Actually, that makes it worse. Sweat is not pure water, it is water with a lot of salt and other chemicals that your body needs. If you replace the sweat that you lose with pure water, then you will become short on salt very quickly, which can kill you in a very short amount of time.
You think it's worse to drink nothing rather than pure water if you are exerting yourself to the point where you are dehydrated from sweating?
Well, nothing is worse than perhaps a felony conviction =)
This depends on the employer or how they do the background check. A felony charge and conviction all shows up in the documentation when they do the background check. It is worse to have a pending case (which is what a dropped felony charge looks like in certain databases) than to have a case that was resolved years ago.
In some cases, if you're lucky, you can have the charges dropped/resolved without conviction and then petition to have them sealed by the court maybe 6 months or a year later. That assumes this was your first offense. Then, the charges will NOT show up on a background check, and can only come back if you commit another crime of similar type where someone (the DA) petitions the court to re-open the records to show a pattern or something.
In the US, when doing an NCIC check, this is not always true. The charge still shows up. Even if the charges were sealed, this does not stop a brief summary of it from showing up on an NCIC records check done by an employer.
While there may be some way to have it removed, the fact is that if you go through the process of having things sealed, and every lawyer and court clerk etc involved says it is sealed and can't be seen by anyone, this in no way means that it will not show up on an NCIC search. If there is a way to have it removed from NCIC, this is not commonly known by lawyers and people who get this done are in the minority.
Still, nicotine is not the sole psychoactive chemical in nicotine, readily apparent if you compare the effects of tobacco to vaporized pure nicotine.
Oops, Nicotine is not the sole psychoactive chemical in tobacco.
Oddly I'd consider this an obvious typo that doesn't need correction, but there's already too much confusion here about the difference between a molecule and a plant that produces that molecule.
You can get the nicotine without the cigarette and the smoke etc. It's called an electric cigarette, use your Google-Fu, grasshopper.
Governments often make this difficult to distribute/obtain because the device can be considered a "drug delivery device", while nicotine incidentally contained in tobacco is not always legally considered a drug.
Still, nicotine is not the sole psychoactive chemical in nicotine, readily apparent if you compare the effects of tobacco to vaporized pure nicotine.
Maybe not cigarettes, but tobacco sure. Heroin also has huge medical benefits, but we can't touch that, can we?
In much of the world, heroin is recognized as being a safe and effective pain killer. It is used regularly in hospitals in the UK.
The reason heroin is an effective recreational drug is due to its safety compared to other opiates.
The situation is similar (although much more extreme) with methamphetamine. Enough caffeine to keep you awake for a week would have a high chance of killing you outright.
Considering the low cost of making heroin from morphine, the use of morphine instead is essentially a deliberate waste in order to satisfy political considerations.
Can cigarettes be good for you in small doses then?
"cigarette" is not exactly drug. If you look at the component chemicals, there certainly are drugs in there that have differing effects in small doses. Nicotine has many effects, certainly some of which could have medical relevance.
It's rare that a drug is "good for you". The criteria is improving one condition without undue risk of causing/worsening others.
A person who smokes cigarettes for anxiety could easily be coming out on the positive end of things, if the anxiety was so severe as to risk the life of the patient. While there are usually drugs that are more effective, government restrictions on these drugs can be quite a significant influence on patients receiving care.
If cigarettes cure a person's anxiety, possibly a safer version can be created by extracting the nicotine. But this increases the risk of being arrested and contracting HIV due to repeated prison anal rape.
"is revealing a paradox: the gas often called a silent killer could also be a medical treatment."
Not much of a paradox. Every medical treatment suffers the exact same paradox. Morphine - great pain killer. Too much and it silently kills you. Anesthesias are the same. Cancer chemo treatments come very close to killing you, a small overdose may do it. Too much tylenol? Liver disease. Too much advil? Kidney problems.
