smoke.
Whenever I go to a pub, the next day I want to die. And it's not the hangover, it's asthma. So, as far as I'm concerned, hell yes. I want to fuck over everyone who smokes.
Wrong. Specially in a permissive country like mine, where people are traditionally cautious to exert their rights. You can't stop people from smoking in the office unless there's a law for that. Otherwise the smokers will ignore the complaints and go on smoking. As to the bars and cafés, it's a race to the bottom. The owner who bans smoking will feel he's losing customers to the competition. Fortunately things are changing a bit, because mentalities are changing after the ban was created. It's usual to see coffee shops and restaurants where smoking is banned full of families, while the smoking places are full of winos and bums. Before the end of the smokers' dictatorship, people hadn't realised how good it is to breathe clean air.
Easy. Stop wanking.