Yes, it is a common deflection seen in any number of addictions. The difference, as I see it, is that the GGGP didn't want to quit permanently; he only intended to test himself, which he did. Addicts say "Never again" believing that they can achieve it and then go back again and again. That inability to stay away when the person really wants to do so is the very definition of addiction.

And your argument may be true for yourself but not true at all for the poster to which you replied.

Please stop projecting your addiction onto others; for some it may be accurate, for others it is most certainly not.

BTW: I quit smoking almost 3 years ago using an electronic cigarette. I've cut my nicotine intake by 75% in that 3 years, but I still would be ineligible for hire under the law at topic. The minimal amount of nicotine that I still consume will likely be the lowest my intake will ever be because I am one of those who has cognitive focal issues for which nicotine is proven to be effective at combating. And no, I'm not interested in subsidizing Big-Pharm and switching to the more socially-accepted "Here take this pill and you'll be all better" approach.

Am I addicted to nicotine? Yes, Sir, I am. Do I care? No, Sir, I don't, and it's none of your damn business.

Making logical inferences from the, granted minimal, information available from this particular case and adding in the base knowledge available via psychology of sociopaths is not utter stupidity ... ignoring the signs and allowing the potential for further harm to additional individuals would be.

"Messed up kid"s who send ashes and make references to relatives from Auschwitz are far more than "messed up" ... I have to agree with the posit that this a potential-sociopath and worthy of watching _within_ the system, so that he can be further constrained should he devolve. All the better if he's not a sociopath and has really only made a very, very stupid mistake.

Me too.

If I remember correctly, there is scientific basis for it based on the fact that a hot shower will cause your body to pull more blood volume to the core (and therefore the brain) generating higher levels of activity. I've solved some of my most challenging code/logic problems in the shower.

When I was young, we raised day-old calves to approximately a year-old before selling them at auction. Part of their feed mix was stale/malformed gummy candies from the local candy factory. Dad doesn't that any more (most likely from risk of CJD), but during that time period CJD wasn't a concern here in the US. And yes, he did it was because it was more cost effective. You've nailed it on the head ... they would be discarded otherwise, and they're made from the same corn sugars that the cows would get from corn.

If only I had mod points ...

Don't forget the drought's effect on the availability of hay for cattle feed as well. My father told me that prices have tripled and he's having to go farther and farther away to get what he needs to feed his livestock (which are given neither antibiotics nor hormones and are _darn_ tasty ... I usually don't buy meat from the store; it comes from a farm I know and love.)

tx is a medical abbreviation for treatment; just as rx is an abbreviation for a prescription medication. Although I will agree that I want my doctor held to strict medical standards, if I am in a terminal situation and there's an experimental tx out there, I want my doctor to be able to go through the pros and cons with me so that _we_ are able to make as informed a decision as to my care as is possible. The FDA has too much history of protecting the pharma companies rather than their actual customers, the patients (drug) and consumers (food). As someone who hasn't smoked for more than 2.5 years thanks to electronic cigarettes that the FDA fought tooth and nail to ban, my sentiments toward the FDA are that they can get the frack off my lawn!!

The wider implication as I see it is as people are economically encouraged to use standards-compliant browsers, companies are economically encouraged to produce them. If the surcharge is truly based on support for non-standards-compliant browsers, it shouldn't affect only IE7/M$. For Kogan to point directly to IE7 is a pretty good PR stunt though.

I'm guessing that you don't have children. It may be public school, but it sure isn't FREE.

I've never seen a sign like that, and I've been in many bars. Oh, and there's a difference between loading 20 songs on the juke at 10 minutes until close and doing it in the middle of business hours.

The particular bar at which I would currently call myself a 'regular' -- by the way the owner and staff would agree with me -- even non-regulars have a right to hear the music for which they paid to hear. Other patrons might not like it, but the owner (and staff) understand that money was paid for that service ... and a service it is.

We actually just had this discussion regarding the "Play Next" feature of the juke at that establishment, and we came to the consensus that unless you're stepping on your own paid-for selections, the feature shouldn't exist at all. Just like the feature proposed in the OP shouldn't exist ... yeah, let's come up with another way to cheat people out of their money, Great Job, Google! :~P

Comcast shouldn't be in the business of running a monopoly on the services to which I have access then. Time for a Ma-Bell style split, in my honest opinion.

I happen to be one of those 20% under their monopoly and am sick and tired of subsidising 500+ channels (and their outrageous equipment rental fees) when we watch maybe 10 of them.

Netflix: check
Hulu+: check
OTA: in progress

Flipping Comcast cable services the bird: very, very soon indeed.