You mean this one, the description of which specifically mentions "Sleeping car passengers can experience a full range of exclusive services and amenities on the Coast Starlight, including complimentary onboard internet access via AmtrakConnect and an exciting alternative meal service, both available in the Parlour Car."
It's restricted to select passengers and only in one car, apparently, but it IS there.
I have used Lynx and IRC and I'm only 28. That said, I wouldn't want to make a regular habit of it. I used IRC due to some gaming circles as another poster mentioned, and Lynx because I wanted to do osme web stuff in a text-only SSH session.
No, but the option for more overlap is nice. Especially when it has nothing to do with actual processing power issues, and not even screen size with a tablet, but simply peripheral and OS problems.
If nothing else... PRINTING would be awfully nice from a tablet. Too bad both Android and Apple have clunky hacks (well, I'm not too familiar with the Apple one, but I understand it's not a native print-to-printer thing). It's not like it's a hard problem to solve, it's been solved for years.
Same with typing. ASUS has a good thing, IMO, going with their Transformer tablets (I own one). I think it was smart for Microsoft to do it.
I'm sure it's not for everyone. Not everyone likes smartphones, either (I don't have one)... some for very similar reasons ("nobody seriously expects a phone to be a computer"). But, hey, some do. And I've heard, actually, some very good things about the Windows tablets. The bad thing, of course, is that they are expensive:)
Not really. IAAST and I don't get pleasure at finding someone else's screw-up. What I get pleasure from is finding a bug that, if it was released with the product, would have caused problems. Rather than a sadistic "HAHA, I FOUND YOUR MISTAKE! TAKE THAT, DEVELOPER!"... I enjoy a pretty good and friendly relationship with the developers I work with such that they WANT me to find bugs, and I WANT them to write as few bugs as possible, and we all want as bug-free a release as possible.
All this, and yet we all bemoan the hardships of being a "single mom and having to work three jobs while going to school and taking care of my infant baby." For anyone in that situation, I am sure it is hard, and I'm sorry about it, and I wish it did not happen, and I wish guys took more responsibility; that's not the point... the point is that we as a culture make fun of guys being dads (and who needs a dad anyways?!... well, until you find out how important it is, later in life), yet complain when they aren't being dads.
So, when we are dealing with things for self-defense against those who wish to HARM ME (or kill me, or steal my stuff, or rape my wife, or whatever you want to say)... I should not be allowed to use an object whose primary design is to shoot and harm, and yes, even kill, living things?
I'm not saying "only criminals will have guns," thought that is true. My argument, though, is not "hey, that's not fair!" My argument is that, in light of the need for self defense, I SHOULD be allowed to have objects whose design is to effectively and safely (to those around me) kill someone attempting to harm me or my family. Or my livestock (like a mountain lion... errr, well, assuming you don't live in California where they are protected, of course...).
but then again I don't have paranoid fantasies of being a modern-day Braveheart.
Perhaps there are those that have this. But you seriously read my post and think that I want to be a modern-day Braveheart? I watched the movie and didn't like it because of the violence. I've watched history things from the BBC and I am consistently shocked at the penchant for violence that we have. We don't even need a good reason to kill people. He looked at me funny. He doesn't look like me. He talks funny. He's walking where I don't want him to walk. He supports the wrong king. He's the wrong religion. He doesn't have a religion. He does have a religion. He came from the wrong family. His great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather insulted mine. Humans are violent.
So, before you say that I want my gun because I want to be a modern day Braveheart, perhaps you could at least try to understand the potential benefits of using said guns? Regardless of whether or not *I* have one, it's more or less inevitable (see history) that others will. We simply cannot assume that this violent human race we are a part of will, unequivocally, decide to relinquish all weapons meant to kill, or seriously maim (like swords, bows, guns, bombs, sharpened sticks). So the question is... is it a good idea to keep those who wish to protect themselves against such violence from accessing weapons to protect themselves?
Since you mention Braveheart; let's say your wife was going to be raped, forcibly - who cares by whom. Would you fight back? Let's say they had guns. Would you wish you had one? Let's say they had a sword. Would you be content with your stick, or wish you had a sword, too?
The point is not that I want to do evil with my gun. The point is that I want to prevent evil done to those around me and those I love. And I don't count, for what it's worth, "taxes" as evil.
