text:
Should smoking be banned in cars?
Smoking should be banned in all cars as well as in public places where young people congregate, doctors are urging. Do you agree?
The Royal College of Physicians wants England's upcoming review of anti-smoking laws to consider such measures to protect the young.
It says passive smoking results in 300,000 extra child visits to GPs in the UK every year for problems such as asthma and bacterial meningitis.
But driving and smoking lobby groups say cars are a "private space". The RCP is urging a blanket ban regardless of whether children or any other passengers are inside the vehicle.
Do you support a ban on smoking in all vehicles? Are you a smoker? Do you think these proposals are too extreme? Should children be shielded from the sight of adults smoking?
Comments Post your comment
Comment number 1.At 04:52 24th Mar 2010, DtheT wrote:
There are absolutely no figures for second hand smoking related diseases to engender blanket knee jerk bans like this. Far more pollution is caused by the cars themselves (in the region of times 10 plus). One celeb dies of what could be passsive smoking (most people with a mouth his shape smoke large cigars... so was he a non-smoker?) and the knee jerk nannies blame the rest of the society he chose to spend his time with for the nations' ills. I too have spent some forty years in the same smoke filled rooms and none the casualties I know have died of passive smoking. Lets ban the KJNannies and learn how to have fun again.
Comment number 2.At 04:56 24th Mar 2010, angry_of_garston wrote:
The oft quoted studies used to qualify the original smoking ban were based on a WHO report into the effects of passive smoke on people living with smokers. The increase in the risk of cancer was from 10 in 100,000 to 12. This means that five out of six people who would have cought that cancer before the ban would still catch it afterwards. The confidence interval of the report was low and it actually appeared to show benefits to the children of smokers despite this clearly being ridiculous.
Nevertheless the smoking laws were brought in banning people from smoking generally in places were children weren't allowed making many stay at home to smoke. On top of this smokers were driven out into the streets in full view of children thus normalising smoking even more than before. Now we have a team of doctors planning on banning smoking in a place were children are for only short periods of time.
It is clear that if the studies are to be acted on then the place were smoking should be banned is in the home and people should be allowed other places to smoke. As such recent legislation is working completely the wrong way around. Of course if teh government were really concerned about the health risks of smoking the only answer is a complete ban on smoking.
Neither of the above will ever happen. The Government won't tell people what to do in their private homes (and by extension should keep out of their private cars) and will never ban smoking outright because the £10 billion tax on tobacco products easily outweighs the £2 billion spent by the NHS on treating tobacco related illness even before savings in pension payments and long term care is taken into account.
Smoking legislation is merely legislation to appease teh health stazi and make teh Government appear to be doing something when, in reality, they are merely protecting a tax source.
Comment number 3.At 05:03 24th Mar 2010, Darkseid wrote:
What next? Will doctors come and wash us, dress us and feed us, and pop in later to tuck us into bed? It's bad enough having a government that wants to micromanage our lives, without the medical fraternity climbing on the bandwagon...
Comment number 4.At 05:05 24th Mar 2010, teabreak wrote:
Comment number 5.At 05:15 24th Mar 2010, Daisy Chained wrote:
Comment number 6.At 05:35 24th Mar 2010, sir andrew freespeech wrote:
Comment number 7.At 05:39 24th Mar 2010, brucesp01 wrote:
I have no young and do not carry young persons anymore. In fact I am getting old but my once young son smokes himself so a blanket ban on smoking in cars would have no effect for me and many thousands of others I suspect. This smoking thing is getting ridiculous and petty.
Comment number 8.At 05:55 24th Mar 2010, itsdavehere wrote:
This will be yet another attack of our civil liberties. Don't these anti-smoking lobbyists realise that they're causing more harm with their anti-smoking views than the smokers are! Sounds mad? Think about it!
More smokers can't go places (pubs/clubs/etc...) because of the smoking bans, so they're unhappy.
The non-smokers aren't bothered by that, but they go to places where there would be more people and a better atmosphere if it wasn't for the smoking ban.
Many pub and club owners are facing hard times because of the smoking ban(the price of alcohol doesn't help either!)so they're unhappy.
No smoking rooms at work now, so you've got an already unhappy workforce even more unhappy.
If you include this new proposal, then we'll have a very cheesed off nation indeed.
Depression rates are quite high at the moment aren't they?
The bottom line is, in the process of caring for our physical well-being, they're inadvertently harming our mental well-being.
Lighten up a bit, eh?
Comment number 9.At 06:04 24th Mar 2010, KAOwen wrote:
Absolutely not! This has gone far enough. Our lives are being micromanaged by the government already and this goes too far. I gave up smoking years ago but every time we talk about these matters we chip away at personal choice and freedom. 8. is right, we have nothing left to enjoy... give us a break.
Comment number 10.At 06:09 24th Mar 2010, jeffers2 wrote:
I do not smoke. We don't have a car but isn't this just another sledge hammer to crack a nut? Look at the success of the mobile phone ban in cars for instance. Yesterday I saw five using them in their cars, including the one handed right hand turn. SO are police going to pursue people they think are smoking in their cars or will they set up a helpline so children can tell on their parents? It is like the climate change lobby, hit people with fines and prison rather than educate. BTW, both my parents smoked and neither myself or sister smoke but our children started due to peer pressure.
Comment number 11.At 06:19 24th Mar 2010, SnoddersB wrote:
A goos idea, however until the plice can convict the millions who use the mobile telephone with impunity while driving this is a non starter. The fact is that most modern motorists think that the driving laws about speed, parking, mobile phones, Ect. are for everyone else and not for them.
Comment number 12.At 06:23 24th Mar 2010, Paul Nicol wrote:
Yet again, another dig at smokers.
Being an ex-smoker (40 plus a day) I kmow as well as the people that come up with these bans that overall it does not cut down large numbers of smokers. I only gave up because I had a stroke.