Tylenol is in the same ballpark as the chemo drugs, as opposed to morphine. Double a normal (but high) dose of tylenol and you can destroy your liver. Tylenol is actually added to other drugs in the US in order to punish patients who choose to take a higher dosage of the medication actually needed.
One of the most evil things the US government does is adding a poison to medicines in order to destroy the liver of someone who takes "too much". The "too much" amount is likely to be a perfectly safe amount and could even be prescribed. And patients are not adequately warned what the dangers are of the medications they're given, or that certain components were added solely to have a fatal punitive effect.
This would be true only in certain property associations. It's not a California thing, it's a neighborhood thing.
Too bad governments in many areas force new developments to create a neighborhood association. This paves the way for petty restrictions that violate basic human rights.
And yes, being able to wash and dry your clothes is a human right.
When drying clothes, I used tojust use a 50 watt pedestal fan pointed at a clothes horse in my lounge (preferably with the windows open and the sun shining, blowing perpendicular to the shirts), not being one of those fancy pants people with gardens:-)
It gets clothes dry quickly and they get less damaged I think.
This is reminiscent of people growing weed indoors because the government regulates what plants you are allowed to grow. So it must be done secretly inside.
hey Einstein, how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume
Consumer Reports? It's always worked for me.
Every time I try to use Consumer Reports to evaluate a highly technical purchase, it utterly fails. TVs are the perfect example of this. They don't do a thorough investigation at all.
Well, being that 16 still counts as a "minor" would the charges not reflect that, and/or the record be expunged/sealed when she becomes an adult?
Haha.
If you are 16, the courts decide whether to treat you as a minor on a case-by-case basis.
A "sealed" record only means that the word "sealed" is printed on it somewhere.
If you are 16 or under, get arrested for a felony, and it is handled under the juvenile system, your record will show a felony arrest (all the expungement and sealing in the world will not get rid of this). The expungement/sealing that takes place will prevent the record from showing that it was handled in this manner, and it will look like an open felony case. If an employer is generous, they will allow you to get the records - which being sealed, requires an in-person visit from the defendant. Either way, if you succeed you start off your employment in a bad light, and if you fail, you just quit your old job to take a new one that fired you in your first month due to background check issues.
And what really sucks is that CHARGES show up on background checks - even if they were dismissed or not yet processed in court.
It's bullshit.
Nothing looks worse on a background check than a charge that was dropped or otherwise resolved without a conviction.
If you are charged with a felony and plead guilty to a misdemeanor, you have a misdemeanor record. If you are charged with a felony and the charges are dropped, employers will often consider this to be a felony record.
And your anecdotal evidence is somehow better than his?
How about this? I know someone that knows Olivia Munn. That makes me a better human being than you.
Someone who actually used an application for their profession should have better "anecdotal evidence" about it than someone who has never used it at all.
How would being acquainted with an actress be relevant to this at all? It's really not related to post-production work. And why would that be related to being a "better human being"?
who was it and what was the NAS (so we dont make the same mistake)
This shouldn't matter, you should accept that all cheap NAS solutions suck, and mega-cheap ones mega-suck.
Just naming an example of one is useless.
Quality order, ignoring SAS vs SATA. 1) Netapp 2) Solaris software RAID using ZFS 3) Linux or Windows hardware RAID with HP SmartArray (cciss) cards 4) Linux software RAID or hardware RAID with 3Ware or LSI cards 5) high-end NAS solutions besides Netapp 6) Windows software RAID 7) Linux or Windows hardware RAID with cheap cards 8) cheap NAS solutions.
The thing to publicize to prevent others from making the same mistake is to warn everyone who can listen that your storage choices are high-end storage or SATA storage with software RAID on Solaris (ZFS), Linux, or Windows (in that order of quality
While it's certainly unethical for a vendor to censor reviews -- without at least prominently announcing that they are censoring them -- I have to question the value of reviews by the general public in the first place.
