Too much alcohol kills, we all know that, and once again, if you have information that the rest of us don’t have, please let me know. There is nothing more irritating than anyone who just agrees with all information that’s been passed down by generations of idiots.

I recently had someone tell me that they were told by their doctor that 1-2 drinks per day is good for you. Naturally I wasn’t completely aghast at that statement, it’s well known that red wine has heart benefits, but only in moderation.

So I set out to study on several effects of alcohol consumption, diseases from it, and then I sought information from the one place that seems to know everything. The consumption of alchohol entry on wikipedia is great, especially since it opens with the common held belief that if you drink you live longer.
In theory, there is benefits from drinking in moderation, and moderation is the key, which is something we all could learn a bit on. Moderation with alcohol means 2 or less drinks per day. Two shots of liqueur, or two beers, or two glasses of wine, it doesn’t really matter.

Now the part where it gets sticky is that you are allowed 7 of those days per week, for a grand total of 14 units. If you binge and drink 4 one night, you better not go drinking anything the next if you plan to drink more the rest of the week. There is some other things you better not do at the same time, because the dirty laundry list is pretty damn long when it comes to drinking.

So it’s important when you are at midway through the article to note that there is no huge benefit to drinking, and they are careful to note in all the studies that it’s a small improvement that has a strict regimen that must be adhered to. The studies are also striving to note that the common diseases that are casually linked to the consumption are there too, such as digestive system cancers.
Then there is the great no no when it comes to drinking, the golden rod, the one thing they (doctors) will beg you not to do and drink. I’m sure people always hear what they want, and I’m sure any doctor who knows their patient drinks more than 4 every single day, then smokes at the same time wouldn’t give advice to drink 1-3 drinks per day of any alcohol.

It’s not enough to get a casual cancer link, such as with beer or wine. Smoking is a definite risk, and one that turns into a nightmare when 85% of all lung cancer victims learn that the smoking they did caused the cancer.

After all that, can you imagine a doctor telling someone to drink alcohol, when combining drinking with smoking increases your risk for cancers by 35 times? 35 times is a huge number, especially when anything else bad you are doing is getting amplified by the alcohol.

The end result is this: if you are not on any medications that say don’t use alchohol, don’t smoke, are between the ages of 18-35 and also are in good general health you can drink 1-2 a day, that’s all. Anymore than 2 drinks per day, or 14 per week, and you are on the other side, the bad side.

We all know smoke kills, and I beg anyone who has a link to a significant quarterly peer reviewed scientific publication to send it along if it purports to show that smoking -doesn’t- cause cancer.

However, the news of Dana Reeves dying as of late, and her having never smoked really makes it tough for people who quit and want to stay that way. You see, she did smoke, but not by her own accord: fund raisers, parties and other activities put her at great risk.

Now, a study shows just why some women who never smoked get lung cancer.

Anyway, that’s all for today. I’m still holding off until my link cache gets big enough that I can really hammer it home with some “Second Hand Smoke DOES trigger Asthma attacks”.

(Yes, I’ve been told that doctors have stood on the pulpit, bible in hand and declared that sic(smoking doesn’t aggravate asthma in kids). Funny, mine doesn’t, nor his assistant.)

As a nice side note, I did suggest Chantix to two people today, since they were having a real rough time stopping. One woman was 70 years old + and has COPD.

It’s acceptable that google would charge at least some money to filter material for piracy. It’s not fair however to charge that they are terrorizing people, without considering the extra manpower that’s required as a whole.

I can’t help but wonder if this is all really about the content that he helps create, and the knowledge that all forms of security for video have been broken. It’s a rule of thumb that there will be a hack available shortly, either cable tv, sat tv or DRM/
What must content owners be thinking, with a teraflop server available within 5 years? Sure, teraflop isn’t so hard anymore, but with the size that’s coming all hell is going to break loose.
If there’s one thing humans know how to do, it’s fill the space that you’ve got.

I’m sure crypto will follow suit with all that extra power, but how much more? Is quantum crypto going to be what’s needed to protect video?

There is no doubt in my mind that we can process video, to find copyrighted material several ways:

1. Human eyeballs
2. Computer processing:
Closed captioning or other OOB/Sideband information
Speech analysis
Lots of image hacks to identify marks

Now, how much technology is youtube bound to be liable for? I’m not sure how much of the DMCA states youtube must provide for free, but I personally believe none of it. I believe that if every company like YouTube that springs up is forced to provide video scanning like Paramount or Mark Cuban demands, it will fold immediately.

If YouTube is receiving 20,000 videos a day, each an average of 60 seconds long, we have over 3 days of processing time if just one machine is doing all the work in realtime to identify just one type of video. I wonder if finding copyrighted materials for two companies would slow it all down to 5 days of processing.

Irregardless, the whole point is that soon you have every Tom, Dick (and even Harry), lining up outside your door with picket signs demanding that you screen whats uploaded to see if infringing content is being created. What Mark Cuban fails to realize is this:

Gootube is allowed to make deals that would reduce the amount of liability they incur for having such service, by filtering in exchange for free material by the copyright holders.The sheer expenses that they must incur on a daily basis for human eyeballs, coupled with the amount of the processing power needed to weed out obvious infarctions  is not free for YouTube, even with ads.

