Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: quit (Score 1) 7

by treat (#30803096) Attached to: Dealing with moving into open-space offices?

Quit. Your management is not giving you what you need in order to do your job.

If you can listen to headphones (big closed ones) and people leave you alone, you might find it possible to concentrate. But in most offices people won't respect your need for concentration, and the glare from the lights that can't be dimmed will make eye strain worse.

Choose music that has few words and few silent parts. Jazz, some classical, trance. Silent parts to the music allows you to briefly hear the noise in the office and be distracted. Prominent words are distracting.

Comment: Re:How is that a contradiction? (Score 1) 177

by treat (#29841319) Attached to: The Medical Benefits of Carbon Monoxide

Actually, that makes it worse. Sweat is not pure water, it is water with a lot of salt and other chemicals that your body needs. If you replace the sweat that you lose with pure water, then you will become short on salt very quickly, which can kill you in a very short amount of time.

You think it's worse to drink nothing rather than pure water if you are exerting yourself to the point where you are dehydrated from sweating?

Comment: Re:About time (Score 1) 494

by treat (#29779595) Attached to: Texas Teen Arrested Under New Online Harassment Law

Well, nothing is worse than perhaps a felony conviction =)

This depends on the employer or how they do the background check. A felony charge and conviction all shows up in the documentation when they do the background check. It is worse to have a pending case (which is what a dropped felony charge looks like in certain databases) than to have a case that was resolved years ago.

In some cases, if you're lucky, you can have the charges dropped/resolved without conviction and then petition to have them sealed by the court maybe 6 months or a year later. That assumes this was your first offense. Then, the charges will NOT show up on a background check, and can only come back if you commit another crime of similar type where someone (the DA) petitions the court to re-open the records to show a pattern or something.

In the US, when doing an NCIC check, this is not always true. The charge still shows up. Even if the charges were sealed, this does not stop a brief summary of it from showing up on an NCIC records check done by an employer.

While there may be some way to have it removed, the fact is that if you go through the process of having things sealed, and every lawyer and court clerk etc involved says it is sealed and can't be seen by anyone, this in no way means that it will not show up on an NCIC search. If there is a way to have it removed from NCIC, this is not commonly known by lawyers and people who get this done are in the minority.

Comment: Re:Cigarettes (Score 1) 177

by treat (#29779551) Attached to: The Medical Benefits of Carbon Monoxide

Still, nicotine is not the sole psychoactive chemical in nicotine, readily apparent if you compare the effects of tobacco to vaporized pure nicotine.

Oops, Nicotine is not the sole psychoactive chemical in tobacco.

Oddly I'd consider this an obvious typo that doesn't need correction, but there's already too much confusion here about the difference between a molecule and a plant that produces that molecule.

Comment: Re:Cigarettes (Score 1) 177

by treat (#29779543) Attached to: The Medical Benefits of Carbon Monoxide

You can get the nicotine without the cigarette and the smoke etc. It's called an electric cigarette, use your Google-Fu, grasshopper.

Governments often make this difficult to distribute/obtain because the device can be considered a "drug delivery device", while nicotine incidentally contained in tobacco is not always legally considered a drug.

Still, nicotine is not the sole psychoactive chemical in nicotine, readily apparent if you compare the effects of tobacco to vaporized pure nicotine.

Comment: Re:Cigarettes (Score 2, Interesting) 177

by treat (#29779523) Attached to: The Medical Benefits of Carbon Monoxide

Morphine is little more than low grade heroin, with lots of harmful impurities. Heroin is clean and safe.

Morphine is one molecule, heroin is another, similar molecule that is more efficient in the body.

Neither contains any impurities by definition. Things advertised as such may contain impurities. But both are specific molecules and nothing else.

Obviously the risk of a drug being contaminated with impurities can be greatly increased by the government's treatment of the regulation of that drug.

Comment: Re:Cigarettes (Score 4, Informative) 177

by treat (#29779505) Attached to: The Medical Benefits of Carbon Monoxide

Maybe not cigarettes, but tobacco sure. Heroin also has huge medical benefits, but we can't touch that, can we?

In much of the world, heroin is recognized as being a safe and effective pain killer. It is used regularly in hospitals in the UK.