Can these people stop being hypocrites and instead call for tobacco to be classed as a class A drug, or are they reluctant to pay the extra tax as the government would have to recover the monies elsewhere,
Comment number 13.At 06:26 24th Mar 2010, PoshFenTiger wrote:
I am a smoker and I completely agree with a full car ban on smoking. It's totally unsafe to smoke and drive at the same time. Taking your eyes off the road to flick the ash in the ash tray or out of the window causes a distraction and in that split second you could easily lose control of your car. I have been horrified on a number of occasions seeing smokers in a car with children in the back. Yeah, ok the window was open but no, I wouldn't recommend it for reasons of safe driving.
Again, still as a smoker, I often wish there was a complete ban on smoking during working hours because I abstain during those hours, ending up doing as much work as my non-smoking colleagues.
Comment number 14.At 06:28 24th Mar 2010, Steve wrote:
I just love this, all the problems we have in this country and our Government and Doctors worry about smoking, well it's a start I suppose, at least drivers can still consume alcohol and drugs drive & kill, take up valuable resources every day / weekend within the NHS A&E Departments after bottling one another in the face or kicking the crap out of an innocent by-passer, it really does make sense hitting the smoker again don't you think.
What's going to be next, What toilet paper we can use, the prohibiting of passing wind in a public place? The Government stopped us from disciplining our children look where that's got us today, I think a better law would be to stop MP's and Doctors abusing their expenses and taking free holidays?
If I have to stop smoking the one release from the daily crap I have to suffer living in this country, then I want drinking banned, I want to see yobs off my street and MP's who actually do their job because they want to, not just for the benefits the job brings.
Talk about a democratic society think again this is becoming a dictatorship, and we accuse China of the same, this is hypocrisy gone mad. MP's & Doctors should get a life and let other people live theirs the way they want, after all how many good MPs do we have, and come to think of it how many good doctors do we have, their all responsible for the loss of life at some point in their lives how many lives have smokers taken?
Enough said.
Comment number 15.At 06:28 24th Mar 2010, Hmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
How will this be enforced? On the spot CO measurements by the police? This will naturally mean that the police will need more medical training to enforce, which will also require a pay rise due to higher qualification - which will be paid for by the tax on smokers!!
"Police prevent citizen from carrying out perfectly legal activity in the privacy of their own property" has too much of an Orwellian ring to me.
If smoking is so dangerous then make it illegal. If it isn't than leave it alone.
Comment number 16.At 06:32 24th Mar 2010, read between the lies wrote:
i am a non smoker and i do support the ban on smoking in public places
i am also tired of the me me me attitude of smokers
pubs and clubs are far better now that smokin has been banned and having asthma i am not excluded as i was before
i can only think of one reason for banning smoking in cars and that is the same as for eating/drinking in cars - if you have to put one hand to your mouth whilst driving you re not fully in control of the car. people do fet fined fot eating sweets or taking a sip of juice/water so why should smokers be able to hold a cig to their mouths?
but if the car is stationary or a passanger smokes there is no need for a ban on this as the driver has the choice of telling the smoking passanger not to smoke.
so ban smoking and driving but dont just smoke in cars.
smokers i would hope would be thoughtful enough to put their childrens health before their desire to smoke but as we know many children of smokers get their cigs from mum or dad often way below the legal age
Comment number 17.At 06:33 24th Mar 2010, CoeurDeHamster wrote:
Where does this end?
So - I shouldn't smoke by myself in my car. I shouldn't smoke where I can be seen by other people. Perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to smoke in my own house in case some youngster looks in through the window. Perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to smoke in my back garden in case a youth in a micro-light spots me.
This state-sponsored tyranny stated as "don't smoke in enclosed public spaces". It is moving to "don't smoke where you can be seen". Soon it will be "don't smoke - anywhere". Another government enforced ban on something.
But it's not just smoking. Soon there will be "don't drink alcohol in a public place". Then it will be "don't eat fatty foods in public". etc. etc. Ending up as "don't do anything which we don't like" (although who the "we" are remains to be defined).
A free society is one where, within limits, one can do what one wants. The limits have been set by society to include things like "don't kill someone", "don't rob someone" etc. Now some people are trying to introduce limits along the lines of "don't do XXXX, because it's bad for you", or "don't do XXXX, because someone may be influenced by your actions". The limits are closing in. One day we will wake up and find that we have no freedoms left except the ones that "WE" think you should have.
The "Tyranny of the majority" is bad enough - now we have the "Tyranny of the pressure groups".
Comment number 18.At 06:38 24th Mar 2010, peterst12345 wrote:
I dont have kids and will break any law governing this ridiculous proposal. Will all these "experts" give up their cars to prevent me sucking in their exhaust poisons? I doubt it, that may be a bit too inconvenient for them.
Comment number 19.At 06:38 24th Mar 2010, CynicalBrit wrote:
"the £10 billion tax on tobacco products easily outweighs the £2 billion spent by the NHS on treating tobacco related illness"
Absolutley spot on - the hypocrisy is laughable.
Comment number 20.At 06:38 24th Mar 2010, Will Bungay wrote:
What's wrong with minding one's own business?
I am so sick of this sort of group who always conclude that their special interest is so important, our liberties mean absolutely nothing.
Go Away.
Comment number 21.At 06:39 24th Mar 2010, sircomespect wrote:
This is nothing more than persecution. There is a very good reason why you shouldn't smoke in cars - because it is dangerous when driving. Why shouldn't you be allowed to smoke in your own car if you don't have children or family who are likely to share it?
But to come up with this outrageous statement in nothing less than another attack on personal freedoms and liberties.
Just days after the announcement that air quality due to pollution is responsible for Asthma they come up with this.
I smell ASH behind all this.
Another concerted smear and mistruth supported by a corrupt government.
Comment number 22.At 06:43 24th Mar 2010, Brian R wrote:
I don't have Children - Children don't come into my House or car and I don't have any contact with Children so the Government can get stuffed.