The thing is that the educated buyer sees that even the people not smart enough to understand the technology before trouncing it in an online review get to post their thoughts without it getting wiped, so you know that the knowledgeable who post either good or bad get on there also. On popular items, it is more info to sort through but with more reviews, you can pretty quickly get the picture on what common praises and issues go with that product, breezing by the trolls or flamebait.
I also like the feature on Newegg where you can "sort by helpfulness" so that you can see the reviews others have already noted were helpful to them, both positive and negative.
But this is going to be afflicted by the same problem that causes people to buy bad storage solutions in the first place. If it is easy to set up and works for at least a week, it's going to get negative reviews. The average person posting may not even understand what a hard drive is. In fact, it seems that less than 50% of the computer-using population now understands the difference between the hard drive and the case holding the computer, to the point where they will fight and insist that the computer be called a hard drive, or consider it an annoying piece of technical pedantry.
If you are not buying a netapp, you need to think about the suck-factor of your NAS solution versus hosting it on a Linux or even Windows server.
I have never seen a NAS solution - even high end ones - that I consider acceptable, besides the Netapp.
It is a tough call whether a given high-end NAS solution (betsides netapp) is better that a software RAID on a cheap server.
I have never seen a super-low-end NAS solution that was acceptable even for MP3s or backups. The hassle of failure and data loss will quickly exceed the cost savings, even if it's just for non-critical storage where data loss is no problem.
Basically, either go Netapp or set up a Linux server with software RAID. All other solutions are distant third/fourth/fifth.
In between those two choices, a Solaris server doing software RAID with ZFS is better than Linux's software RAID. NFS server quality is about equal (it is absolutely no longer true that Solaris's NFS server is far better than Linux's).
If you need redundancy, a pair of Linux machines with heartbeat and DRBD (therefore two copies of the data) will be far cheaper than any sever-based solution that involves redundant servers sharing storage with no single point of failure.
Sorry, this is just a fact of life. Expensive storage is expensive because you're paying for the manageability, reliability, availability. Cheap storage throws these all away to meet a price point, and ends up making you wish you had just done it on a server.
What are the problems with cheap storage, especially a NAS? Rather than listing every problem I've ever seen, how about I give you an example of the design apathy. A cheap NAS may have never been tested by the vendor in the case of a failing drive. Pulling a drive out while it's running is too clean of a failure to be considered anything more than a preliminary test (however some cheap storage can't even handle this!). I've even seen higher end storage where this was basically the case.
The major difference between our service and theirs is that our plans aren't rated by data transferred per month. In the EU, Japan, even Australia, end users have 5G, 10G, 25G plans et al. We're "unlimited" in the sense that we
I'm in the US in a major city and I'm living under threat of being cut off from the Internet altogether. My only Internet choice (for under $500/month) is Comcast. If you violate the 250GB/month limit twice in a year, they ban you for a year. 250GB is a day and a half at full speed. Comcast provides no way to query my bandwidth usage, so I must track it on my firewall and hope that the accounting is the same and that no one sends packets to my address with a TTL one-less than required to arrive at my firewall.
Slashdot Mirror
And now we have to do this to dry our clothes?
If I put them outside to dry, a bus would drive through them :-)
This would not make them cleaner.
I live in a city.
Visit almost any city anywhere in the world besides the US.
Actually, that makes it worse. Sweat is not pure water, it is water with a lot of salt and other chemicals that your body needs. If you replace the sweat that you lose with pure water, then you will become short on salt very quickly, which can kill you in a very short amount of time.
You think it's worse to drink nothing rather than pure water if you are exerting yourself to the point where you are dehydrated from sweating?
Take water and eat 10lbs of it. You could get hospitalized or worse.
Or this could be the amount you need to drink in a day to be healthy, if you're physically active in hot weather.
Well, nothing is worse than perhaps a felony conviction =)
This depends on the employer or how they do the background check. A felony charge and conviction all shows up in the documentation when they do the background check. It is worse to have a pending case (which is what a dropped felony charge looks like in certain databases) than to have a case that was resolved years ago.
