BF2S Forums do you smoke?

nlsme1 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Right, and those have immediately profitable goals.  What about research into the subatomic structure?  Or quantum electodynamics?  You stop research into BASIC science, and you lose the profitable technologies of tomorrow.  And the government is the only entity that really has the ability to shovel money at it.

There are a lot of rich people who donate a lot of money into research institutes too... If someone finds that science is really important to them and they'd donate, I'd rather have that then the government taking my money and spend it to oblivion.

You do realize that government money has been in EVERY MAJOR advancement into science? Including healthcare? Pretty much every prescription drug had government money somewhere along the line, especially in the early developements.

Yes and this is why I'm speaking against it. You do realize the polio vaccine was done by a private research company right? Simple supply and demand with a lot of shit, if people want x drug to give y results, there would be massive interests from huge companies to fund research into it.

The polio vaccine was out long after government money went into research for it. The first producer of the polio vaccine could not have made it without the research that had already been performed. Thank god for Children's Hospital Boston, and Harvard. If it was not for the fact they existed, and got government money, we could still be faced with polio epidemics regularly.

Don't forget the public health work that went into eradicating polio. I'm guessing (too lazy to look it up on Wiki atm) that the majority of public health workers who got those vaccines out to the masses and informed them of it were either working for government agencies or for employers that get at least some funding from the government.

nlsme1 wrote:

You do realize they receive grants from the government too. The point was that government money went into the ONE vaccine that was pointed out that it didn't. It did, and HYPOTHETICALLY, the cure might not have come about had it not. There was government funds in the polio vaccine.

Sure the government could jumpstart a lot of programs, but I'm just arguing that a lot of private research is done a lot more better and cheaper. Shit a polio vaccine would make a pharmaceutical billions, and even more in PR.

G@lt.

JohnG@lt wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us8OhI-OTHg

heh, i woulda thought you posted "One Fine Day" . . .

cpt.fass1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

He's probably the perfect picture of health. I picture him walking down the road holding a ribbon around the sun without a care to the world. Cops are beating some person next to him for smoking and they stop to great the great lowing.

Not really, I need to drop a few pounds, and I do have problems I am trying to deal with. Some of which are financial. Never saw a cop beat anyone for smoking sorry. Never saw a cop beat anyone for that matter.

Yeah it's an joke, I was hopeing the sun with a ribbon would clue that off :-P

You were exaggerating to try and prove a point, I simply wasn't biting or entertaining it.

Spark wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

An honest, albeit offtopic, question here--do you think the government should fund research into basic science?  I mean things like Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Argonne, Fermilab, contribute to CERN, etc...?  Without federal funding, science research in the US would collapse.  Quickly.

No I don't. I don't believe science research would change much, there would be a gap in time where science research would fall off a cliff, yes (but most practical science is conducted by the private sector anyway), but it would correct itself and find its own balance. Things like the Large Hadron Collider, massive Observatories, etc don't interest me in the slightest. They are just money pits from which, as with all government funded research, we don't expect any results. I want results.

I don't think so. I think you'll find most practical science is carried out by government agencies - defence agencies in particular.

And I disagree that LHC etc. is a money-pit but that's another debate.

It's a money pit to anyone who isn't a Trekkie

http://pdfcast.org/pdf/drunk-driving-af … ns-in-bars

Using geographic variation in local and state smoke-free bar laws in the US, we observe an increase
in fatal accidents involving alcohol following bans on smoking in bars that is not observed in places
without bans. Although an increased accident risk might seem surprising at first, two strands of
literature on consumer behavior suggest potential explanations—smokers driving longer distances to
a bordering jurisdiction that allows smoking in bars and smokers driving longer distances within
their jurisdiction to bars that still allow smoking, perhaps through non-compliance or outdoor
seating. We find evidence consistent with both explanations. The increased miles driven by drivers
wishing to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home
following a ban, resulting in increased alcohol-related accidents. This result proves durable, as we
subject it to an extensive battery of robustness checks.

Interesting, places that banned smoking inside have an increase of Alchol related accidents.

since i was 12.  half a pack of camel filters a day.