May I remind everyone - Smoking is still permitted in the Palace of Westminster.
No one asked the people if we wanted to be restricted this way - I am fed up having to stand outside a Pub in the winter when half the pub is standing outside - sure they could have designated areas where a person can have a smoke free room but to cover the whole Pub has just spoiled the atmosphere
Comment number 23.At 06:45 24th Mar 2010, Samantha wrote:
I completely agree that smoking should be banned in cars.
It wasn't that long ago we were hearing stories of people being penalised for eating mars bars, sandwhiches etc whilst driving, as this causes a distraction. Surely any logical person would realise that smoking is more of a major distraction. What if hot cigarette ash fell on to your lap, this could cause the driver to take their eyes of the road, or if ash fell into the footwell and sparked a fire!!!!
Need I mention that majority of these people that do smoke in their vehicles end up tossing the used butts and empty packets onto our streets!!
I completely agree that it should be baned in cars. But not for the sole reason of having young children, who can't voice their opinions, in the cars.
Comment number 24.At 06:46 24th Mar 2010, shaun walmsley wrote:
Its like big brother gone mad,cars give out more polution than cigarette smoke anyways.
on the subject of passive smoking in homes i think it makes the world of diference smoking in a diferant room,besides i was exposed to passive smoke as a child and i am still here.
stop picking on smokers,there are far greater risks like drunk drivers or drivers under the influence of drugs that cause far more accidents/deaths that we should deal with.
Comment number 25.At 06:48 24th Mar 2010, Sarah Dickinson wrote:
Comment number 26.At 06:51 24th Mar 2010, Wideboy wrote:
Yes and we should also ban summer Barbeque they really make my cough and my cloths stink, the November bonfires and what really makes me wheeze is those disgusting diesel busses (with no one one them) which also spew out all sorts of poisonous fumes.
Comment number 27.At 06:52 24th Mar 2010, I am alive and you are dead wrote:
No. This is an intrusion of personal freedom. No, I do not smoke nor have I ever smoked.
Comment number 28.At 06:54 24th Mar 2010, Alan Baker wrote:
There are 2 issues here.
1/ I am a smoker, I smoke in MY car, I have never smoked when I have carried passengers but It is MY car, I paid for it, I run it and I put the petrol in it and if people don't like it because I smoke in MY car then they can walk or get a bus.
Public spaces are another matter and I would never smoke to the annoyance of anyone else.
2/ The Royal College of Physicians is at it again, These people are Doctors, They are very well paid to do a certain job and that job is to treat ill people and it's a pity they do not practice what they preach because most of these "physicians" I see when I attend hospital are driving around in brand new gas guzzling motors causing far more pollution and fumes than smoking ever does which is far more damaging to the environment and other people.
No one has voted for or elected these self righteous prigs to a position where they can dictate to me or anyone else, they have no authority at all to tell me what to do, yes they can advise people on the dangers of smoking, drinking etc but they have gone far beyond any authority that they have and they have turned themselves into a little club of dictators because just like solicitors and MPs they think they are more intelligent than the rest of us and therefore have superior views that we surfs must follow.
If they want to influence policy then form a political party and stand for election but don't you dare dictate to me what I can or cannot do in my own space, this is still supposed to be a free country (Joke people) so this lot can shove there stethoscopes where the Sun does not shine.
Comment number 29.At 06:54 24th Mar 2010, Sarah Dickinson wrote:
I can't believe they now want to ban smoking in cars, where will this end? Your car is your OWN private space.
The Royal College of Physicians aren't complaining about the amount of tax generated by smokers, are they?
Comment number 30.At 06:56 24th Mar 2010, GeezerMacaw wrote:
No it should not, and the goverment should go away and stop interfering in peoples lives.
I dont smoke but I dont condeme people who do, and there should NOT be a smoking ban in this country, people should be able to make there own decisions, this goverment have killed the pub industry, pubs closing all over the place, and people going out of business, all because of a stupid smoking ban
Comment number 31.At 07:01 24th Mar 2010, Matt wrote:
Please, does this mean that the generations before us who were all told by Doctors that smoking is good for you were mislead into becoming, as we are now to believe monsters on par with Marah Hinley and Ian Huntley for smoking in fron of us when we were children?. The absolute zero effects that my parents smoking in the house or the car and their friends smoking around me must obviuosly be down to the fact that I am the luckiest man alive?.
Lets stop even giving air time to these obviously stupid and ignorant people who dare to quote science in our faces when the actual living evidence is all around us.
Off course smoking is bad for you we all know that, but to listen to people on TV sitting there trying to send people on guilt trips by saying that is not even good enough to smoke out of sigt of your children at the bottom of your garden becuse they will still all die from the toxins on your clothes and in your hair....what utter utter tripe and the worse case of scientific research and abuse...is my taxpayer money fundng this?
Now to the issue of driving and smoking, anyone scratch themselves while driving? ....should be banned.....anyone change the radio station or turn up/down the vloume while driving?....should be banned, anyone sneeze while driving?....should be banned....anyone not look at their speedometer and the road at the same time as police would like us to do?....should be banned. anyone move tei hand of the steering wheel to open a window?...should be banned.....I think by now you understand where I am coming from. Now these so called experts will have you believe that smoking is such a distraction while driving it should be banned?....I would 1st like to see the statistics comparing related instances to smoking and sneezing.....and not the fudged corrupt and made up statistics that Gordon Brown pulls out of his a$%e. The truth is no driver that drives for long periods of time is always paying 100% attention as the mind wanders. This is another knee jerk reaction. Also please stop saying "Doctors" implying all Doctors agree and lets here from not just one side of the fence please i this is meant to be unbiased I do not want to just hear from the anti smokers.
What about parents who do not feed their children correctly? or help develop their mental abilities at a young age? lets have police crashing down peoples doors and taking away the parents in irons for feeding their children Findus pancakes and chips for dinner!!!!
