I never said that -- for example, Dale's Pale Ale comes in a can and is one of the best IPAs that I have ever had. My point was only that very few good beers come in both. Some that are have no comparison -- Guinness in a bottle is Extra Stout, not the same stuff that gets canned.
The Guinness in a bottle with the rocket widget is not the Extra Stout.
It was over 16 years ago and I bought a quarter pound at a time, $400-$500 a qp. Divide it into multiple bags, put them in the freezer. You build up a tolerance and it takes more and more to get high. I didn't have to smoke all the time, I used a rolling machine and made huge joints. Must be a lot stronger than it used to be if you can't smoke an ounce a week.
The wager was regarding my knowledge and experience regarding marijuana. Obviously you were way too stoned to remember. I'm impressed. Smoke another one.
Hypothetically because smaller cars are less safe. Not that I subscribe to that theory.
I think it might be "lighter cars" are less safe. Usually, it's the same, but hybrid cars do better in crashes with their higher weight compared to non-hybrid versions. And I'm assuming some of these cars are going to be hybrids.
Of course "smart cars" are both small and light! A perfect choice over a certain age.
I'll bet $100 all you know is what you've uncritically read in the sensationalist media. For instance, you seem to think marijuana addiction exists. There is no scientific basis for this idea, as you should know if you want to engage in a serious discussion with your teenager about what you believe the risks to be. Talking about marijuana addicts just makes you look ridiculous, I'm afraid, and that is why you fail.
I'll take that bet.
I used to smoke an ounce a week for ~12 years. A lot of my peers also smoked a lot, some more than me. Eventually my job became too mentally demanding to keep that up, so I quit smoking pot. It was really tough, especially when trying to sleep, I ended up drinking at night to help sleep, but I eventually was able to stop that as well. Even when you're not high, there's still an impact to your abilities that seem to last a couple of days. It's also nice to not have to stress about your supply running out, and it saves a lot of money. My ex-wife had a seriously strong psychological dependence on it. Eventually it was causing financial issues and if we had just enough for the mortgage, she would still take out money for her fix and cause the mortgage check to bounce. The number one priority in her life was pot! Eventually that and other issues ended the marriage.
I'll take that $100 now, please.
Propaganda; n. Any material which proposes to sway a reader to form a conclusion that conflicts with your own.
Not the best definition. Ironically, it's bad enough to resemble propaganda, since propaganda usually involves "lying by omission".
Are medical experts who warn of the dangers of tobacco use to tobacco addicts spreading propaganda or is it anti-propaganda? I'm sure there are plenty of tobacco addicts who think that medical experts are wrong. And they'll explain why with their rasping smoker's voice coming out of their wrinkly leather-like face.
Are math teachers using propaganda when they teach?
And cue the queue of stoners attempting to defend their addiction.
Desperate attempts to rationalize the use of marijuana is one of the signs of addiction. They're big on pointing out some benefits, but ignore all of the mental and physical problems associated with it.
Teenagers who are in the "I know everything" stage can be very frustrating when you try to explain the dangers.
You are absolutely correct. I should have said something like "survival of the healthiest".
Small-pox was only eradicated because of the vaccine. If people were opting out of the vaccine, it would still be around today and we would still need the vaccine. But because of aggressive world-wide vaccination programs, it was eradicated and now we do not need the vaccine any more. Eventually, measles will also be eradicated the same way, and then we can cross another vaccine off the required list.
If we can eradicate other less harmful diseases the same way, then why not? Chicken-pox might not cause as many deaths, but it is still painfully fatal to some. Why would you want to play that lottery? Why not eliminate chicken pox the same way? Even if you survive it, there's a one in three chance of developing shingles when you get older, and that's going to suck, you'll wish you never got it in the first place.
For those thinking the pharmaceutical companies would love the increased profits of everyone being forced to be vaccinated, think about this. Until a disease is eradicated, they will make a continuous profit from the never-ending vaccinations needed because of those who insist on propagating the disease.
Interesting how "my body, my choice" has such limited applicability.
Typhoid Mary would agree you if she were alive today.
Malaria caused a selection for sickle-cell anemia. The ability to survive does not have to mean survival of the fittest.
