I certainly agree with you that anyone who claims that a $40 bottle of vodka is generally "better" than a $20 bottle is generally full of crap. Vodka is essentially supposed to be close to pure ethanol and pure water. Smirnoff and similarly priced vodkas get close enough to this ideal that expensive vodkas are not actually "better."

That isn't to say that they aren't quite different in character. Potato vodkas, for example, are often quite different from grain-based vodkas. And the kind of water that is used can make a big difference in flavor.

So, while I agree with you that Smirnoff is a perfectly fine vodka, I also think people can prefer some of the subtle variations of flavor offered by different brands. If you want to pay a premium of a couple hundred percent for that subtle flavor, that's your choice. You may not be getting any closer to the "ideal" vodka, but if you're drinking it straight, you can tell the difference with many brands. (If you're just mixing it, I agree that you're an idiot to throw expensive vodka in.)

I feel your pain. I was with Cingular before AT&T swallowed 'em up and I didn't feel the need to change since I use basic phones with barebones plans.

I moved to a more rural area and now my coverage is intermittent no matter where I drive. The tower is 1.5 miles from my house with no forests or other obstructions in the way, and yet it's as if they arbitrarily turn the transmitters on and off at random no matter how close I get to the tower.

My phone will show 5 bars of reception but it will throw "no service" warnings when I try to make calls. I have to re-send text messages 5 times before they finally go through. Yep, looks like it's time to switch after my obligation is up since I don't have an army of lawyers to contest an early termination fee. God bless America.

Guess that just depends on how big the hole is, and how big the largest passenger is.... ;-)

Stop being so freakin ignorant, it's not because you got pulled over before you killed someone that it couldn't of happened. Yes, it sucks, the person didn't ask to be borned with diabetes, but he/she was! Just get over that and accept it, that person shouldn't be driving if he/she can't keep it under control. It's really that simple... I've looked into (and started) classes to obtain my private pilot's license, however one of the requirement for doing your solo flights is "not to have high blood pressure" Of course, there's a certain range that's considered acceptable... I personally don't fall within that range. What does it mean for me? I'm not going to be allowed to do my solo flights this year, that simple! It's up to me to exercise and to work to lower my blood pressure so I can hopefully start my solo flights next summer, otherwise the one after. If I'm not successful, as much as it sucks, it's very simple: The captain's chair will never be mine. The fact that my blood pressure isn't within the acceptable range doesn't mean I'll have a heart attack, but guess what? They're not willing to take any chances (and I don't blame them, although flying has been a long time dream of mine and it's quite disappointing).

Someone doesn't ask to be borned with a bad vision (some people can actually see, but their vision is so much diminished they're considered legally blind) but even if they didn't ask to be borned this way, if corrective lenses doesn't improve the situation enough so they can be safe on the road (both for themselves and the public), guess what, THEY SHOULDN'T BE DRIVING. Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.

You seem to have this idea that, if they have good intentions, it's ok. How wrong you are... Someone can have "good intentions" and still end up killing someone. This simply isn't acceptable.

Paracetamol is the Official International Non-Proprietary name as given by the World Health Association (as it does for all pharmaceuticals) and is therefore perfectly valid in official international use for a pharmaceutical standpoint. The International Union for Pure and Applied Chemistry name (the official name used in chemistry, and generated according to specific rules is N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)ethanamide and is considered the official chemical name for it.

Anything with acet is the United States Adopted name and is not official in anyway on the international scale, and goes back to a naming system that chemists threw out years ago with international standardization and a chemist would only use it as a name for acetone now just because it's shorter than it's actual chemical name and doesn't include the eth carbon grouping that all other acet did it was confusing and so acet was thrown out in favour of true systematic naming.

Hahahahahah @ binary decision. You must be one of those false dichotomy idealists who thinks the world is binary, when it is in fact not. The only way to measure safety as a binary decision is whether you hurt someone or not. In every case I cited, no one was hurt. Conveniently, you ignored everything I said, except the one thing you disagreed with, then presented a dichotomy (false, like most) as some sort of idealist championing statement for the purity of your safety ideals.

Again, if you start to feel funny, you pull over. But that wont stop the cops from beating you, AS I POINTED OUT VIA LINKS I CITED. Your sad retort was meaningless idealism. The real world is not binary, no matter how much you fantasized about being a Transformer when you grew up.

The real world isn't black and white, but I know dichotomy driven jerks like to ignore data, and you like to conclude that you can just magically decide in advance if you are safe to drive, when you can IN FACT not, as this points out.

But hey, let's live in your false world where diabetics magically can predict blood sugar fluctuations, and where they deserve to be treated like drunk drivers. Because everyone hates a complex world. I know how much easier it is for feeble minds like yours to cope when things can conveniently fit into 2 categories.

Sounds to me like if you were in charge of public policy, you would end up discriminating against people over your own inability to have the clarity to view reality in more than binary. Personally, I think you must have 0 experience with diabetics in your family or household, so you are akin to a villager waving a pitchfork around.

Hmm... What is the expected cost in the real market for a pair of designer basketball shoes? Is it a 50% or 100% markup on the base cost of production of the shoes in east Asia (not much) or is it based on the willingness of customers in the U.S. to pay -- $100, $150, etc.?

The pricing question involves value -- what is the profit value for the producer and the consumption value for the consumer? The producer wants to maximize profit but is constrained by the consumer's willingness to pay, not by some arbitrary markup limit. If something costs $10 to make and people are willing to buy everything the producer can get to market at $100 an item, the price in a real market may well be $100. About the only reason to lower price would be to discourage competitors' entering the market and selling the same item for $95.

That's not the issue here. This is more like a commodities market -- the pistol is the pistol is the pistol and there is one price which is driven solely by demand relative to other items. The market determines that this shotgun has x% more value than this other shotgun, because that is what the market is willing to pay for it.