Also this Doctor on TV this morning comparing me to a sick pedo/child killing monster because the particles that are present on me after having a cigerette are not only killing my family but am doing so in a slow and deliberately cruel way, how did she get to work this morning? does she own a car?......Monster!:P...well if this goes through I hope they go after something she enjoys next to ban and they use the same flimsy whimsicle and made up science to back their theorys....utter utter utter utter tripe..... If you want to improve peopls health then do it.....BAN SMOKING.....MAKE IT ILLEGAL.......if not....SHUT UP!
Comment number 32.At 07:01 24th Mar 2010, Steve wrote:
I am for a ban on smoking around children, and other people who do not smoke for that matter. But I am against a total blanket ban on smoking in cars. I gave up smoking 18months ago and I still feel this is a bad idea.
And even if it was a good idea, how are we going to police it? We have a ban on cell phone use and still it widely goes on, such a petty crime that 99% of the population think is not really a crime and will continue to do, ignoring the law, cannot be police effectively enough to be enforced efficiently.
Not everyone who drives a car has children, and "if you want a ride in my car then you will have to accept that I smoke".
Should people be banned from smoking in their homes if they have guests who do not smoke? I think not, this is no different.
Comment number 33.At 07:02 24th Mar 2010, read between the lies wrote:
Comment number 34.At 07:02 24th Mar 2010, solomondogs wrote:
Where do we go once we open up the door for further legislation within your own vehicle? This is all getting a bit silly now, I think the smoking ban has done enough as it stands and besides that we are far too over regulated already, this is another sledge hammer to crack a nut. Just think of how much fun the authorities will have rounding up law abiding citizens having what they thought was a 'legal' cigarette outside thier local pub, because it might be close to where young people gather. The possibilities for criminilising even more of the population are endless.
Comment number 35.At 07:03 24th Mar 2010, Alan Baker wrote:
At 6.32 am Comment number 16 (read between the lines wrote)
i can only think of one reason for banning smoking in cars and that is the same as for eating/drinking in cars - if you have to put one hand to your mouth whilst driving you re not fully in control of the car.
What rubbish, according to this logic (unless you drive an automatic) every time you take your hand off the steering wheel to change gear or look in the rear view mirror or listen to the radio you are not in full control of the car, you are distracted for a micro second.
What a weak and feeble statement.
Comment number 36.At 07:04 24th Mar 2010, wizmyrddin wrote:
I agree with the comments of BRIANCARSON I myself am a driver of 50 years and a smoker, I don't have children, I'm a single male, nearly 60yrs and now they want me to cease smoking in my car, my home and in my time, when the gov pay for a car and buy my home they can tell me what to do, until then shut up.
Comment number 37.At 07:05 24th Mar 2010, Ron wrote:
Here we go again!!! Do Gooders telling us what we can't do!!!
Hello!! We are talking about your Children.
I absolutely insist on no smoking in the car when the kids are in the car. I do not kneed Doctors to tell me.
On the other hand it would seem the simplest why to do things these days is to ban, ban & ban. A ban is not the way ahead; give credit for the majority of us, who already do the sensible things. I would say that the wheezing etc is the state of fitness of children today, given the level of fitness activities they do at school and the home.
Those of who you are complaining; this is what you should be doing anyway?????
Comment number 38.At 07:07 24th Mar 2010, Andrew Lindop wrote:
Comment number 39.At 07:08 24th Mar 2010, emily radetsk wrote:
Comment number 40.At 07:08 24th Mar 2010, Wideboy wrote:
People using the argument of smoking is a distraction as a reason to ban it in cars, I ask to them what about the radio? Surly changing the radio or cd you have to take your eyes off the road god forbid, it bet every one has done that, blah blah blah
Also are you going to ban children from the cars as I see women more paying attention the screaming child in the back than to the road in front them , I has seen this may times and the accidents it has caused.
Comment number 41.At 07:10 24th Mar 2010, jackluvstrictly wrote:
Years gone by 80% of population smoked but few families had cars so how come now smoking is down to 25% of the population, asthma etc has supposedly increased. Could it be due to pollution now that most families have 2 or more cars?
Jack, Kent
Comment number 42.At 07:10 24th Mar 2010, Simon Davies wrote:
I hate people smoking around me and love the ban in public places. However smoking in a private car is just that - private. It is nothing to do with the State.
There are too many officials and quasi-officials who think it is their role to control our private lives. These people should be removed from their position of public authority, i.e. Fired!
Comment number 43.At 07:10 24th Mar 2010, solomondogs wrote:
It might be a better idea for doctors to spend a little more time keeping an eye on thier patients both in and outside our hospitals before they start on another campaign to criminilise more people, it seems to me that they should be concentrating on what they should be doing, rather than making life more miserable for others.
Comment number 44.At 07:11 24th Mar 2010, Hazel wrote:
I can't believe that you are not allowed to eat, drink, talk on the phone, or blow your nose behind the wheel, but you can play with fire. Where is the common sense in that?
Comment number 45.At 07:12 24th Mar 2010, Chris wrote:
A smoking ban in cars is just ridiculous. That is the same as a smoking ban in peoples houses. I don't agree with smoking around children and never do it myself but it is up to the parents to act responsibly. As for it contributing to asthma, I was born with asthma, suffered severe attacks 3 times a year at least. When I was 16 I started smoking and since then I have had 2 asthma attacks in the past 12 years! I don't know about anyone else but I would like to see independent study results about the effects of smoking as we can't trust people employed by the government as all they want to do is line their own pockets with money so they say things are bad and up the prices.
Comment number 46.At 07:14 24th Mar 2010, davehumby wrote:
Please lets just ban children - the world is overpopulated anyway
Comment number 47.At 07:14 24th Mar 2010, CJ1954 wrote:
Enough! Bureaucracy is half the reason we're in this economic crisis, and spurious research feeds bureaucrats with the tools for new laws. We're becoming controlled robots, so hands off what's left of individual liberty and choice. Our cars and homes are our territory, and we should be able to set our own standards.
