“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
Of course.
1. Uh-oh, universally negative feedback. Maybe we should reconsider.
2. Hm, our users don't like it but marketing says it will work and that we'll attract more new users.
As was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there is no way they're going to drop the changes this late in the game. The decision was made, it's over. Option 2 wins!
Twitter should be able to better control removal of such content, idk if that encroaches on the 1st amendment though.
Two things come to mind: I'm fairly certain the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the region in question and Twitter isn't in any way required to help you out with your 1st amendment rights. To be clear, it's twitter's service and their choice on what to allow. You want to say something they don't allow? No problem, start your own website. Or start printing pamphlets.
You're thinking of an inverse neutrino field diverted through the deflector dish. That's how you generate a biased coherent tachyon beam. Be sure to use compressed pulse power modulation to prevent plasma feedback induction.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with better car design.:)
Actually, I remember a crash test comparison between an old tank and a newish car. As I recall, the old car took the damage better but tended to kill the human occupants while the new car was crushed all to hell but spared the passengers.
You want a thumb? I can get you a thumb, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me. Hell, I can get you a thumb by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish. These fucking amateurs...
If you follow along with the thread, I was talking about quitting the ecig. I've already fully switched from tobacco. I admit, I'm a little confused by your reply, unless you think that ecigs burn tar. They don't have either of those properties. No burning, no smoke, no tar, no thousands of chemicals, no carcinogens.
Good thing you don't get any second hand smoke from ecigs.
Conclusions: For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.
It's easy to find a bunch of "what if" that says it's harmful second hand. People that bother to test find levels so low (if at all) that it's not a problem.
I'll agree to your controls. They can't be used where scientific evidence shows they will harm others. Better get used to the smell.
“For more than 25 years Smokefree Pennsylvania has been advocating indoor smoking bans. Based on the results of this study I see no reason for e-cigarettes to be included in smoking bans.” - Bill Godshall of Smokefree Pennsylvania.
“Most vapers believe e-cigarette vapor is not harmful to those around them, but it is reassuring to finally have scientific evidence confirming those beliefs.”- Spike Babaian, President of National Vapers Club
This is the first study to cover such a wide range of toxins, however previous studies, which have evaluated a smaller number of toxins, have shown similar results.
“The results of this study confirm the findings of my last 4 years of research. E-cigarettes pose no discernible risk to public health." - Dr. Murray Laugesen - Public Health Medicine Specialist, Health New Zealand
I don't know that any eliquids contain ethylene glycol. If yours does, it's time to switch to a new brand. Are you thinking of glycerol? Propylene glycol, glycerol and nicotine (and flavorings) are the usual ingredients in ecigs. It seems like a very easy thing to check if the amount of heat applied is enough to chemically alter them. Since ecigs don't get all that hot, I just don't see it happening. As for tar build up, all I can say is WTF? There is no tar.
Your post is very disingenuous. The article itself says "3 out of 10" are found to contain acrolein and formaldehyde. For 10 bonus points, explain why they contain it and the others don't. I find it very odd that some ecigs are able to synthesize these two chemicals from the 3 main ingredients of eliquid and others don't. Perhaps what you mean to say is "A study found that if you put similar levels of formaldehyde and acrolein in you liquid mixtures as found in regular cigarettes, then they will contain similar levels of..." you get the point.
Huh. I thought the real point was to at least avoid the harm of smoking tobacco. Even if I never quit the ecig, I think I've still done something very, very good for my health.
As far as anyone can tell (studies have been done) they are damn near 100% safe for others. It's not your problem if they still cause some harm to the user. As far as bothering other people, how many other smells are we going to ban? What if I don't like your BO? Further, most ecig users move away from tobacco flavors pretty fast. Mine smells of a sort of musty sweet vanilla. Sorry if nice smells bother you. Stick it up your ass.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm talkin' 'bout SCHAFT!
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
Terry Pratchet
There's an app for that.
Each head of cattle emits between 250 and 300 liters of pure methane a day, enough energy to keep a refrigerator running for 24 hours
Now Frink can make his intra-bovine ice cream maker run directly from cow burps!
You're a little late to start complaining now. It was already verbed by 1792.
I would love that! I have yet to see a web based interface that is a good as newsreaders were in 1998.
Of course.
1. Uh-oh, universally negative feedback. Maybe we should reconsider.
2. Hm, our users don't like it but marketing says it will work and that we'll attract more new users.
As was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there is no way they're going to drop the changes this late in the game. The decision was made, it's over. Option 2 wins!