To me... this does not seem hard to understand... to borrow your phrase; but then again, I don't have idealistic fantasies about a modern utopia free of violence, nor do I immediately assume that anyone who wants a gun wants to be a modern-day Braveheart. Almost everyone I personally know that owns or even "likes" guns is extremely safe with them and has them for sporting and self-defense. Don't let the actions of a few crazy people (whether that's mentally or simply radical) make you think we are all that way... no more than you want "gun-control" people to all sound like the crazies example of an ignorant, hypocritical gun-control advocate who wishes to not let the general populace have guns but wishes to have them himself for his own protection.
I don't think you read my post very carefully (or at all, other than "oh, he mentions a knife" ?). I clearly implied that there is a difference. For example:
"the gun increases his ability for violence."
And, for that matter... my entire opening line was aimed at pointing out differences between various objects.
My point is not that "there's no difference between a knife and a gun." There clearly is, and I think my post clearly agrees with that. My point is that why do we draw an imaginary and arbitrary line at guns? Guns ARE more dangerous than knives. But knives are more dangerous than bats. So... why don't we outlaw knives, too? They're more dangerous. Why would you need a knife over a given length? etc.
I could counter your comment with this: if you cannot see that something being more dangerous than something else does not automatically mean it needs to be banned, then it will be impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you.:)
We use it for media consumption primarily. Don't want to drag your laptop to bed for reading a couple web pages, articles, Facebook, or checking your e-mail? Tablet is nice. Want to just sit on the couch and read some articles, e-mail, or Facebook? Tablet is nice. How about reading PDFs? Tablet is nice. What about when you're out and about and just want something for the occasional downtime or coffee shop? Tablet is nice.
Phones could fill this niche, too, and I know many people that use their phone for this... but, having used some phone-sized screen devices... I really do like the tablet better for a lot. I can actually see pictures inline in the webpage without having to horizontally scroll or zoom way out. I can actually watch a video WITH MY WIFE (or friend or whoever I happen to be with in a coffee shop at the time)! Shocking.
Sure, for browsing or reading little things, phones may be fine. But for... more prolonged and "serious" media consumption (books, articles, webpages) and "social" consumption (watching a movie together, even if that's youtube or something), I really prefer a larger screen.
"there is no reason to upgrade it everytime there is a new model" - couldn't you say the same thing about basically everything? When's the last time you NEEDED to upgrade your phone? your desktop? your laptop? Anyways, we don't upgrade our tablet very often. I used to have a Viewsonic gTablet, replaced that with an ASUS Transformer (TF300). I've had the TF300 for just about a year now and don't plan on upgrading, at least as long as ASUS continues to provide updates. But I haven't upgraded my desktop computer (except with an SSD) in... I dunno, 6 years? I'm still on DDR2 and an Intel Q6600.
The "oooooh, new iPhone! must have!" people are crazier than the tablet people, seriously. I know far more people who have the same tablet they had a year ago than phone. Most people seem to want to upgrade their phone every time a new one comes out... but people seem more content with their tablet. I dunno why. Marketing, perhaps? Or software updates? Then again, I guess the "new phone!!!" people tend to be iPhone users (and I do know a lot of people that still have iPhone 4s).
If you like chocolate, eat it without sugar or milk. You need to taste the cocoa. Eat it raw or go home.
If you like vanilla, eat the bean straight; using it to *flavor* something else is stupid.
I like coffee. I like it with cream and sugar. I like the flavor of coffee. Yes, it does have a flavor; I don't like drinking cream and sugar alone. In fact, I like the coffee to be brewed very strongly so that when I add the cream and sugar to adjust the flavor, I still get a strong coffee flavor.
I can stand it black, but I don't like it. I taste it black, sometimes, to taste what different coffee preparations/beans/roasts taste like... but I prefer my coffee with cream and sugar.
I do have it. It's not that great. My first searches yielded nothing... it seems you kinda have to use specifically crafted English that makes sense to Facebook... or, at least, choose from the list of search suggestions. That said, it's handy to be able to string multiple search filters together (like, My friends that went to with who like pizza)
Isn't this the argument made for drugs? Let's make drugs illegal so that easy access is removed, then there won't be as many kids using drugs? That didn't seem to work out terribly well. Why would it with guns?
Also... do you have any real world examples of your hypothetical situation happening? I have real world examples of people stopping crimes with their legally carried guns.
Where do we stop, then? A knife is more dangerous than a baseball bat. A bat is more dangerous than a stick. A stick is more dangerous than fists. Fists are more dangerous than feet.