Comment number 48.At 07:15 24th Mar 2010, DoleBoy wrote:
A load of comments and as usual not backed up with any evidence eg angry_of_garston comment, zero evidence maximum propaganda. I saw the evidence of smoking only yesterday; I visited my mum who is in hospital having chemotherapy, her cancer all related to her smoking habit. I also saw many others, some patients never smoked, their cancers were different. I think smoking ought to be banned everywhere in public, it is a very addictive drug, watching someone smoke gives a negative impression to younger people, there is still a culture of coolness attached, just like when I was a lad. If people were not seen to be so cool by killing themselves, it can only be a good thing. I used to smoke myself, even having half my lung removed didn't stop me, in the end it was a realisation that there is more to life than sucking on a tobacco stick and my life had stopped. I smoked 20 a day and calculated that I spent hours smoking and by quitting I had gained an extra 12 hours a week to live my life!
Comment number 49.At 07:15 24th Mar 2010, ruffled_feathers wrote:
So will they fit cars with a smoke detector so that if you light up a sprinkler system starts up? Or will it immobilise the car? Or perhaps you'll find you're driving along with a flashing yellow light on the roof that can only be turned off at the police station?
Of course passive smoking for children is not right, but in order to deal with that you would need to remove every child from its parents where one or both of them (or granny) smokes.
Comment number 50.At 07:16 24th Mar 2010, P Steadman wrote:
Jogging causes wearing of the joints, BAN IT?.
Mountain climbing or skydiving are just dangerous, BAN THEM?.
Computer use causes Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and RSI, BAN IT?.
Giving birth causes deaths in mothers and in children, BAN IT?.
Diesel engines give out carcinogenic particulates, BAN THEM?
Countless other human activities that kill or maim by the thousands, BAN THEM ALL?, no of course we won't, it's freedom of choice isn't it.
I do not expect you to start smoking or to give up your chosen method of killing/injuring yourself, I would not dream of imposing my own petty morality on anyone else, please extend the same courtesy to me.
It's My life to waste as I choose, your life can be wasted in your chosen environment, One that is as risk free as you can make it, yet still won't allow you to live forever. Sorry but it's true, you're all going to die, one way or another.
So go and sort yourself out and get off my back, I'm going to have a smoke now, OK?
Comment number 51.At 07:17 24th Mar 2010, Sjeh76 wrote:
Oh dear God, here we go again.
There will come a time, and I imagine that this will come quite soon, where the public will rise up against all these quangos, advisory boards and think tanks because of the outright damage they have done. They have a solitary interest and their job is to further that interest.
That's why we don't have pubs anymore.
I didn't smoke in enclosed public spaces before the ban, unless everyone else was. So I could handle the ban. But if I get told that I can't smoke in my car, on my own, I might actually lose it.
This is too much. If made law, this will be the beginning of the end for parliament - we've given up quite a few things in recent years - smoking in pubs, dna on the database without knowing it, taxes that paid for jollies, duckponds and porn, any vestige of self-respect we had as a nation and so on - there is actually an end to this tether they have us on.
I have never heard anything more facile than this.
Comment number 52.At 07:21 24th Mar 2010, michelle lee wrote:
Please all you smokers, think about your future even though you dont like being told what to do i say tough at least you will live to tell the tale.I have a daughter and i want to see her live a healthy life with out being influenced by any body that puts a danger to her in all ways.
Comment number 53.At 07:22 24th Mar 2010, Keith wrote:
Smokers are selfish. The fact that their family or other peoples family will be affected will not concern them. An open window and throwing the ash and used cigarette out of the window also teaches children that littering is acceptable.
Comment number 54.At 07:24 24th Mar 2010, dogeared wrote:
What's all this about protecting children? If there is a risk, we all need protecting.
The best approach is to just ban the production of tobacco products.
Comment number 55.At 07:26 24th Mar 2010, JDCAMERAMAN wrote:
I do not and have never smoked. I loathe the smell of cigarette smoke, and object to having to "run the gauntlet" of smokers outside pubs and clubs and throwing their "dog ends" into the road.
However, what people do in their own homes or cars is their business, and I object strongly to the meddling of others into the freedom that is so fast being eroded in the UK. Peoples private space, i.e. their homes and cars, is theirs in which to do what they like ! There are now more rules and laws than there are personnel to enforce them.
The sooner we get rid of our state "Stasis & Gestapo" - the better it will be for us all !
Comment number 56.At 07:29 24th Mar 2010, Runckle wrote:
Yes, my sister was a complete idiot when driving with a fag! How many car seats get burned near your private parts. What are the drivers doing at this point when the fag is burning the seat between their legs. Not concentrating on the road obviously!
Ex-smoker, Ex-driver, Ex-idiot!
Comment number 57.At 07:33 24th Mar 2010, James T Kirk wrote:
40. At 07:08am on 24 Mar 2010, irondoctorglennjones wrote:
People using the argument of smoking is a distraction as a reason to ban it in cars, I ask to them what about the radio? Surly changing the radio or cd you have to take your eyes off the road god forbid, it bet every one has done that, blah blah blah
Also are you going to ban children from the cars as I see women more paying attention the screaming child in the back than to the road in front them , I has seen this may times and the accidents it has caused.
Your argument is basically that we should not do something that will achieve greater safety because we cannot achieve total safety. Mankind would never have made any step forwards throughout history with such an approach.
Whenever I see a driver of another car (at a junction, driving behind etc) who is smoking I take extra care as I am aware that such a driver may not be in full control of their car. Similarly I am extra cautious if following (or even in front of) someone where the driver insists on looking at a passenger whilst talking to them, thus taking their attention off the road in front.
