Poor JCM.
Edit. A day late.
Poor JCM.
Pharma company will pay $15.4m in fines for bribing docs to prescribe an overpriced med that brings in $1b/yeara lot of companies knowingly break the law because the fines they pay are less than the money they make breaking the law.
If elected, I will declare prescription drug prices and the rising cost of health care a national security emergency. Far greater than "immigration" or whatever the fucking Saudis want this time.
We differ on that assessment.The supreme court fails us again.
But if you push the barrel against someone's arm before firing, they can be, right?Silencers aren't arms.
I hate motorcyclists who tune their bikes to be extra loud.Silencers are treated so badly. There should be a tax credit for owning a fucking silencer.
Suppressors are not silencers, either. They don't "silence," they merely "suppress."Silencers aren't arms.
Please explain to me the value of making that distinction in the current discussion. Also, please explain the reason for your assumption that the people on this board didn’t already know that, but we’re using the more common moniker anyway.Suppressors are not silencers, either. They don't "silence," they merely "suppress."--Patrick
To quote Biggie, if you don't know, now you know. I'm honestly surprised @GasBandit didn't correct the nomenclature. It's almost as bad as calling a magazine a clip, or when someone says "I could care less."Please explain to me the value of making that distinction in the current discussion. Also, please explain the reason for your assumption that the people on this board didn’t already know that, but we’re using the more common moniker anyway.
Calling them “silencers” or continuing to call them “silencers” even when (especially when!) you are someone who knows better further reinforces the Hollywood-inspired myth that it is possible to reduce the decibel level of a firearm’s report to the point that it is effectively inaudible. As the article I linked explains, a suppressor can reduce the report by some 20-45dB which, while still impressive, only brings the noise level down to that of a jet engine or a jackhammer—hardly “silent” by any stretch of the imagination.Please explain to me the value of making that distinction in the current discussion. Also, please explain the reason for your assumption that the people on this board didn’t already know that, but we’re using the more common moniker anyway.
I really hope the "LEDs are destroying your eyes because they emit blue light, but not infra-red light" FUD never makes it to that level of public awareness.The big difference here is that misunderstanding consumer semiconductors isn't (currently, at least) being demonized and FUDded in order to push a particular agendum the way it is with silencers/suppressors.
LEDs are a government conspiracy to destroy our eyes and make optometrists rich; use bulbs if you're smart! Bulbs last thousands of hours if used properly! The government is lying to you!I really hope the "LEDs are destroying your eyes because they emit blue light, but not infra-red light" FUD never makes it to that level of public awareness.
Plenty of international users on this board where guns are a lot less common than in the US who might not know the difference. Here in the UK I'd wager most people don't know the distinction.Please explain to me the value of making that distinction in the current discussion. Also, please explain the reason for your assumption that the people on this board didn’t already know that, but we’re using the more common moniker anyway.
Don't forget about UV.I really hope the "LEDs are destroying your eyes because they emit blue light, but not infra-red light" FUD never makes it to that level of public awareness.
As a tech nut, I know you can get IR/UV illuminator arrays (or "dirty" conventional arrays) strong enough put out enough "invisible" light to cause eye/skin damage even though it may not be visible to the naked eye. Arrays like that are NOT toys.Light produced at these wavelengths are not only harmful to micro-organisms, but are dangerous to humans and other forms of life that may come in contact with it. These LED lamps should always be shielded and never be viewable to the naked eye even though it may appear that little or no light is emanating from the device . Exposure to these wavelengths may cause skin cancer and temporary or permanent vision loss or impairment.
Do standard LED "light bulbs" produce UV? Because it seems like you misunderstood my statement. There are quack "doctors" pushing the pseudoscience idea that LED home lighting is damaging people's eyes, and that incandescent light bulbs are superior because they produce infra-red radiation that heals your eyes from all the blue light damage that happens.Don't forget about UV.
Pensions are p kickass.Those classes can't be used to get a degree. It's just something they can do with their pension-funded retirements.
Hey, some of us were born in the seventies. It's only debt until our late fifties, but still.
I almost thought this was Onion.
Man, being a boomer must be real kickass. 10 dollars a credit if you were born in the 40s-50s, lifetime of crippling debt if you were born in the 80s+
If you were born in the 70s and went to college right out of high school, you paid a fraction of those born 10 years later. Frrrraaaacccctiiion.Hey, some of us were born in the seventies. It's only debt until our late fifties, but still.
Mmmaybe? Though I assume if any is produced (by a non-UV LED, that is), it would be negligible. LED output is relatively narrow, so it would be difficult for an LED to “accidentally” emit UV unless it was a color already butting up against the V end of the spectrum.Do standard LED "light bulbs" produce UV? Because it seems like you misunderstood my statement. There are quack "doctors" pushing the pseudoscience idea that LED home lighting is damaging people's eyes, and that incandescent light bulbs are superior because they produce infra-red radiation that heals your eyes from all the blue light damage that happens.
I knock them as a luxury I will never know.Don't knock pensions, Buffalo boy
Ah. I missed the "right out of high school" part.If you were born in the 70s and went to college right out of high school, you paid a fraction of those born 10 years later. Frrrraaaacccctiiion.
Still too much, but not a literal lifedebt that can never be repaid.
It's this sort of thing why being "anti-police" is, in my mind, short-minded. Being against a whole lot of current-day police procedure, habits, system, etc etc is good and important; but like most other groups, policemen have a bunch of true real heroes, and a bunch of bad apples, and a whole bunch of in-between who get drawn one way or the other. Influencing those in the middle to be more heroic/good and less selfish/racist/bad is important. Paying too little, asking too much, pressure from on high, etc, all tend to push towards the wrong end of the scale.How is it that Jon Stewart is the biggest supporter of 9/11 first responders?
PS:
I know, I've been anti-police etc a lot lately, but fuck this. Fuck you American government. Fuck you for these 20 years. Fuck you. THIS IS SUCH A FUCKING MINOR GOD DAMN THING TO MAKE RIGHT YOU FUCKERS.
Because the person who should be their biggest supporter is a piece of shit.How is it that Jon Stewart is the biggest supporter of 9/11 first responders?