So... are guns the magical "okay, we cut it off at guns!" place? What about swords? Switchblades? Oh wait, those are illegal in some states, too. And, I might add, clearly I would be far more dangerous carrying my switchblade than I would my hunting knife....
It is these sorts of arguments that, IMO, make me want to own a gun (which I do). Why? Because you're convincing me that, if push comes to shove, the guy who doesn't care about the law that may try to kill me to take whatever they want is probably not going to care that the gun increases his ability for violence. I'd like to meet him where he is, if I have to.
And that's not even the 2nd amendment (which isn't really about self-defense-from-criminals).:)
And before I get painted as a crazy, gun-toting, gun-LOVING, tea-party conservative lunatic... I'm more libertarian and I own a single gun, and it's a rifle. I prefer my large dog; he's a very good deterrent. Also, I don't like violence and would absolutely hate to have to shoot my gun at someone. Not having been in the military, I cannot imagine what it would be like to have killed someone.
What, exactly, was prevented? Do we actually know that our preventative efforts... did anything? (I'm asking, I'm not exactly making a point; I don't know the answer.)
Pretty much. I've heard/read it elsewhere, too. And I agree, personally, with him, from personal experience. And yes, it DOES taste good when you sear it, it's called caramelization...:D
I guess most people use "welfare" to mean something along the lines of "statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need." I think medi-X would definitely be part of that. Is it wrong? Bad? Should we get rid of it? I actually don't think so. But I still consider it "welfare.":)
I'm not saying that all welfare is bad or that we shouldn't have it. But just because it's a good or even necessary component doesn't mean we just remove it from the category, does it?
Yes, it's "earned" in that there are taxes levied for it. I'm not sure that completely pays for it, though. If it was a one-to-one thing (money goes into account, money flows out of account; no account transfers and no deficit spending is possible), that would be different. From what I understand, that isn't how it works. I could be convinced I am wrong, there, of course... but if that sort of clean accounting was the way it worked then it seems social security and medicaid/medicare/medi-whatever wouldn't be in such financial troubles:)
I'm not sure Samsung would be so naive either, though, would it? Samsung is heavily invested in Android at this point, from what I can tell. They would like to have a significant boom to their android devices. Seems like it'd be pretty hard to figure out how much money is going to end up being paid through licensing vs. legal fees.
I am not being naive in that I realize the ongoing-license-fees vs. legal fees is a very real problem; however, I'm not sure Samsung's leadership is quite so naive to say "oh, uh, well, we don't really care about this at all other than money, so let's just go with the cheapest route." I don't KNOW what they were thinking, but it seems silly to just assume that was THE factor that they considered. I mean, what about Android growth? If they hope to grow their Android division, those licensing fees are going to continue to grow indefinitely. Not sure the legal fees will. (plus, don't they already pay their lawyers regardless? I don't actually know how that part works. Besides, if they have a good defense and truly believe these patents wouldn't hold water, then can't they win and force MS to pay the legal fees?)
To me, it seems much simpler and saner to assume MS has some point. How much of a point? I dunno. But it seems hard to believe that these large corporations, who constantly have lawsuits going on, are just rolling over because suddenly, they don't have enough lawyers even though they know they could win against MS. Seems silly.
I have really no idea what the title is. But the guy in question (not Einstein) seems to be pretty... decently educated and intelligent, shall we say.:)
It's not a toxin. Most vegetables contain ~.1% fluoride normally.
You mean I get it in my food anyways? So why add it to water, again?
Perhaps I should ask it this way; would you like it if the government simply required you to eat your vegetables daily "for your health?" Why not do that instead of putting it into the water?
I'm not advocating one of those "precious bodily fluids" conspiracies at all. I just think it's ridiculous. We'd be very upset if the government required us to take fluoride capsules or something, but we're okay with them just putting in the water (which most people in the city are more or less required to use, you can't just dig a well in your apartment's common area... yes, you could buy bottled water, but that's economically and environmentally pretty stupid, isn't it?)
Slashdot Mirror
You can buy lots of things that are bad for you at most grocery stores. That is hardly a convincing argument for it's okay-ness. :)
You mean this one, the description of which specifically mentions "Sleeping car passengers can experience a full range of exclusive services and amenities on the Coast Starlight, including complimentary onboard internet access via AmtrakConnect and an exciting alternative meal service, both available in the Parlour Car."
