You have two individual drugs and a group called "drugs" (which I assume doesn't include the two other drugs you mention). You see anything wrong in that?
Only on Slashdot would some one compare heroin to alcohol and tobacco.
Hardly - I guess you haven't actually participated in much arguments around these things.
Comparisons between these three are sometimes made by medical professionals. I would include at least meth though, but heroin, alcohol and tobacco are quite often referred to as the top hard drugs.
Now tobacco has at least the same addiction potential as heroin. And if talking of purely pharmaceutical effects of the substances, tobacco far outweighs heroin. It also seems less people seem able to quit tobacco than heroin. So even if we count the health effects of heroin that have more to do with it's legal status and poverty, tobacco could still have more chance of killing you.
Alcohol - not potentially as addictive but certainly, if you get addicted to it, far more damaging to your mental and physical health than heroin ever could be. Heck, some former addicts (and I've even known some) are in better shape after years of daily use than former alcoholics, who have the same length of use behind them - for one reason because alcohol is *neurotoxic*. It's toxic for your brain, and it's toxic for your organs.
Heroin isn't. That can't be said for all opioids, in fact there are some that are very toxic to your body, but mostly the commonly used ones are not. Read into it, you may find it surprising.
The difference is that you can use alcohol and not be addicted.
You can use any drug and not be addicted. Yes, even heroin, though I would not suggest to try your luck. But yes, the addiction potential of alcohol, for most people, is much lower than for heroin.
Tobacco while really bad does not seem to cause health issues as quickly as heroin.
True. It will most likely of these three cause addiction though and it most likely will kill you if you get addicted to it (provided you don't die on something else before).
Those people in country (countries?) - was it Switzerland? - in the "treatment" where pure heroin is given freely to addicts who have failed rehab, are not likely to die because of their habit anymore (now that they are out of need for street heroin, make money - mostly illegally - to finance their habit and can actually be beneficial, not just cost to society).
Because it's not heroin, the substance itself, that causes their health problems and most of their inability to cope with normal life.
In fact that program started out of a test on "hopeless cases", group of heroinists who had failed enough rehab attempts to be categorized "hopeless". The program surprisingly showed that not only, as expected, the people didn't have to finance their habit with crimes and their health improved, but also many of them got hang of their lives, got a job, etc. - and even, after all this improvement, volunteered for rehab - which surprisingly many of these hopeless people now succeeded in. Look into it.
I don't drink or smoke and even I can see a world of difference between them.
There is a world of differences - they are mostly different than most average people who haven't studied the subject think.
BTW Drunks do often get thrown in jail for any number of reasons. Drug users often get off with community service and drug treatment programs for first offenses.
Whether you think that drunks should get the same treatment as "druggies" (which they too in fact are) or the other way around, that's a problem with ill designed system.
If so you are a very cold hearted person.
It seems to be the trend of the times though
Anything goes for the denialists - they even oppose free market capitalism if it threatens their denialist values.
Your support for keeping the tariff's has been noted, but still:
Your deniarwulist myth is busted.
Climate change denialism was already debunked. Enough of this spam of mine already.
Seems like a different type of "kill" switch, in fact more like "mute" than "kill" - more sinister one at that too. From the article you linked it seems a bit unclear if this can be used for specific devices only or if it's a general "Mute" All Phones In 100m Radius only.
...even the less sinister use case examples of it sound unacceptable to me, for example: I'm generally against phone use in movie theatres, however I can stand a person who's work demands him to be "on call" (provided it's closer to "in case of emergency" than "I work on sex-line) to be in movies, phone set on vibrate, and excuse him-/herself in case there is a call.
It doesn't have to be one extreme or another, and I feel very strongly about missing information (such as who attempted to call at what exact time. Or perhaps SMS messages, which get delivered later but are easy to peek at without bothering others) because a movie theatre decides to ban phone use but are too lazy to actually do any work on it and too nazi to cut everyone's connection instead. Throw out people who disturb other customers (there's more to it than just phone use, and cutting the network still leaves those problems to be) and I'm all for it, but stay the fsck away from network connectivity of the silently active phone(s) in my pocket. Heck, I could be using it for a big download I didn't think of at home, expecting to have it finished by the end of the movie - even the strongest "do naught at movies or go home" purists should have nothing to say against that. Luckily where I live disturbing the network connectivity isn't something a private business can legally do to others - also the police aren't currently allowed to do anything like cutting off the network on area of police bru... I mean, riot, but these days such "rights" can be given to authorities and taken from people no matter where you live - or what your constitution says about it - unless people get/stay informed and active.
One would think that just by being able to prove you had invented (and implemented, although at least with software patents it's not required at all, and even the patent claims are less useful than just knowing the idea itself) it before the time patent applicant claims for inventing it to at least give you the same rights for the patent (but that's not how they grant patents) and maybe even cast a doubt to whether the patent claim even is anything novel and innovative enough to merit a patent....
But then one would think that filtering wikipedia description of internal combustion engine filtered through patent lawyers would ever have a chance of getting a patent, but it does seem to work for software patents - and a second one for "internal combustion engine for two-wheel transport apparatus". Off-topic, I know.
Thanks for correcting my interpretation and clarifying your meaning so well - indeed your reply may well provide extra insight for even others who didn't misunderstand you to begin with
Anyway, I apologize for my error.
So your use case still boils down to Mac Pro users, which while selling alright, comprises a smaller portion of the PC sales market than desktops with Linux pre-installed.
I this really true? If so, can you please give a link for info about this? Thanks
Just out of curiosity, since there's little more that would justify replying,...
Until then, it will remain what it is: Just another scare tactic to advance leftist causes.
And you are claiming that, if perfected, meteorologists could "predict" weather of future decades? What does this have anything to do with meteorology? (and if the word is wrong, sorry, it's probably because it''s "meteorologia" in my native language but it's "borrowed" from foreign, probably english word).
Don't feed him. Those replies show so clearly that his agenda is only taking what you say and pretending you meant something silly that you only need to think: "obvious troll is obvious". It's annoying to just read that I wouldn't waste my time on replying him at all at this point.
Where the frell did you get that from, trollboy?
A less environmentally religious person might ask: "In what way does this pollution affect my (and my family's, and my neighbors') survival, comfort, security, longevity, and prosperity? What are the tradeoffs? How do I know for sure?"
Might. Or they might ask "does it have significant negative short term cost to quality of my life, and if not then why should I care?". Or "does this contribute too excessively to suffering of sentient life of any kind on earth to be right thing to do for me?" - putting different amount(s) of weight on different values does not in itself imply "religion".
Why am I writing this for though? I'm pretty certain what type of person I'm replying to when they write of caring about environment and comparing it to religion... Oh well, might just as well post this anyway.