Twitter should be able to better control removal of such content, idk if that encroaches on the 1st amendment though.
Two things come to mind: I'm fairly certain the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the region in question and Twitter isn't in any way required to help you out with your 1st amendment rights. To be clear, it's twitter's service and their choice on what to allow. You want to say something they don't allow? No problem, start your own website. Or start printing pamphlets.
If you're worried about both, then you need to go double layer with a shiny side facing both in and out.
But should you put the shiny sides against each other or have one shiny side against your head and the other facing out?
Of course! It's like putting too much air in a balloon!
You're thinking of an inverse neutrino field diverted through the deflector dish. That's how you generate a biased coherent tachyon beam. Be sure to use compressed pulse power modulation to prevent plasma feedback induction.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with better car design. :)
Actually, I remember a crash test comparison between an old tank and a newish car. As I recall, the old car took the damage better but tended to kill the human occupants while the new car was crushed all to hell but spared the passengers.
Just say no.
Why would I do that? Sounds great! (Except for the backwards organizers)
Lemme guess, you're bit religious?
You want a thumb? I can get you a thumb, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me. Hell, I can get you a thumb by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish. These fucking amateurs...
I can still consume a case of beer on a long day of drinking (24 beers) without much thought about it and not getting past a buzz.
Perhaps you should try real beer.
The obese and overweight will be at an advantage,
They will be at a distinct disadvantage as they contain many calories and move slowly. They will be easy to catch.
Here are the answers from the bots. I expected more...
Don't worry. There won't be any more ships in the next movie. We learned in the last one that they can simply teleport from planet to planet.
If you follow along with the thread, I was talking about quitting the ecig. I've already fully switched from tobacco. I admit, I'm a little confused by your reply, unless you think that ecigs burn tar. They don't have either of those properties. No burning, no smoke, no tar, no thousands of chemicals, no carcinogens.
Then this will blow your mind. Vaping while plugged in to a laptop.
Good thing you don't get any second hand smoke from ecigs.
Conclusions: For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.
It's easy to find a bunch of "what if" that says it's harmful second hand. People that bother to test find levels so low (if at all) that it's not a problem.
I'll agree to your controls. They can't be used where scientific evidence shows they will harm others. Better get used to the smell.
“For more than 25 years Smokefree Pennsylvania has been advocating indoor smoking bans. Based on the results of this study I see no reason for e-cigarettes to be included in smoking bans.” - Bill Godshall of Smokefree Pennsylvania.
“Most vapers believe e-cigarette vapor is not harmful to those around them, but it is reassuring to finally have scientific evidence confirming those beliefs.”- Spike Babaian, President of National Vapers Club
This is the first study to cover such a wide range of toxins, however previous studies, which have evaluated a smaller number of toxins, have shown similar results.
“The results of this study confirm the findings of my last 4 years of research. E-cigarettes pose no discernible risk to public health." - Dr. Murray Laugesen - Public Health Medicine Specialist, Health New Zealand
source
I don't know that any eliquids contain ethylene glycol. If yours does, it's time to switch to a new brand. Are you thinking of glycerol? Propylene glycol, glycerol and nicotine (and flavorings) are the usual ingredients in ecigs. It seems like a very easy thing to check if the amount of heat applied is enough to chemically alter them. Since ecigs don't get all that hot, I just don't see it happening. As for tar build up, all I can say is WTF? There is no tar.
Your post is very disingenuous. The article itself says "3 out of 10" are found to contain acrolein and formaldehyde. For 10 bonus points, explain why they contain it and the others don't. I find it very odd that some ecigs are able to synthesize these two chemicals from the 3 main ingredients of eliquid and others don't. Perhaps what you mean to say is "A study found that if you put similar levels of formaldehyde and acrolein in you liquid mixtures as found in regular cigarettes, then they will contain similar levels of..." you get the point.
Huh. I thought the real point was to at least avoid the harm of smoking tobacco. Even if I never quit the ecig, I think I've still done something very, very good for my health.
As far as anyone can tell (studies have been done) they are damn near 100% safe for others. It's not your problem if they still cause some harm to the user. As far as bothering other people, how many other smells are we going to ban? What if I don't like your BO? Further, most ecig users move away from tobacco flavors pretty fast. Mine smells of a sort of musty sweet vanilla. Sorry if nice smells bother you. Stick it up your ass.