It's restricted to select passengers and only in one car, apparently, but it IS there.
I have used Lynx and IRC and I'm only 28. That said, I wouldn't want to make a regular habit of it. I used IRC due to some gaming circles as another poster mentioned, and Lynx because I wanted to do osme web stuff in a text-only SSH session.
that no one seriously expect a tablet to be a PC
No, but the option for more overlap is nice. Especially when it has nothing to do with actual processing power issues, and not even screen size with a tablet, but simply peripheral and OS problems.
If nothing else... PRINTING would be awfully nice from a tablet. Too bad both Android and Apple have clunky hacks (well, I'm not too familiar with the Apple one, but I understand it's not a native print-to-printer thing). It's not like it's a hard problem to solve, it's been solved for years.
Same with typing. ASUS has a good thing, IMO, going with their Transformer tablets (I own one). I think it was smart for Microsoft to do it.
I'm sure it's not for everyone. Not everyone likes smartphones, either (I don't have one) ... some for very similar reasons ("nobody seriously expects a phone to be a computer"). But, hey, some do. And I've heard, actually, some very good things about the Windows tablets. The bad thing, of course, is that they are expensive :)
Not really. IAAST and I don't get pleasure at finding someone else's screw-up. What I get pleasure from is finding a bug that, if it was released with the product, would have caused problems. Rather than a sadistic "HAHA, I FOUND YOUR MISTAKE! TAKE THAT, DEVELOPER!" ... I enjoy a pretty good and friendly relationship with the developers I work with such that they WANT me to find bugs, and I WANT them to write as few bugs as possible, and we all want as bug-free a release as possible.
All this, and yet we all bemoan the hardships of being a "single mom and having to work three jobs while going to school and taking care of my infant baby." For anyone in that situation, I am sure it is hard, and I'm sorry about it, and I wish it did not happen, and I wish guys took more responsibility; that's not the point ... the point is that we as a culture make fun of guys being dads (and who needs a dad anyways?! ... well, until you find out how important it is, later in life), yet complain when they aren't being dads.
I hope they come out with an HD versoin soon. Why should I have to go through life only seeing standard definition reality?! ;)
So, when we are dealing with things for self-defense against those who wish to HARM ME (or kill me, or steal my stuff, or rape my wife, or whatever you want to say)... I should not be allowed to use an object whose primary design is to shoot and harm, and yes, even kill, living things?
I'm not saying "only criminals will have guns," thought that is true. My argument, though, is not "hey, that's not fair!" My argument is that, in light of the need for self defense, I SHOULD be allowed to have objects whose design is to effectively and safely (to those around me) kill someone attempting to harm me or my family. Or my livestock (like a mountain lion... errr, well, assuming you don't live in California where they are protected, of course...).
but then again I don't have paranoid fantasies of being a modern-day Braveheart.
Perhaps there are those that have this. But you seriously read my post and think that I want to be a modern-day Braveheart? I watched the movie and didn't like it because of the violence. I've watched history things from the BBC and I am consistently shocked at the penchant for violence that we have. We don't even need a good reason to kill people. He looked at me funny. He doesn't look like me. He talks funny. He's walking where I don't want him to walk. He supports the wrong king. He's the wrong religion. He doesn't have a religion. He does have a religion. He came from the wrong family. His great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather insulted mine. Humans are violent.
So, before you say that I want my gun because I want to be a modern day Braveheart, perhaps you could at least try to understand the potential benefits of using said guns? Regardless of whether or not *I* have one, it's more or less inevitable (see history) that others will. We simply cannot assume that this violent human race we are a part of will, unequivocally, decide to relinquish all weapons meant to kill, or seriously maim (like swords, bows, guns, bombs, sharpened sticks). So the question is ... is it a good idea to keep those who wish to protect themselves against such violence from accessing weapons to protect themselves?
Since you mention Braveheart; let's say your wife was going to be raped, forcibly - who cares by whom. Would you fight back? Let's say they had guns. Would you wish you had one? Let's say they had a sword. Would you be content with your stick, or wish you had a sword, too?
The point is not that I want to do evil with my gun. The point is that I want to prevent evil done to those around me and those I love. And I don't count, for what it's worth, "taxes" as evil.