In some cases, if you're lucky, you can have the charges dropped/resolved without conviction and then petition to have them sealed by the court maybe 6 months or a year later. That assumes this was your first offense. Then, the charges will NOT show up on a background check, and can only come back if you commit another crime of similar type where someone (the DA) petitions the court to re-open the records to show a pattern or something.
In the US, when doing an NCIC check, this is not always true. The charge still shows up. Even if the charges were sealed, this does not stop a brief summary of it from showing up on an NCIC records check done by an employer.
While there may be some way to have it removed, the fact is that if you go through the process of having things sealed, and every lawyer and court clerk etc involved says it is sealed and can't be seen by anyone, this in no way means that it will not show up on an NCIC search. If there is a way to have it removed from NCIC, this is not commonly known by lawyers and people who get this done are in the minority.
Still, nicotine is not the sole psychoactive chemical in nicotine, readily apparent if you compare the effects of tobacco to vaporized pure nicotine.
Oops, Nicotine is not the sole psychoactive chemical in tobacco.
Oddly I'd consider this an obvious typo that doesn't need correction, but there's already too much confusion here about the difference between a molecule and a plant that produces that molecule.
You can get the nicotine without the cigarette and the smoke etc. It's called an electric cigarette, use your Google-Fu, grasshopper.
Governments often make this difficult to distribute/obtain because the device can be considered a "drug delivery device", while nicotine incidentally contained in tobacco is not always legally considered a drug.
Still, nicotine is not the sole psychoactive chemical in nicotine, readily apparent if you compare the effects of tobacco to vaporized pure nicotine.
Morphine is little more than low grade heroin, with lots of harmful impurities. Heroin is clean and safe.
Morphine is one molecule, heroin is another, similar molecule that is more efficient in the body.
Neither contains any impurities by definition. Things advertised as such may contain impurities. But both are specific molecules and nothing else.
Obviously the risk of a drug being contaminated with impurities can be greatly increased by the government's treatment of the regulation of that drug.
Maybe not cigarettes, but tobacco sure. Heroin also has huge medical benefits, but we can't touch that, can we?
In much of the world, heroin is recognized as being a safe and effective pain killer. It is used regularly in hospitals in the UK.
The reason heroin is an effective recreational drug is due to its safety compared to other opiates.
The situation is similar (although much more extreme) with methamphetamine. Enough caffeine to keep you awake for a week would have a high chance of killing you outright.
Considering the low cost of making heroin from morphine, the use of morphine instead is essentially a deliberate waste in order to satisfy political considerations.
Can cigarettes be good for you in small doses then?
Cigarettes also contain carcinogens and carcinogens have no real safe levels.
If carcinogens have no real safe levels, what possible definition are you using for "safe"?
You realize that the word "safe" does not mean 100% completely impossible of causing any harm, right?
Can cigarettes be good for you in small doses then?
"cigarette" is not exactly drug. If you look at the component chemicals, there certainly are drugs in there that have differing effects in small doses. Nicotine has many effects, certainly some of which could have medical relevance.
It's rare that a drug is "good for you". The criteria is improving one condition without undue risk of causing/worsening others.
A person who smokes cigarettes for anxiety could easily be coming out on the positive end of things, if the anxiety was so severe as to risk the life of the patient. While there are usually drugs that are more effective, government restrictions on these drugs can be quite a significant influence on patients receiving care.
If cigarettes cure a person's anxiety, possibly a safer version can be created by extracting the nicotine. But this increases the risk of being arrested and contracting HIV due to repeated prison anal rape.
All medications are a balance of risk.
"is revealing a paradox: the gas often called a silent killer could also be a medical treatment."
Not much of a paradox. Every medical treatment suffers the exact same paradox. Morphine - great pain killer. Too much and it silently kills you. Anesthesias are the same. Cancer chemo treatments come very close to killing you, a small overdose may do it. Too much tylenol? Liver disease. Too much advil? Kidney problems.
