Perhaps anyone convicted of a DUI, but not anyone "known to be an alcoholic". You'd first have to define how often one drinks to be an alcoholic (i.e. essentially constantly, or does someone who goes out and gets completely drunk once a month count? perhaps the latter is more dangerous). But, then, there are quite a few alcoholics/heavy-drinkers who do not go driving around while they are drunk, so for them, it is a personal choice, and doesn't effect the safety of people on the road.
Well, not all research is truly useful, but the problem here is that the author of the article provides no context. He does not even discuss what the studies were investigating. Surely, it could have been something random and pointless, but I'm rather betting that it was taken out of context (exactly how valuable the research is, is another matter entirely, and depends on whose perspective you answer that question from).
The "conclusion" seems to be a paraphrased one-liner which was likely taken out of context, and the quotation, "when employees get chilly, they are not working at their full potential," is most likely there for continuity in the paper (i.e. a stylistic element).
So, I won't defend that particular study done, as I have no grounds to, but I will give it the benefit of a doubt, because you certainly cannot conclude much from what the article's author wrote. Had he provided a full research paper, and then attacked that, he would have had some substance to go on. As he does it, he has nothing.
Well, it is particularly silly in either case (i.e. if domestic products can't compete with foreign ones, why use the inferior domestic ones -- inferior being some combination of efficacy, cost, etc), but you must admit, more "Made in China" stickers appear more often than "Made in the USA" ones do. Of course, the abundant "Made in Taiwan" components would be a problem for them.
As something that would hinder the DHS's ability to function, I'd support it.
On another note, though. If this is an attempt to protect US industries, then it really is a desperate measure. Propping up a dead (or dying) horse only works for so long.
Slashdot Mirror
You just have to go to the right museum and see all of the facts for yourself. I mean, if you saw an alien, I'm sure you'd agree that they exist.
Assuming all of those Reindeer are shod similar to horses, that's gonna be a nightmare.
Perhaps anyone convicted of a DUI, but not anyone "known to be an alcoholic". You'd first have to define how often one drinks to be an alcoholic (i.e. essentially constantly, or does someone who goes out and gets completely drunk once a month count? perhaps the latter is more dangerous). But, then, there are quite a few alcoholics/heavy-drinkers who do not go driving around while they are drunk, so for them, it is a personal choice, and doesn't effect the safety of people on the road.
Well, not all research is truly useful, but the problem here is that the author of the article provides no context. He does not even discuss what the studies were investigating. Surely, it could have been something random and pointless, but I'm rather betting that it was taken out of context (exactly how valuable the research is, is another matter entirely, and depends on whose perspective you answer that question from).
The "conclusion" seems to be a paraphrased one-liner which was likely taken out of context, and the quotation, "when employees get chilly, they are not working at their full potential," is most likely there for continuity in the paper (i.e. a stylistic element).
So, I won't defend that particular study done, as I have no grounds to, but I will give it the benefit of a doubt, because you certainly cannot conclude much from what the article's author wrote. Had he provided a full research paper, and then attacked that, he would have had some substance to go on. As he does it, he has nothing.
On another note, it isn't unheard of for gibberish research papers to get published: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/paper.html
Well, at least I know what to do with all of my old orange Fiestaware now.
Well, it is particularly silly in either case (i.e. if domestic products can't compete with foreign ones, why use the inferior domestic ones -- inferior being some combination of efficacy, cost, etc), but you must admit, more "Made in China" stickers appear more often than "Made in the USA" ones do. Of course, the abundant "Made in Taiwan" components would be a problem for them.
As something that would hinder the DHS's ability to function, I'd support it. On another note, though. If this is an attempt to protect US industries, then it really is a desperate measure. Propping up a dead (or dying) horse only works for so long.