The problem is that once it was shown that the tobacco companies were lying, the anti-tobacco groups felt they had a free card to do any lying they wanted. The tobacco companies became like Nazi's (sorry to go Godwin). Anyone that defended any action of theirs, or called out any lies of the anti-tobacco contingent are painted with a brush of being just as bad as the tobacco companies themselves.
there are a lot of documented cases of people contracting lung cancer from tobacco exposure without ever having smoked a cigarette in their life.
No there are not. No honest doctor would ever attribute lung cancer to a specific cause. The best they could ever to is say that it "MIGHT" have been a contributing factor. Lung cancer is not like a bullet where you can see a direct cause and effect. Every single person on the planet is also under constant bombardment by other substances that cause lung cancer as well.
Anyone who claims a specific case of lung cancer was caused by tobacco is either horribly ignorant, or a liar.
I might take that as a legitimate point in the debate if similar action were taken against all of the other stench makers like perfume manufacturers, air freshener manufacturers, people who don't bath regularly and dog owners. Heck, the park down the street from my house produces more stench than every smoker I have ever been around. I can literally smell the crap they put on the lawns three blocks away, and it lasts for days.
You are a hypocrite. Us non-smokers put more crap into peoples lungs with the crap spewing out of our cars and even more so with our second hand car exhaust than the smokers with their cigarettes by a very wide margin. Our car exhaust not only stinks more, and damages MY lungs more.
Of course, if I were a lawyer, I would champion your right to run your car in your own home until you fell asleep and didn't wake up. I have absolutely no problem with that, and would represent you in court to defend your right to do so for the rest of your shortened life.
That would only be valid if most of their competitors had not shown that there is plenty of space in a cell phone to eliminate scratches AND purple color distortions.
In a building you must go through walls. If WiFi was used for last mile, it wouldn't need to go through walls. Trees maybe, but the antenna would be on the outside of the house, so no walls.
For most people, he didn't even change the brand of computer that they purchased. Apple computers have always been a niche. If you want to count smartphones as the computers they are, sure, he made a blip in the brand of computer people buy, but that is already on its way out.
I feel bad for anyone that would remember Steve Jobs for making the computer mainstream friendly since their has never been a time when Apple computers were used by most people. One could argue that there were a lot of Apple II s in it's heyday, but that was before ANY computers were mainstream. By the time computers became mainstream, Apple's desktop computers were a niche, and they still are.
They are making lots of money, but their products are not 'for the masses'. In fact, OSX market share is far closer to the market share of Desktop Linux than it is to Windows. They did well with the initial release of the iPhone, but that was in competition with MS, and it was clear that MS wasn't even trying to make a good portable OS. As soon as a real competitor entered the market, they started eating iPhones lunch, and Apple has now been relegated to suing for it's existence. For a brief period Apple fanboys would point to the iPad as showing that Apple was still on top, but once Google started looking at tablets, Apple has lost market share in that segment even faster than the phone segment. Apple has always been about trying to find the thing that no one else is doing, and making a quick buck before the real competition kicks in. They got a good long run with iOS, but the competition is in full swing now, and Apple is getting beat up just like they have in any other market that has competition.
Apple is going to have to pull a rabbit out of it's hat if it want's to stay relevant. The iPhone 5 was behind the curve on release day, and has been plugged with problems. The iPad is faced with an onslaught of less expensive competitors. Their PCs are a niche market, and their frontman as died.
It will be interesting to see if Apple fades back to their old niche, they pull a rabbit out of their hat and find a new market segment to move into, or if they just relegate themselves to patent troll.
Given that the excuses for iPhone failings have consistently boiled down to "Apple engineers are not as capable as the ones that work designing generic Chinese crap", I really doubt that the issue is one of "best at their specialism". From their inability to make a battery door that didn't stand out, to their inability to make a camera that doesn't turn the picture purple, it is always claimed that it was impossible for Apple, even though you can get cheap Chinese products that do it at a fraction of the cost.
If you are going to define "having computer knowledge" as "using a pre-iPhone smartphone", then sure. Of course, that would be a circular argument and have no meaning, so we must assume you mean everyone who bought a pre-iPhone smartphone had computer knowledge, and that is just silly.