Tylenol is in the same ballpark as the chemo drugs, as opposed to morphine. Double a normal (but high) dose of tylenol and you can destroy your liver. Tylenol is actually added to other drugs in the US in order to punish patients who choose to take a higher dosage of the medication actually needed.
One of the most evil things the US government does is adding a poison to medicines in order to destroy the liver of someone who takes "too much". The "too much" amount is likely to be a perfectly safe amount and could even be prescribed. And patients are not adequately warned what the dangers are of the medications they're given, or that certain components were added solely to have a fatal punitive effect.
This would be true only in certain property associations. It's not a California thing, it's a neighborhood thing.
Too bad governments in many areas force new developments to create a neighborhood association. This paves the way for petty restrictions that violate basic human rights.
And yes, being able to wash and dry your clothes is a human right.
When drying clothes, I used tojust use a 50 watt pedestal fan pointed at a clothes horse in my lounge (preferably with the windows open and the sun shining, blowing perpendicular to the shirts), not being one of those fancy pants people with gardens :-)
It gets clothes dry quickly and they get less damaged I think.
This is reminiscent of people growing weed indoors because the government regulates what plants you are allowed to grow. So it must be done secretly inside.
And now we have to do this to dry our clothes?
And no one sees a problem here?
Consumer Reports? It's always worked for me.
Every time I try to use Consumer Reports to evaluate a highly technical purchase, it utterly fails. TVs are the perfect example of this. They don't do a thorough investigation at all.
Well, being that 16 still counts as a "minor" would the charges not reflect that, and/or the record be expunged/sealed when she becomes an adult?
Haha.
If you are 16, the courts decide whether to treat you as a minor on a case-by-case basis.
A "sealed" record only means that the word "sealed" is printed on it somewhere.
If you are 16 or under, get arrested for a felony, and it is handled under the juvenile system, your record will show a felony arrest (all the expungement and sealing in the world will not get rid of this). The expungement/sealing that takes place will prevent the record from showing that it was handled in this manner, and it will look like an open felony case. If an employer is generous, they will allow you to get the records - which being sealed, requires an in-person visit from the defendant. Either way, if you succeed you start off your employment in a bad light, and if you fail, you just quit your old job to take a new one that fired you in your first month due to background check issues.
And what really sucks is that CHARGES show up on background checks - even if they were dismissed or not yet processed in court.
It's bullshit.
Nothing looks worse on a background check than a charge that was dropped or otherwise resolved without a conviction.
If you are charged with a felony and plead guilty to a misdemeanor, you have a misdemeanor record. If you are charged with a felony and the charges are dropped, employers will often consider this to be a felony record.
And your anecdotal evidence is somehow better than his?
How about this? I know someone that knows Olivia Munn. That makes me a better human being than you.
Someone who actually used an application for their profession should have better "anecdotal evidence" about it than someone who has never used it at all.
How would being acquainted with an actress be relevant to this at all? It's really not related to post-production work. And why would that be related to being a "better human being"?
who was it and what was the NAS (so we dont make the same mistake)
This shouldn't matter, you should accept that all cheap NAS solutions suck, and mega-cheap ones mega-suck.
Just naming an example of one is useless.
Quality order, ignoring SAS vs SATA.
1) Netapp
2) Solaris software RAID using ZFS
3) Linux or Windows hardware RAID with HP SmartArray (cciss) cards
4) Linux software RAID or hardware RAID with 3Ware or LSI cards
5) high-end NAS solutions besides Netapp
6) Windows software RAID
7) Linux or Windows hardware RAID with cheap cards
8) cheap NAS solutions.
The thing to publicize to prevent others from making the same mistake is to warn everyone who can listen that your storage choices are high-end storage or SATA storage with software RAID on Solaris (ZFS), Linux, or Windows (in that order of quality
While it's certainly unethical for a vendor to censor reviews -- without at least prominently announcing that they are censoring them -- I have to question the value of reviews by the general public in the first place.