However, the most significant issue here is given the lack of enforcement or even enforecability of hand held mobile phone legislation, how would this actually be enforced?
Comment number 58.At 07:34 24th Mar 2010, EBAYTKMAX wrote:
100% YES! Smoking should be banned in all cars where children are inside.I think if its your own car & NO child/teen inside under 16 then fine, smoke yourself to death. But dont force it onto children & babies. To me, thats a form of abuse. I have never smoked in my life, but I am against the ban on smoking in pubs etc I think there should be a room inside where smokers can eat, drink & smoke.
Comment number 59.At 07:34 24th Mar 2010, Robert Kearney-Bradley wrote:
This is yet another think tank stupidity.
My wife and I have no children, and yet some think tank that has nothing better to do wants to take away another chunk of my basic human rights. If its my car, providing I am obeying the Highway code, road legal, I will smoke in my own car.
Why should I get penalised for someone elses children? I pay enough in tax and other penalties from this government to pay for everything else, get real guys.
A think tank in Kent has now suggested we ban think tanks!
Comment number 60.At 07:34 24th Mar 2010, Robert Warstein wrote:
Comment number 61.At 07:36 24th Mar 2010, Megan wrote:
I would like to see medics concentrating on finding actual CAUSES of disease rather than relying on statistics in the manner that a drunk relies on a lamp post - more for support than illumination.
Once proper science has been done on the actual causal effects of each disease mentioned, further work can be done to look for the cure, rather than the current regime of treating symptoms.
Bleating propaganda does the profession a disservice, as ordinary people believe less and less of what medics say because the evidence is not there.
Comment number 62.At 07:36 24th Mar 2010, Alan Jarratt wrote:
I Totally agree with the proposal on banning smoking in or around children. Adults have a choice if they wish to take risks with their health, children do not. This is a topic very near to my heart in that I am recently seperated and my wife has left me and taken our two young daughters to live with a man that smokes. I am currently fighting for my daughters return to a safe and healthy environment through the Courts, and have continuously raised my concerns about the health risks my children are being subjected to. Even my daughters object, particularly the youngest, as they both experienced only a year ago their Grandfather dying of cancer. Frankly as a responsible adult and parent I'm quite disgusted at some of the responses that have been posted and the complete lack of care or respect shown to children.
Comment number 63.At 07:38 24th Mar 2010, Lisa wrote:
I have had asthma since I was 2. Doctors always told me it was genetic. Have they now changed their mind? Are they saying that if parents don't smoke they child is guaranteed not to get asthma?? Similarly, are you guaranteed not to get lung cancer if you never smoke or never have contact with smoke?? I agree with smoking bans in pubs and clubs but (even though I don't smoke myself) I think that this is going too far.
Comment number 64.At 07:39 24th Mar 2010, CaptJack wrote:
As a motorcyclist AND car driver a I would whole-heartedly support the ban. I'm sick of the selfishness of smokers in vehicles who flick their lighted cigarette-end out of the window with no regards to where it is going to land. I have had to pull over and stop on more than one occasion due to a lighted cigarette-end becoming trapped in my clothing. This clothing is costly to replace and you can just imagine the furore if I was to ride past and flick a lighted cigarette into a car. I'd probably be prosecuted (quite rightly) but it doesn't seem to happen the other way round.
Yes please, ban smoking in all vehicles.
Comment number 65.At 07:39 24th Mar 2010, Dave Townsend wrote:
Absolutely in favour of an absolute ban on smoking, but understand that the restrictions have to be brought in gradually to wean teh country off of Tabacco.
Would like to see the cureent review lead to a ban on smoking within 10 metres of the entrance to any building. I hate running the gauntlet throgh the disgusting miasma of smoke outside buildings where smokers congregate.
Comment number 66.At 07:39 24th Mar 2010, hellyview wrote:
I can't believe what I am hearing this morning and reading here. I agree it is not possible to police eating and blowing your nose in the car, however some people have been prosecuted for this, however can someone tell me how people are in control of a car when lighting a cigarette,smoking and if it is dropped in the car how they will continue to drive without being distracted!!!!!!. At least if you drop your apple or sweets you can continue to drive until it is safe to pull over. I have struggled to understand this for some time aside from the health issues that are being raised today.
Comment number 67.At 07:40 24th Mar 2010, MEV wrote:
I am not a do gooder but the health of peoples children surely should come first. If a power station, nuclear power station, mobile phone mast etc was built near your home and your child / children became ill everyone would be up in arms smokers included on how dreadful it was and something should be done. I'm sure that when you see demo's against Phone masts being put up near schools smokers are there complaining about the effects that this may have on their children. It the attitude of smokers is 'oh its a nanny state' perhaps if smokers thought about their childrens health then the nanny state would not need to get involved.
Comment number 68.At 07:42 24th Mar 2010, Denny Senave wrote:
Personaly i think this smoking ban is getting a bi to the extreme to ban it from peoples home and cars.
Its bad enough that you cant even go to a pub anymore these days and have a smoke on the other side getting out of places where people eat is a great idea totaly for it.
Comment number 69.At 07:42 24th Mar 2010, different_sizes wrote:
When will these interfering busybodies learn to keep their noses out of people's private lives?
They pluck figures out of the air - "The report does concede that these figures are only estimates, but says it is confident they give an "indication" of the number of children who become ill." - and then use them to justify interference in people's lives.
I stopped smoking over 20 years ago, but demand the right to let people smoke in my house or car if I so choose - I won't let them if there are children present, but this is none of the RCP's business.
Comment number 70.At 07:43 24th Mar 2010, Robert Warstein wrote:
Comment number 71.At 07:45 24th Mar 2010, Simon in Carmarthenshire wrote:
What a nonsense!! Maybe we as a society should concentrate on stopping the physical, mental and sexual abuse of children before deciding to address the risks of second-hand smoke on them. It's a sad fact that on a daily basis many thousands of kids face a far more brutal danger than asthma or a chest infection.