Given that either interpretation is ridiculous, there must be some third meaning to your claim. What would that be?
I'm still surprised none of their competitors ran with an adverting angle making fun of the fact that you needed to use rubber bands to get your iPhone to work properly.
In the US, bikes are traffic as well. The motor vehicle code here also says that it is OK to ride bicycles two-abreast. It is also common curtesy in any vehicle to pull off the road and let traffic pass you if you are going slower than the flow of traffic. Traveling 10 MPH in a 35 zone and not pulling off to let traffic pass makes you an asshole if you are in a car. Being on a bicycle doesn't change that.
My son doesn't ride his bike as much because of the helmet law. When we were kids, riding a bike was something that you just did. You and your friends would be outside. Your bikes would be there, so you would jump on and ride. Today, it involves going inside, suiting up, and preparing for the ride. A simple bike ride takes planning and organizing. Once the kids are back inside, they are now faced with suiting up and going back outside, or just sitting down and playing video games.
The article is making the point that my son may be in more danger from not riding his bike over the course of his life do to thousands of small reductions in health than he is from the possible big reduction of health from a crash. This is entirely possible. The complete lack of understanding in our society of the concept of 'death by a thousand cuts' is a real problem. It is particularly bad for children, who are regularly damaged by years of small neglects in the name of 'keeping them safe'.
No, the time before cell phones was a time before parents stopped allowing kids to take any risk. Of course, given that you can't even figure out how to see if your kid's cell phone battery is dead, I'm not surprised that you wouldn't know this. You clearly only know what your latest issue of 'Parenting' magazine tells you.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but T-Bone-T drives a car, so obviously that is OK.
The problem is that once it was shown that the tobacco companies were lying, the anti-tobacco groups felt they had a free card to do any lying they wanted. The tobacco companies became like Nazi's (sorry to go Godwin). Anyone that defended any action of theirs, or called out any lies of the anti-tobacco contingent are painted with a brush of being just as bad as the tobacco companies themselves.
there are a lot of documented cases of people contracting lung cancer from tobacco exposure without ever having smoked a cigarette in their life.
No there are not. No honest doctor would ever attribute lung cancer to a specific cause. The best they could ever to is say that it "MIGHT" have been a contributing factor. Lung cancer is not like a bullet where you can see a direct cause and effect. Every single person on the planet is also under constant bombardment by other substances that cause lung cancer as well.
Anyone who claims a specific case of lung cancer was caused by tobacco is either horribly ignorant, or a liar.
Sounds like people and their cars. Whether that is first hand driving, or the ill effects created by their second hand driving.
I might take that as a legitimate point in the debate if similar action were taken against all of the other stench makers like perfume manufacturers, air freshener manufacturers, people who don't bath regularly and dog owners. Heck, the park down the street from my house produces more stench than every smoker I have ever been around. I can literally smell the crap they put on the lawns three blocks away, and it lasts for days.
You are a hypocrite. Us non-smokers put more crap into peoples lungs with the crap spewing out of our cars and even more so with our second hand car exhaust than the smokers with their cigarettes by a very wide margin. Our car exhaust not only stinks more, and damages MY lungs more.
Of course, if I were a lawyer, I would champion your right to run your car in your own home until you fell asleep and didn't wake up. I have absolutely no problem with that, and would represent you in court to defend your right to do so for the rest of your shortened life.
That would only be valid if most of their competitors had not shown that there is plenty of space in a cell phone to eliminate scratches AND purple color distortions.
Anyone that can't understand dollars per hour is just...ignorant.
In a building you must go through walls. If WiFi was used for last mile, it wouldn't need to go through walls. Trees maybe, but the antenna would be on the outside of the house, so no walls.
For most people, he didn't even change the brand of computer that they purchased. Apple computers have always been a niche. If you want to count smartphones as the computers they are, sure, he made a blip in the brand of computer people buy, but that is already on its way out.
Only if you don't know what culture is. Don't worry. Not knowing what a culture is is a common ailment.