The reason heroin is an effective recreational drug is due to its safety compared to other opiates.

The situation is similar (although much more extreme) with methamphetamine. Enough caffeine to keep you awake for a week would have a high chance of killing you outright.

Considering the low cost of making heroin from morphine, the use of morphine instead is essentially a deliberate waste in order to satisfy political considerations.

Comment: Re:In a word no (Score 1) 177

by treat (#29779491) Attached to: The Medical Benefits of Carbon Monoxide

Can cigarettes be good for you in small doses then?

Cigarettes also contain carcinogens and carcinogens have no real safe levels.

If carcinogens have no real safe levels, what possible definition are you using for "safe"?

You realize that the word "safe" does not mean 100% completely impossible of causing any harm, right?

Comment: Re:Cigarettes (Score 2, Interesting) 177

by treat (#29779477) Attached to: The Medical Benefits of Carbon Monoxide

Can cigarettes be good for you in small doses then?

"cigarette" is not exactly drug. If you look at the component chemicals, there certainly are drugs in there that have differing effects in small doses. Nicotine has many effects, certainly some of which could have medical relevance.

It's rare that a drug is "good for you". The criteria is improving one condition without undue risk of causing/worsening others.

A person who smokes cigarettes for anxiety could easily be coming out on the positive end of things, if the anxiety was so severe as to risk the life of the patient. While there are usually drugs that are more effective, government restrictions on these drugs can be quite a significant influence on patients receiving care.

If cigarettes cure a person's anxiety, possibly a safer version can be created by extracting the nicotine. But this increases the risk of being arrested and contracting HIV due to repeated prison anal rape.

All medications are a balance of risk.

Comment: Re:all medical treatments have this paradox (Score 1) 177

by treat (#29779441) Attached to: The Medical Benefits of Carbon Monoxide

"is revealing a paradox: the gas often called a silent killer could also be a medical treatment."

Not much of a paradox. Every medical treatment suffers the exact same paradox. Morphine - great pain killer. Too much and it silently kills you. Anesthesias are the same. Cancer chemo treatments come very close to killing you, a small overdose may do it. Too much tylenol? Liver disease. Too much advil? Kidney problems.

Tylenol is in the same ballpark as the chemo drugs, as opposed to morphine. Double a normal (but high) dose of tylenol and you can destroy your liver. Tylenol is actually added to other drugs in the US in order to punish patients who choose to take a higher dosage of the medication actually needed.

One of the most evil things the US government does is adding a poison to medicines in order to destroy the liver of someone who takes "too much". The "too much" amount is likely to be a perfectly safe amount and could even be prescribed. And patients are not adequately warned what the dangers are of the medications they're given, or that certain components were added solely to have a fatal punitive effect.

Comment: Re:Ban tumble dryers instead? (Score 1) 339

by treat (#29779377) Attached to: California Moving Forward With Big-Screen TV Power Restrictions

This would be true only in certain property associations. It's not a California thing, it's a neighborhood thing.

Too bad governments in many areas force new developments to create a neighborhood association. This paves the way for petty restrictions that violate basic human rights.

And yes, being able to wash and dry your clothes is a human right.

Comment: Re:Ban tumble dryers instead? (Score 1) 339

by treat (#29779367) Attached to: California Moving Forward With Big-Screen TV Power Restrictions

When drying clothes, I used tojust use a 50 watt pedestal fan pointed at a clothes horse in my lounge (preferably with the windows open and the sun shining, blowing perpendicular to the shirts), not being one of those fancy pants people with gardens :-)

It gets clothes dry quickly and they get less damaged I think.

This is reminiscent of people growing weed indoors because the government regulates what plants you are allowed to grow. So it must be done secretly inside.

And now we have to do this to dry our clothes?

And no one sees a problem here?

Comment: Re:Seems like the wrong approach. (Score 1) 339

by treat (#29779361) Attached to: California Moving Forward With Big-Screen TV Power Restrictions

hey Einstein, how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume

Consumer Reports? It's always worked for me.

Every time I try to use Consumer Reports to evaluate a highly technical purchase, it utterly fails. TVs are the perfect example of this. They don't do a thorough investigation at all.

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai

Working...