I have long thought that recreational drugs should be legalized, while antibiotics should be treated the way we treat controlled substances. After all, recreational drugs hurt no one, except in a minority of cases, the user, while misuse of antibiotics threaten everybody. Besides, it'll provide employment to drug cops once we've finally ended prohibition.
Escape to what? In most cases Comcast is your only option.
Science should be conducted in a "Spockian" manner, however difficult it may be to do that. That is the only way to get to truth. But it's absurd to say we don't find meaning in these truths. Knowing the true vastness of the universe is so much more inspiring than imagining God walking around above our heads in the heavens, with Earth as the center of focus. Imagining the evolution of life over vast eons is way more mind-blowing than imagining God, like a cheap magician, poofing things into existence. That some people are too small-minded to see it, doesn't make that the fault of how science is, and must, be done.
It is a Spockian universe. There is no intrinsic "meaning" to it, except that which we as individuals ascribe to it. Allow me to quote, (or paraphrase, if my memory doesn't serve me), the great philosopher, Robert Crumb:
Flaky Foont: "What does it all mean?
Mr. Natural: "It don't mean shit."
Those profound words have stuck with me since I first read them, as a child, back in the late sixties/early seventies. Nihilism is not a philosophy of despair. It merely shows us we have to derive our own meanings.
Pretty much what I was going to mention. The US has a very active Christian fundamentalist contingent, which is constantly trying to insert their beliefs into public life, including into schools. Atheists have been forced to organize and push back here in the States. Then again, as an atheist, I can't imagine dating a theist. How could I respect someone who believes obvious nonsense? Same goes for friends, really. I would find it difficult to view them as peers. But I never have any desire to discuss the topic. It seems pointless. I would love to live in a society where the topic never came up.
I'm sure there's a word for this, but "tinfoil," like "dashboard," is one of those words that stuck around, and was repurposed, long after the original item disappeared. But I would suggest that aluminum foil is every bit as effective, for all uses, as actual tin foil. Just use Reynold's Heavy-Duty.
I guess I could've said, "backup my data," but I do that anyway. I also already stock up on toilet paper and water because I hate shopping. You can only shoot one gun at a time, so stock up on ammo if you like. But I don't think it'll repel a coronal mass ejection.
What's the point of these statistics? There are thirty to forty-thousand deaths each year caused by cars, and nobody is calling for the abolition of cars. Yet, any time the gun subject comes up, everyone trots out their fave statistics. We have an unfortunate tendency to think we have the right to curtail the rights of others, simply because they may, or may not, harm themselves, whether physically or morally. Even worse, is this idea we can pre-empt crimes by curtailing rights. This is where the debate should be.
We already have laws, in most cases, against harming others, (apparently, it's perfectly legal to destroy the economy for your own gain). What gives us the right to dictate how others should live? The idea of liberalism used to be that we don't have that right. But now, those that call themselves Liberals have adopted from the Right, the idea that we do have the right to coerce others "for their own good," or gods help me, "for the children." Hence anti-gun, anti-soda pop, anti-smoker, anti-fast (and inexpensive) food legislation, etc., etc... How is this different from, say, the Right's blue laws? This is how we end up with travesties like prohibition. I would submit that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights deny us the right to pursue happiness only when we trespass upon the right of our fellows to do the same. Statistics have no bearing on this topic.
The difference in the case of Macs is that you're not being charged extra for the OS, and of course, both items are made by the same company. Perhaps they figure that cost in, but it is much different than buying a Dell computer preloaded with Microsoft Windows, and being asked to pay extra for Windows. TFA also mentions having to buy non-free, compatible software. This is also not an issue with Mac OS.
Update: Saw the commercial. Don't need it.
Full disclosure: I've been using Apple computers since 1986, so yeah, I'm an Apple fan.
When I first heard Apple was coming out with a phone, I was very skeptical. I mean, it's just a phone, right? I couldn't think of any reason why I'd want one. Then I saw the first iPhone commercials, and knew immediately that I needed an iPhone.
Now, I cannot think of a single reason why I'd want an Apple Watch. I wonder if I'll be swayed, once I see what it can do? Somehow, I think not. But, I've been wrong before. So, to answer the OP's question, I cannot think of a single thing.
You should know better than to drink and post!
I'm not sure what specific problems are caused by mercury exposure, but lead from leaded gasoline has been correlated with the rise in crime during the twentieth century. To my knowledge, gasoline contains no significant amount of mercury, if any. I think most of our mercury exposure comes from seafood and coal plant emissions. Is mercury thought to be responsible for behavior problems, as well?
There's a difference between the colloquial use of the word "theory" and the scientific use, which many people don't understand. In the colloquial use, "theory" means "hypothesis," so that the layman becomes confused when it's used in science. Hence expressions like, "only a theory." Even educated people will use expressions like, "Gravity is only a theory," as if that explained anything.
But this is how language works. Meanings shift through use (or misuse) over time. Think of how the word "addiction" is now used to describe anything from actual addiction, to compulsive behavior, to anything you might enjoy, or do, often. The meaning has become so watered-down that I believe we may need a new word to describe actual addiction. Perhaps the same is true of "theory?"
You guys are discussing the helium reserves? I want to know how long it'll be before I can get one on Amazon for $99.
If I remember correctly, the attackers were able to work out the answers to the account's "secret questions" because, you know, celebrities, and thus change the password. So, if you call that a brute force attack... I'd be very surprised to learn that a true brute-force, or a dictionary attack was employed. Very surprised.
Are you confusing leaded gasoline with mercury from coal emissions? Because I haven't yet heard of mercury being blamed for the rise of criminality in the twentieth century.