This is plainly just more futile knee-jerk utopian rhetoric, which in common with so many 'proposals' of the past 10 years or so, would be impossible to enforce and is designed purely to create media exposure.
Comment number 72.At 07:45 24th Mar 2010, Sean wrote:
It's easy really, but will take a government with a backbone. Ban smoking altogether or get off smokers backs. Talk about cake and eat it!! Or is it just a bad news day, or perhaps another excuse to validate a 10p rise in the cost of a packet?
Timing is everything with these non stories.
Comment number 73.At 07:45 24th Mar 2010, Chirpycat14 wrote:
I am not sure that I agree with banning smoking near public areas with children, how could that possibly be enforced and, much as I personally detest the habit, I believe it is an affront to peoples personal freedoms.
In cars is a different matter - but for differing reasons. Smoking in a car is distracting in the same way as using a mobile - the cigarette/cigar/pipe has to be lit, held awkardly in a hand that should be used for steering and then safely disposed of (not thrown out of the window - that is just littering). All this is a distraction. Further, in the event of an accident, you have a potential source of ignition, especially if the smoker/driver is incapacitated! It is for these reasons that smoking should be banned in cars.
Comment number 74.At 07:46 24th Mar 2010, P Steadman wrote:
This idea is ostensibly aimed at protecting kids, clearly this is not the case or it wouldn't be a blanket ban, could it be that we have created a new breed of criminal that displays an easily traced number on his front and back who can then be sent a fixed penalty notice, kids in the car or not.
29 years driving and smoking, not one fire, not one bump, not one major pile up, nobody I know has suffered with asthma or emphysema or, indeed, died of cancer.
I cannot be held responsible for all the people who may have suffered from my engine exhaust fumes... but that's another story and because I do not wish to ridicule the simple minded, I will not mention it.
Comment number 75.At 07:46 24th Mar 2010, EBAYTKMAX wrote:
It would be great too if it was banned inside the HOUSE where there are teens & children under 16. We go to my sister in law & we all choke with the smoke but we cant say anything as its her house but for the poor kids, who live there, it seems no one cares or can help. They are just there to breathe it all IN. How could it be enforced? YOU tell me.
Comment number 76.At 07:47 24th Mar 2010, Len Day wrote:
Smoking in a car by the driver could be a cause for distraction, so a ban on the driver smoking would be logical. Maybe it could be argued that the passengers smoking could also be a distraction for the driver, particularly if they're a non-smoker, so overall, I would support a ban on smoking in cars.
Comment number 77.At 07:47 24th Mar 2010, Anthony wrote:
The problem with this proposed ban on smoking in cars is:like the business/workplace smoking ban in business/workplace vehicles,where both the business owner and work colleagues smoke(like building contractors/decorators etc;you often find this the case),it will be very impossible to police and enforce this, people still light up and smoke in workplace/business vehicles despite the law making it illegal in workplace vehicles making a mockery of that rule. I'm sorry but this ban on smoking in private vehicles will fall flat on it's face like the ban on smoking in workplace vehicles has done;also what if the work colleagues smoke as well as the owner of the business? You still get that going on where builder's mates/decorators mates etc light up along with the person driving a vehicle as well.
Comment number 78.At 07:48 24th Mar 2010, helen at benfleet wrote:
The Royal College of Physicians is a medical body and not a policy making body. They can comment on medical matters if they like - preferably from the basis of scientific fact and not from a basis of preference and patriarchal opinion - but policy is the matter of government and their opinions on this should get no more credence than the opinions of anybody else.
Comment number 79.At 07:48 24th Mar 2010, rod sloan wrote:
Comment number 80.At 07:49 24th Mar 2010, P Steadman wrote:
I'd rather die of passive smoking than live with passive fascism.
Comment number 81.At 07:50 24th Mar 2010, EBAYTKMAX wrote:
It saddens me when I see children in a car & the windows are CLOSED or open a bit while the adult smokes. It's cruel,it should be banned.
Comment number 82.At 07:51 24th Mar 2010, TheSamePeopleAlwaysGetPicked wrote:
There seems to be some confusion of whether a car is or isn't a private or public place. Many years ago when the Dangerous Dogs Act came into being, an unmuzzled pit pull, in a car, was deemed to be "in a public place". Yet if you are smoking in your car, it is deemed a private place. The law can't have it both ways.
Comment number 83.At 07:51 24th Mar 2010, s westlake wrote:
surely it is our job as parents to protect our children. there is a risk to children from passive smoke and no matter how great that risk we shouldn't be so selfish as to continue to so something that may be harming them.parents should step outside the house or car to have a smoke or give up altogether
Comment number 84.At 07:52 24th Mar 2010, Gabriel Oaks wrote:
There were no children in our now decimated pubs but with Nanny state hiding under the coat-tails of children we've got another excuse for cars regardless of whether a children is on board or not!
But surely a greater risk is posed by exhaust emmissions on our streets so if smoking in cars is to be banned then presumably all cars should be banned too?
I'm just sitting here waiting for a Doctor to turn up and tie my shoelaces lest they come loose and I trip over a child on mny way to work .....
Comment number 85.At 07:53 24th Mar 2010, Ian wrote:
It is clear to me that drivers should not smoke. It is also not acceptable to smoke near someone who does not.
Comment number 86.At 07:53 24th Mar 2010, David Swinbank wrote:
A far greater risk to our children and ourselves is passive inhaling of exhaust fumes and other pollutants which must cost the NHS Billions. the same intensity put in to anti smoking campaigns, could clean up our towns & cities. & benefit us all.
A step to far against smokers!!