The thing is that the educated buyer sees that even the people not smart enough to understand the technology before trouncing it in an online review get to post their thoughts without it getting wiped, so you know that the knowledgeable who post either good or bad get on there also. On popular items, it is more info to sort through but with more reviews, you can pretty quickly get the picture on what common praises and issues go with that product, breezing by the trolls or flamebait.
I also like the feature on Newegg where you can "sort by helpfulness" so that you can see the reviews others have already noted were helpful to them, both positive and negative.
But this is going to be afflicted by the same problem that causes people to buy bad storage solutions in the first place. If it is easy to set up and works for at least a week, it's going to get negative reviews. The average person posting may not even understand what a hard drive is. In fact, it seems that less than 50% of the computer-using population now understands the difference between the hard drive and the case holding the computer, to the point where they will fight and insist that the computer be called a hard drive, or consider it an annoying piece of technical pedantry.
All cheap NAS solutions suck. Sorry.
If you are not buying a netapp, you need to think about the suck-factor of your NAS solution versus hosting it on a Linux or even Windows server.
I have never seen a NAS solution - even high end ones - that I consider acceptable, besides the Netapp.
It is a tough call whether a given high-end NAS solution (betsides netapp) is better that a software RAID on a cheap server.
I have never seen a super-low-end NAS solution that was acceptable even for MP3s or backups. The hassle of failure and data loss will quickly exceed the cost savings, even if it's just for non-critical storage where data loss is no problem.
Basically, either go Netapp or set up a Linux server with software RAID. All other solutions are distant third/fourth/fifth.
In between those two choices, a Solaris server doing software RAID with ZFS is better than Linux's software RAID. NFS server quality is about equal (it is absolutely no longer true that Solaris's NFS server is far better than Linux's).
If you need redundancy, a pair of Linux machines with heartbeat and DRBD (therefore two copies of the data) will be far cheaper than any sever-based solution that involves redundant servers sharing storage with no single point of failure.
Sorry, this is just a fact of life. Expensive storage is expensive because you're paying for the manageability, reliability, availability. Cheap storage throws these all away to meet a price point, and ends up making you wish you had just done it on a server.
What are the problems with cheap storage, especially a NAS? Rather than listing every problem I've ever seen, how about I give you an example of the design apathy. A cheap NAS may have never been tested by the vendor in the case of a failing drive. Pulling a drive out while it's running is too clean of a failure to be considered anything more than a preliminary test (however some cheap storage can't even handle this!). I've even seen higher end storage where this was basically the case.
Solids have definite shape and structure and volume. Glass is amorphous, has no definite shape or structure.
Solids have a melting point. Liquids do not. Glass has no melting point.
Oh. I stand corrected. Glass clearly is a liquid. I'd better get started on taping up my windows.
Glass is a liquid. Any glassblower and scientist that makes their own labware can tell you this. It has INSANE viscosity.
Then what's the difference between a liquid and solid?
The major difference between our service and theirs is that our plans aren't rated by data transferred per month. In the EU, Japan, even Australia, end users have 5G, 10G, 25G plans et al. We're "unlimited" in the sense that we
I'm in the US in a major city and I'm living under threat of being cut off from the Internet altogether. My only Internet choice (for under $500/month) is Comcast. If you violate the 250GB/month limit twice in a year, they ban you for a year. 250GB is a day and a half at full speed. Comcast provides no way to query my bandwidth usage, so I must track it on my firewall and hope that the accounting is the same and that no one sends packets to my address with a TTL one-less than required to arrive at my firewall.
For the 2.683M difference, that support better come with a "happy ending" for the entire staff...
EMC during the dot-com boom would indeed see to this for you if you bought a few million in storage.
...at the moment researchers could not say with confidence 'how much nitrous oxide comes from where.'
That would probably be because it isn't regulated.
It's regulated. It's not scheduled or listed.