To me... this does not seem hard to understand... to borrow your phrase; but then again, I don't have idealistic fantasies about a modern utopia free of violence, nor do I immediately assume that anyone who wants a gun wants to be a modern-day Braveheart. Almost everyone I personally know that owns or even "likes" guns is extremely safe with them and has them for sporting and self-defense. Don't let the actions of a few crazy people (whether that's mentally or simply radical) make you think we are all that way... no more than you want "gun-control" people to all sound like the crazies example of an ignorant, hypocritical gun-control advocate who wishes to not let the general populace have guns but wishes to have them himself for his own protection.
I don't think you read my post very carefully (or at all, other than "oh, he mentions a knife" ?). I clearly implied that there is a difference. For example:
"the gun increases his ability for violence."
And, for that matter... my entire opening line was aimed at pointing out differences between various objects.
My point is not that "there's no difference between a knife and a gun." There clearly is, and I think my post clearly agrees with that. My point is that why do we draw an imaginary and arbitrary line at guns? Guns ARE more dangerous than knives. But knives are more dangerous than bats. So ... why don't we outlaw knives, too? They're more dangerous. Why would you need a knife over a given length? etc.
I could counter your comment with this: if you cannot see that something being more dangerous than something else does not automatically mean it needs to be banned, then it will be impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you. :)
The detachable keyboard is remarkably handy when you need to ... say, type an e-mail. :)
We use it for media consumption primarily. Don't want to drag your laptop to bed for reading a couple web pages, articles, Facebook, or checking your e-mail? Tablet is nice. Want to just sit on the couch and read some articles, e-mail, or Facebook? Tablet is nice. How about reading PDFs? Tablet is nice. What about when you're out and about and just want something for the occasional downtime or coffee shop? Tablet is nice.
Phones could fill this niche, too, and I know many people that use their phone for this ... but, having used some phone-sized screen devices ... I really do like the tablet better for a lot. I can actually see pictures inline in the webpage without having to horizontally scroll or zoom way out. I can actually watch a video WITH MY WIFE (or friend or whoever I happen to be with in a coffee shop at the time)! Shocking.
Sure, for browsing or reading little things, phones may be fine. But for ... more prolonged and "serious" media consumption (books, articles, webpages) and "social" consumption (watching a movie together, even if that's youtube or something), I really prefer a larger screen.
"there is no reason to upgrade it everytime there is a new model" - couldn't you say the same thing about basically everything? When's the last time you NEEDED to upgrade your phone? your desktop? your laptop? Anyways, we don't upgrade our tablet very often. I used to have a Viewsonic gTablet, replaced that with an ASUS Transformer (TF300). I've had the TF300 for just about a year now and don't plan on upgrading, at least as long as ASUS continues to provide updates. But I haven't upgraded my desktop computer (except with an SSD) in ... I dunno, 6 years? I'm still on DDR2 and an Intel Q6600.
The "oooooh, new iPhone! must have!" people are crazier than the tablet people, seriously. I know far more people who have the same tablet they had a year ago than phone. Most people seem to want to upgrade their phone every time a new one comes out... but people seem more content with their tablet. I dunno why. Marketing, perhaps? Or software updates? Then again, I guess the "new phone!!!" people tend to be iPhone users (and I do know a lot of people that still have iPhone 4s).
Why would you sit and stare at a computer while running virus removal tools.
Because they are paid by hour, duh. ;)
The only thing I can think of is The Elder Scrolls' currency, hehe.
If you like chocolate, eat it without sugar or milk. You need to taste the cocoa. Eat it raw or go home.
If you like vanilla, eat the bean straight; using it to *flavor* something else is stupid.
I like coffee. I like it with cream and sugar. I like the flavor of coffee. Yes, it does have a flavor; I don't like drinking cream and sugar alone. In fact, I like the coffee to be brewed very strongly so that when I add the cream and sugar to adjust the flavor, I still get a strong coffee flavor.
I can stand it black, but I don't like it. I taste it black, sometimes, to taste what different coffee preparations/beans/roasts taste like... but I prefer my coffee with cream and sugar.
I do have it. It's not that great. My first searches yielded nothing... it seems you kinda have to use specifically crafted English that makes sense to Facebook... or, at least, choose from the list of search suggestions. That said, it's handy to be able to string multiple search filters together (like, My friends that went to with who like pizza)
Isn't this the argument made for drugs? Let's make drugs illegal so that easy access is removed, then there won't be as many kids using drugs? That didn't seem to work out terribly well. Why would it with guns?
Also... do you have any real world examples of your hypothetical situation happening? I have real world examples of people stopping crimes with their legally carried guns.
