"The main argument for the metric system is NOT because it is standard, regardless of what TFA says. The reason we should switch to the metric system is the same that the rest of the world has already -- it simply makes a whole lot more sense. Everything is base 10,"
So if I am driving a kilometer a minute.. Does that mean in an hour I went 10 kilometers or 100 kilometers? Everything being base 10 and all.
Why hasn't country switched to metric unit of time as a standard? You state it isn't because something is standard but makes more sense. I use the metric time to show you that, right or wrong, something being standard pretty much the whole argument.
Since I work for AT&T, I'll let you in on a secret. If you are willing to pay a $500 deposit, you do not need a SSN. There are many people who are foreign exchange students, VISA workers, and others who are able to use AT&T service with no SSN. I will admit that we try really hard to use one for credit checks and the such, but it is NOT required for those who persist. If you do not give one, a $500 deposit per line IS required. This would have to be paid upfront, before the activation of the line.
"...despite the lack of any evidence to suggest that there are any detectable consequences to periodic outdoor exposure, or occasional indoor exposure to secondhand smoke."
"...certainly, those who spend most days indoors with a smoker are exposed to harmful levels of secondhand smoke, but the "smoking ban" mob has twisted those studies quite dishonestly..."
I guess my question would be:
Why should I be exposed at all?
If you want to do it in your own home, fine... but when you bring it to where I am, then it intrudes upon me.
You say that there aren't any 'detectable consequences'. I would argue that point. But since you agree there is a 'harmful level'. Where does that begin? Are you saying that I should endanger myself day in and day out at a restaurant, just because you don;t believe there is a risk to me?
I would think you would agree that it would take les for a developing child/baby to inhale for it to be a risk. If there is an infant in the restaurant, then obviously the risk for that child goes up. If you don;t have these smoking bans, then you are limiting the places we are allowed to go.
At least you can still smoke, just not there. You can go in, just not smoke there. If you don;t have the bans, then we cannot go in, no matter what.
Why do smokers think they should be allowed to smoke anywhere they choose?
Slashdot Mirror
"The main argument for the metric system is NOT because it is standard, regardless of what TFA says. The reason we should switch to the metric system is the same that the rest of the world has already -- it simply makes a whole lot more sense. Everything is base 10," So if I am driving a kilometer a minute.. Does that mean in an hour I went 10 kilometers or 100 kilometers? Everything being base 10 and all. Why hasn't country switched to metric unit of time as a standard? You state it isn't because something is standard but makes more sense. I use the metric time to show you that, right or wrong, something being standard pretty much the whole argument.
Since I work for AT&T, I'll let you in on a secret. If you are willing to pay a $500 deposit, you do not need a SSN. There are many people who are foreign exchange students, VISA workers, and others who are able to use AT&T service with no SSN. I will admit that we try really hard to use one for credit checks and the such, but it is NOT required for those who persist. If you do not give one, a $500 deposit per line IS required. This would have to be paid upfront, before the activation of the line.
"...despite the lack of any evidence to suggest that there are any detectable consequences to periodic outdoor exposure, or occasional indoor exposure to secondhand smoke." "...certainly, those who spend most days indoors with a smoker are exposed to harmful levels of secondhand smoke, but the "smoking ban" mob has twisted those studies quite dishonestly..." I guess my question would be: Why should I be exposed at all? If you want to do it in your own home, fine... but when you bring it to where I am, then it intrudes upon me. You say that there aren't any 'detectable consequences'. I would argue that point. But since you agree there is a 'harmful level'. Where does that begin? Are you saying that I should endanger myself day in and day out at a restaurant, just because you don;t believe there is a risk to me? I would think you would agree that it would take les for a developing child/baby to inhale for it to be a risk. If there is an infant in the restaurant, then obviously the risk for that child goes up. If you don;t have these smoking bans, then you are limiting the places we are allowed to go. At least you can still smoke, just not there. You can go in, just not smoke there. If you don;t have the bans, then we cannot go in, no matter what. Why do smokers think they should be allowed to smoke anywhere they choose?