I’m sure this wouldn’t make much sense to him, but I wonder if he’s willing to give everyone his news program records, fair payment for the tragedies they endured and he profited from. I doubt it, and I’m probably way off base for it, but even he is not bullet proof.

But wait, what if he gave the news away for free online?
Oops, he’d still have to put up ads for the bandwidth.

Dan works for free right?
Oops, there is still ads on the front of his site.

No matter which way Mark Cuban goes, he could still be wrong.

Yes, it did take me a long time to finally come back around to figuring out why Cuban picks on google so much. More unravels everyday, but this isn’t the best I can do. It gets better all the time that I practice it.

Isn’t it wonderful? It used to just be relegated to the slim cases of notebooks, but now it’s in nearly every new Dell that’s sold.

I’m sure you are wondering why new computers have them, old ones do not, and what is going on inside of these pipes that route through a heatsink.

It’s pretty simple really why these pipes exist, and it has to do with how fast metal can move heat through them. It makes more sense to use this type of technology than a big chunk of copper, since copper can only go so far.

Intel will usually quote when this type of technology is needed to remove heat from the top of your brand new CPU. It may however be possible to achieve good airflow which is moves enough heat, but it will be louder than this type of heat conversion.

I was told once that the material inside of these pipes was Chlorine, which didn’t make much sense at the time. So I found a guy who actually made a heatpipe of his own, and I have to admit, he used some good techniques for testing and laying out what he did.

If you are looking for more information about heat pipes then you know where to look.

So secondhand smoke is the topic of this rant, and the ignorance that many people continue to pass off as academic proof. The evidence is clear to the danger you put everyone in, whether you intended to or not by smoking. Don’t believe the toothless old woman who tells you that ETS/Secondhand smoke/Sidestream smoke doesn’t hurt anyone.

I for one am the type of person that likes to know what’s killing him, and how much of that damage is reversible. Smoking was one of my worst hobbies that turned into a wide scale addiction that followed me everywhere I went.

Did I say that smoking followed me everywhere? Work, car, and the home, there was no escape anywhere for those that didn’t want to smoke. Did any of the objects in my home desire to be subjected to endless clouds of smoke? I’m sure the computer desk and the chair that sits under it didn’t really have an opinion, but other objects in my home that were breathing the same air as I sure did.
The problem is, our kids, which could include our pets won’t complain about these things.
I’ve found that my son now, after 6 months of me not smoking (ok, at this time of writing 5 months 3 weeks), will now ask if daddy has been smoking when I’ve been around people that do.

It’s enough to make you never want to smoke again, but then it gets worse on the next statement that his little head can think of: “Smoking is bad daddy.” I agree with him now, just like we told him smoking was bad when he was 2 years old, except one major thing has changed since then.

Stopping smoking was something that was truly hard for my wife, but easily defeated by me using a little pill. My wife liked to smoke, and figured smoking helped to ease up her stress level, so she resolved to not quit, since it helped her so much. In the end, I found the easiest assertion to stop smoking was the most heart felt one: your children are depending on you.
Our son didn’t challenge our smoking, or tell us it was bad. He didn’t repeat the things we wished we could follow ourselves. Knowing smoking was bad, but equating it to a trip 6 feet under was a different story. Knowledge that it would send -him- six feet under was what broke the back of the argument.
I’m sure many countless parents have never argued, or truly beat themselves up over smoking around their children. Those parents that have beat themselves up could be counted as some who had SIDS to worry about. Ignorant parents, those that continued to smoke, despite warning from the doctors that SIDS was likely herded into a baby by smoking, probably blamed the death on something else.

We for one are not taking any chances with our child’s life anymore, seeing as we have another one on the way. This one has had little or no nicotine in the body, and will lead her life not addicted to nicotine.

So, leading up to this simple link was the hardest thing to do, since the information inside it is such a boring read for the majority of the people who will ever visit this blog.

I have no doubt that even medical students like those in Grey’s Anatomy will have a hard time sitting through all the jargon and the lifeless depiction of the chemicals inside of smoke. What you will get however by sitting still and reading the information it gives you, is a good look at how long chemicals live inside of you and the areas around you.

If you are like me, counted as a paranoid, the feelings you get from a document that just merely states science is important. You are not paranoid, but trying to make an informed judgment about your body, so take heart.

Read on, keep this close and make it another reason to never smoke again.

But for how much can you get one of these babies in your living room?

80 Cores on one Die it looks like, and with it ushers in a new age. Let’s see if AMD on the other hand
can get a 100 core version out by Xmas and for 20% less.

One can only imagine how something that small can be really expensive, but only time will tell.

I’m like most people, who remember Peter Jennings succumbing to lung cancer recently. It scared me, here is yet another person to die of lung cancer. Is the experts right? Could there finally be a link in smoking and cancer?

So why quit at age 30? Because it’s the last few years you can and still escape in most cases unscathed further smoking past this only locks in your chances to die.

I like most people started smoking for one of many reasons.