Where do we stop, then? A knife is more dangerous than a baseball bat. A bat is more dangerous than a stick. A stick is more dangerous than fists. Fists are more dangerous than feet.
So ... are guns the magical "okay, we cut it off at guns!" place? What about swords? Switchblades? Oh wait, those are illegal in some states, too. And, I might add, clearly I would be far more dangerous carrying my switchblade than I would my hunting knife ....
It is these sorts of arguments that, IMO, make me want to own a gun (which I do). Why? Because you're convincing me that, if push comes to shove, the guy who doesn't care about the law that may try to kill me to take whatever they want is probably not going to care that the gun increases his ability for violence. I'd like to meet him where he is, if I have to.
And that's not even the 2nd amendment (which isn't really about self-defense-from-criminals). :)
And before I get painted as a crazy, gun-toting, gun-LOVING, tea-party conservative lunatic... I'm more libertarian and I own a single gun, and it's a rifle. I prefer my large dog; he's a very good deterrent. Also, I don't like violence and would absolutely hate to have to shoot my gun at someone. Not having been in the military, I cannot imagine what it would be like to have killed someone.
What, exactly, was prevented? Do we actually know that our preventative efforts ... did anything? (I'm asking, I'm not exactly making a point; I don't know the answer.)
Pretty much. I've heard/read it elsewhere, too. And I agree, personally, with him, from personal experience. And yes, it DOES taste good when you sear it, it's called caramelization ... :D
I guess most people use "welfare" to mean something along the lines of "statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need." I think medi-X would definitely be part of that. Is it wrong? Bad? Should we get rid of it? I actually don't think so. But I still consider it "welfare." :)
I'm not saying that all welfare is bad or that we shouldn't have it. But just because it's a good or even necessary component doesn't mean we just remove it from the category, does it?
Yes, it's "earned" in that there are taxes levied for it. I'm not sure that completely pays for it, though. If it was a one-to-one thing (money goes into account, money flows out of account; no account transfers and no deficit spending is possible), that would be different. From what I understand, that isn't how it works. I could be convinced I am wrong, there, of course ... but if that sort of clean accounting was the way it worked then it seems social security and medicaid/medicare/medi-whatever wouldn't be in such financial troubles :)
I'm not sure Samsung would be so naive either, though, would it? Samsung is heavily invested in Android at this point, from what I can tell. They would like to have a significant boom to their android devices. Seems like it'd be pretty hard to figure out how much money is going to end up being paid through licensing vs. legal fees.
I am not being naive in that I realize the ongoing-license-fees vs. legal fees is a very real problem; however, I'm not sure Samsung's leadership is quite so naive to say "oh, uh, well, we don't really care about this at all other than money, so let's just go with the cheapest route." I don't KNOW what they were thinking, but it seems silly to just assume that was THE factor that they considered. I mean, what about Android growth? If they hope to grow their Android division, those licensing fees are going to continue to grow indefinitely. Not sure the legal fees will. (plus, don't they already pay their lawyers regardless? I don't actually know how that part works. Besides, if they have a good defense and truly believe these patents wouldn't hold water, then can't they win and force MS to pay the legal fees?)
To me, it seems much simpler and saner to assume MS has some point. How much of a point? I dunno. But it seems hard to believe that these large corporations, who constantly have lawsuits going on, are just rolling over because suddenly, they don't have enough lawyers even though they know they could win against MS. Seems silly.
I have really no idea what the title is. But the guy in question (not Einstein) seems to be pretty ... decently educated and intelligent, shall we say. :)
I am not the one claiming the statistically impossible (or, in my case, statistically certain) part.
So... pick a concept of reality. Out of the infinite possibilities, what are the chances you picked the right one?
Can't this sort of epistemology game go on more or less forever on any given topic?
It's not a toxin. Most vegetables contain ~ .1% fluoride normally.
You mean I get it in my food anyways? So why add it to water, again?
Perhaps I should ask it this way; would you like it if the government simply required you to eat your vegetables daily "for your health?" Why not do that instead of putting it into the water?
I'm not advocating one of those "precious bodily fluids" conspiracies at all. I just think it's ridiculous. We'd be very upset if the government required us to take fluoride capsules or something, but we're okay with them just putting in the water (which most people in the city are more or less required to use, you can't just dig a well in your apartment's common area... yes, you could buy bottled water, but that's economically and environmentally pretty stupid, isn't it?)