I feel bad for anyone that would remember Steve Jobs for making the computer mainstream friendly since their has never been a time when Apple computers were used by most people. One could argue that there were a lot of Apple II s in it's heyday, but that was before ANY computers were mainstream. By the time computers became mainstream, Apple's desktop computers were a niche, and they still are.
They are making lots of money, but their products are not 'for the masses'. In fact, OSX market share is far closer to the market share of Desktop Linux than it is to Windows. They did well with the initial release of the iPhone, but that was in competition with MS, and it was clear that MS wasn't even trying to make a good portable OS. As soon as a real competitor entered the market, they started eating iPhones lunch, and Apple has now been relegated to suing for it's existence. For a brief period Apple fanboys would point to the iPad as showing that Apple was still on top, but once Google started looking at tablets, Apple has lost market share in that segment even faster than the phone segment. Apple has always been about trying to find the thing that no one else is doing, and making a quick buck before the real competition kicks in. They got a good long run with iOS, but the competition is in full swing now, and Apple is getting beat up just like they have in any other market that has competition.
Apple is going to have to pull a rabbit out of it's hat if it want's to stay relevant. The iPhone 5 was behind the curve on release day, and has been plugged with problems. The iPad is faced with an onslaught of less expensive competitors. Their PCs are a niche market, and their frontman as died.
It will be interesting to see if Apple fades back to their old niche, they pull a rabbit out of their hat and find a new market segment to move into, or if they just relegate themselves to patent troll.
Given that the excuses for iPhone failings have consistently boiled down to "Apple engineers are not as capable as the ones that work designing generic Chinese crap", I really doubt that the issue is one of "best at their specialism". From their inability to make a battery door that didn't stand out, to their inability to make a camera that doesn't turn the picture purple, it is always claimed that it was impossible for Apple, even though you can get cheap Chinese products that do it at a fraction of the cost.
I like your bet. Very gentlemanly. I'm thinking it should be the new standard for internet debates.
If you are going to define "having computer knowledge" as "using a pre-iPhone smartphone", then sure. Of course, that would be a circular argument and have no meaning, so we must assume you mean everyone who bought a pre-iPhone smartphone had computer knowledge, and that is just silly.
Given that either interpretation is ridiculous, there must be some third meaning to your claim. What would that be?
What does him buying a Samsung Galaxy III have to do with the iPhone?
And yet you are likely to give up far more than 4 years of your life for far less money.
Sounds like Apple replaced one badly engineered lens with a different badly engineered lens.
Are people really scratching their lenses that often? I have yet to scratch the lens on any phone I have owned.
I'm still surprised none of their competitors ran with an adverting angle making fun of the fact that you needed to use rubber bands to get your iPhone to work properly.
If you think most people's objection to helmets is fashion, then you do not understand the issue.
In the US, bikes are traffic as well. The motor vehicle code here also says that it is OK to ride bicycles two-abreast. It is also common curtesy in any vehicle to pull off the road and let traffic pass you if you are going slower than the flow of traffic. Traveling 10 MPH in a 35 zone and not pulling off to let traffic pass makes you an asshole if you are in a car. Being on a bicycle doesn't change that.
My son doesn't ride his bike as much because of the helmet law. When we were kids, riding a bike was something that you just did. You and your friends would be outside. Your bikes would be there, so you would jump on and ride. Today, it involves going inside, suiting up, and preparing for the ride. A simple bike ride takes planning and organizing. Once the kids are back inside, they are now faced with suiting up and going back outside, or just sitting down and playing video games.
The article is making the point that my son may be in more danger from not riding his bike over the course of his life do to thousands of small reductions in health than he is from the possible big reduction of health from a crash. This is entirely possible. The complete lack of understanding in our society of the concept of 'death by a thousand cuts' is a real problem. It is particularly bad for children, who are regularly damaged by years of small neglects in the name of 'keeping them safe'.
No, the time before cell phones was a time before parents stopped allowing kids to take any risk. Of course, given that you can't even figure out how to see if your kid's cell phone battery is dead, I'm not surprised that you wouldn't know this. You clearly only know what your latest issue of 'Parenting' magazine tells you.