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.

A 32 year old woman took a year to recognize that the harassment "started day one", and when she was "pushed" by her PHYSICS professor to participate in online sexual roleplay and send naked pictures (which she did?) she didn't comprehend that his interest in her might be more than academic?

At what age is someone expected to be able to deploy the word "no" on their own behalf?

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.

Or it took a year to realize that she might either be able to actually do something about it that wouldn't harm her worse or to decide that the harm it would do her was better than the harassment.

The problem is that they are connecting a serial to IP adapter with no access control to a device with a serial port that also has no access control. The former device is meant to be used for servers where there will be a login prompt and the latter were meant to be locally connected and protected by physical security.

So given that combination, ANYONE can obtain what amounts to admin privileges.