One of our strongest attributes is supposed to be our brains and the ability to work out solutions and/or create tools to help us survive adversity. It should be clear by now that if we were to try and survive in the wild without using even the most primitive of tools or our capacity to reason, most of us would fail. Though eventually selection of the physically stronger, faster, tougher and more vicious would probably make us more like our primitive ancestors.
Another consideration is that the children who "SURVIVED" grew up with immunity to diseases like chicken-pox. I chose the vaccine for my daughter because I did not want her to be one of the few who died. It's stupid lottery to play.
Nice try!
I am curious about what the real correlation would be, there are a lot of factors that make it seem like democrats prefer Apple, but I suspect they don't.
For example, the states employing the most IT employees are also states that are more strongly democratic. A lot of companies will subsidize cell phones for their IT employees to use instead of pagers. If the top choices are Apple and Blackberry, then they end up with those and the results are skewed.
If a study is done that looks at what choice is made when "they have a choice of any phone", then that might be a better indication. I suspect independents prefer android, because they don't like restrictions of choice.
The rest of the choices are obviously Republican!
Just look at the sales numbers for things like Galaxy Note, Galaxy S3, and HTC One X.
Huge screens = huge sales.
Personally, I'm salivating over the Galaxy Note 2, which should have an even bigger screen than the original.
And is that proof that people want big screens? No. The iPhone is much smaller than those but outsells them all put together. Is that proof people want smaller screens? No.
First, I think there's a case to be made around sales numbers not reflecting customer interest in individual features. Consumer electronics sales seem to be mostly driven by advertising, not utility.
I think you might be comparing Apple's against our ranges. If the same generation iphones came in two sizes, but were otherwise identical, and yet the smaller version was preferred, you might have a point.
But android phones can be different sizes and similar features. This allows those who prefer smaller phones to get what they want and those who prefer larger phones to get what they want.
Some of us are big and tall with big hands that tend to be a lot more comfortable with bigger screens. Because we are bigger and stronger, we can easily carry the bigger phones like they were small toys and we have bigger pockets to put them in. Don't try to tell us that we should prefer smallish screens that cause us to squint and accidentally finger the wrong hyperlink. Be happy that we have choices, unless you are an Apple iphone user that is worried that their "ONE CHOICE" will be too big.
Honestly, if I can casually use a larger phone and it feels more comfortable in my hand, then it makes more sense for me to use a larger phone since I use it a lot and I can make better use of a larger display. You don't see people(normal people) complaining about their monitor being too big. So obviously people like a larger display if they can comfortably handle them.
A man looks at a line on the map and thinks, "on this side, my children go to poor schools until 3rd grade and then start a lifetime of manual labor. They'll have no more than I. On that side of the invisible line, they go to good schools and maybe work hard to become a doctor." Then he steps over the line.
On this side of the door there's a street. On the other side of the door is a "stereo system", hdtv, home computer, maybe some jewelry.
They know they are crossing a boundary illegally. If they can't respect the boundaries of our country, state, city, then will they at least respect our own private property? That doesn't seem to be the case since they do a lot of trespassing on private property to get into the country. When does it stop? At our possessions, our bodies, our lives? There are a lot of invisible lines that our country is supposed to protect, physical or otherwise. There are laws dictating that it's supposed to protect those lines, and everyone knows that. I could cross those lines and rationalize that I'm doing it to improve the quality of life for my daughter. I could steal so that she has more money for a college education, but I don't. Instead I work hard and pay taxes and meanwhile there are millions crossing many invisible lines to get what they want. And then a portion of my taxes are being used to support those same people.
I don't think "fiscal conservative" means what you think it does. You might find anarchist a better fit.
So we have a few tens of millions of decent people who want to work hard at good jobs to send their kids to the schools they themselves didn't have.
Decent? They broke federal law by illegally entering our country. If they drive a car, then they are breaking more laws. If they are using falsified identification they are breaking another law. Are you naive enough to think that they only break three laws and that's it? Those are some pretty serious laws. I don't know of any "decent" people who would consider doing any of those actions. If you can break all of those laws, then drug dealing, theft, joining a gang, etc. are very easy to do. They have already displayed a blatant disrespect for some our laws, don't expect them to respect our remaining laws.
An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.
