Noticeable and noticeably more entertaining are two different things. I generally don't find arm hair very entertaining.

They invested a pile into 3D and where is that now?

That's how I ended up with one. It does look nice, but I'm glad I waited until the old TV failed.

I did not upgrade the satellite receiver or the DVD player. That means that oddly enough, I can either watch network shows in 480p over the satellite or 1080p OTA. But I find myself not being enthused enough by the extra resolution to bother switching over even though I can see the difference.

In short, it's not at all bad, but Its not so good that I will actually make any effort to get it, much less pay for it.

Mostly in the form of OMG that pixel is the wrong shade of RED, DOOM AND GLOOM!

It was a rare case where spoofing the browser ID didn't get the 'internet explorer only' page to work reasonably well.

I believe he is in part convening the incredible callousness of the financial world. They don't care if peons starve as long as they can get that winter yacht.

Actually, there is evidence that you are right on that point.

Your figures look about right. It is a good bit of capacity but with really poor discharge characteristics. But it's no mystery. Being a dry pile, practically the whole thing is reactants.

I don't know the actual voltage but dry piles of that type generally generate thousands of volts. It's probably a good thing the current is so weak! Effectively, it's a source of static electricity.

In general, nicotine probably isn't all sunshine and lolipops. Smoking is much worse. But it seems that the vaccine approach is probably not a good way to stop smoking. It may or may not affect a great many valuable drugs coming down the pipe. It certainly won't be pleasant for the patient (all that craving, no way to answer it).

Nicotine replacement isn't ideal, but it has the advantage of working without introducing new risks. It seems that in many cases, a less structured long term approach causes eventual reduction or cessation while short programmed steps result in a return to cigarettes. It also allows those who are unknowingly self-medicating to continue doing so.

The tumor enhancing effect of angiogenesis is troubling but at the same time, that would benefit a coronary artery blockage.

It may be that nicotine in the absence of smoking is worth it.

The CDC is a very political organization. Google is your friend here. First look up "schizophrenia nicotine" There are far too many hits to post here.

Next up, search on "nicotine MAOI". Again, far too many hits to post here.

That varies a lot. Some people go with crazy strong ejuice with a PV that resembles a fog machine and still have that initial transition difficulty.

But certainly, over time people generally settle on significantly less nicotine than they were comfortable with when they smoked. Often to the point where withdrawal effects become minimal to unnoticed.

But people do have a right to be free of some of the consequences of free speech. For example, no matter how offensive someone's speech is, you cannot legally shoot them dead even if your only motive to do so was their speech (as opposed to fear of their next action implied by that speech, that is, a credible threat).

The actual point where "fist meets face" is where a person infected with a disease contacts others. The question then is how reasonable was your belief that you had no communicable diseases. Being vaccinated is certainly one way to make that belief reasonable (but you can still be wrong, vaccination isn't 100% effective).

But consider how our society handles going to work sick. In that case, you have no reason at all to believe you won't make someone else sick. In theory, an employer who imposes any penalty whatsoever for not going to work when you believe you are sick joins you in liability. Yet, both happen all the time and nobody is being held liable.

The line is difficult to draw. We could consider the seriousness of the harm that might be expected. We know someone with the flu may miss work and be financially damaged. We know some people who get the flu die of it (mostly the infirm). We know measles is more likely to be fatal but we also know most people are vaccinated against it. We know further that whatever we might be sick with, measles is unlikely, vaccinated or not (though that may change).

I personally believe that the benefits of measles vaccination outweigh the risks by far. If I worked for Disney and hadn't been vaccinated, I would take them up on their free vaccination offer. But that's my choice.

Actually, that is highly questionable. People who make that choice get hassled all the time. At best, they can go somewhere they will probably not be noticed.

Reducto Ad Absurdem is a perfectly valid argument. He is simply pointing out that there is necessarily a limitation to your viewpoint that you haven't addressed. Somewhere there is a line where the choice becomes non-free. "Your money or your life" is a good example of something over that line.

The real question is which side of the line is "get vaxed or get out" on and why.

We're fairly clear which side you believe it is on. Care to address the why part?

In today's economy, that is Hobson's choice. Which is to say, not actually a choice.

But they do. They offer free vaccinations to their employees.