Comment number 87.At 07:54 24th Mar 2010, Stuart wrote:
So - while I agree entirely with not making our children and other non smokers inhale our smoke, I think its about time a stand was taken. We are moving further and further away from having democratic rights. It is unnaceptable - or is this statement too late already? I have managed to be a smoker and NOT make my wife and chidren (or anyone else I come in contact with that does not smoke) breathe in my smoke when in a car. I did not need the law to make me do this. I used common sense, my sense of responsibility, my love for my family and respect for other people to make the decision. Someone do something - because I dont have the money to fund it (thanks to the banking systems mismanagement meaning I also have no job)
Comment number 88.At 07:55 24th Mar 2010, P Steadman wrote:
When the "Health Nazis" have eliminated all risk from our society, smoking, drinking, eating, walking, not walking, etc., will we all finally live forever?, what then for the pension system???
Comment number 89.At 07:56 24th Mar 2010, prexiousMary wrote:
Don't make me laugh - protect the young - I don't think so - smoking is a choice - aborting babies, babies don't have any choice!
Comment number 90.At 07:57 24th Mar 2010, PECP wrote:
We are rightly concerned about the dangers of smoking where ever that may be, however, in a moving vehicle a smoking driver is also a hazard to other people near that vehicle because it takes the drivers attention fron the outside scene and in addition means that the driver has only one hand to control the vehicle. We have seen succesful prosecutions for eating or drinking in vehicle why not add smoking to this list?
Comment number 91.At 07:58 24th Mar 2010, Jack B wrote:
Let's get this over with and just prohibit the sale of tobacco and ban smoking everywhere except the home.
The combination of these two measures would see the number of smokers drop to virtually zero. After all how many smokers would actually bother to grow their own?
Comment number 92.At 07:58 24th Mar 2010, Winston Smith wrote:
As the rest of the population have to pay ever increasing amounts to treat smoking related illness it is only right that a penalty be paid by those who endanger their own lives and others by the habit.An additional tax on smoking which truly reflect the cost of treatment should be imposed along with bans on smoking anywhere near non smokers in public.If you have children you should not be selfish enough to endanger their lives anyway.To be fair the same should also apply to alcohol another increasing cost to the NHS.
Comment number 93.At 07:59 24th Mar 2010, BenisBored wrote:
Although I hate seeing people smoking in cars, it is a private space.
Private taxi cabs I can see the point as that is generally a public place.
Why doesn't teh government just ban them full stop.
Comment number 94.At 08:00 24th Mar 2010, Georgie Boy wrote:
I think banning smoking in all public places where children gather would be a great step forward. I attend college at the moment and to reach the main building I must walk past masses of students all smoking on the street. Some would say I am probably over reacting but because the college can not operate a no smoking policy on the street (Councils property) students who do not smoke must walk through that every day. I have seen no end of my friends coming into class coughing and spluttering, smelling like cigarette smoke. Not only that, there is also often the slight smell of students smoking something a little more exotic than just cigarettes, something has to be done about it.
Comment number 95.At 08:01 24th Mar 2010, michelle wrote:
how about banning cars then? i don't drive but every day i have to breathe in filthy car fumes.
Comment number 96.At 08:02 24th Mar 2010, The_Guvnor wrote:
Whenever I hear 'scientists' ( or professional liars if they are of the cult of 'climate change' ) come up with things like this I always think of the classic Frankie Boyle quote about them having too much time on their hands -
Scientist A - What shall we do today, look for a cure for cancer?
Scientist B - No, i'm going to see how many fruit pastels it takes to choke a kestrel.
Oh and exactly as to where the 300,000 visits per year figure as a result of so called passive smoking comes from is anyones guess, three darts thrown at the board and multiplying the numbers together? If that where the case then about one in four children have to seek medical help as a direct result of passive smoking, nothing else mind, every year, does anybody with the IQ above that of a biscuit think this is the case?
You don't think this could be a good ruse for the government to steal yet more cash out of a motorists wallet per chance?
Nah, that would never happen, would it...
Comment number 97.At 08:02 24th Mar 2010, Peter Bridgemont wrote:
Comment number 98.At 08:03 24th Mar 2010, sevennine wrote:
People, should stop being brainwashed about passive smoking, what about Air Quality,no one ever discusses this subject. People sit outside cafes, walk on main streets, open car windows, do they not think that maybe these exhaust fumes are not doing them any harm.
Driving to Manchester on a summers day, over the hills, you could see the blue haze. The smell, and taste of exhaust fumes was terrible, then my family to used to tell me to stop smoking,
Comment number 99.At 08:03 24th Mar 2010, Garry wrote:
Regardless of passive smoking it is absurd to allow any driver to have burning tobacco distracting them from driving. If you cannot eat and drink why can you smoke? Have you ever seen the antics of a driver who drops their cigarette? It should have been banned on safety grounds years ago.
Comment number 100.At 08:04 24th Mar 2010, rod sloan wrote:
Ban smoking in cars?why not just ban cars?i am sick of people telling me what to do,where to do it & when to do it.All you none smokers complain about passive smoking,your cars do more damage to childrens lungs than my smoking,but you have a car so we cant ban them.They tell us how to diceplin children,how much to drink (not long before thats banned)What we can & cant eat,followed everywhere by cameras,keeping every bit of information about us.We are in different countrys getting dictators out & freeing people.What a joke,we are one of the most oppressed countries in the world.Government can commit fraud & just pay the money back,we would be in prison,There old school pals,ie banks can rip us off & the government make it legal to do so.This country has gone down hill fast & is getting worse.The people running the country havent got a clue how normal people live,they dont trust adults to make their own decisions.We are not capable.haha & they are.


text:
Collaborative Resources
HRS has collaborated with our partners to create additional resources to align with our mission statement.
WebMD and Medscape Education
Access the free, online patient module, How to Reduce Your Risk of Stroke Due to AFib.
Medtronic Resources
Find a Doctor who Performs Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation
Complete this form to find a cryoballoon specialist near you.
Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation
Atrial fibrillation, known as AF or AFib, is an irregular, rapid heart rate that may cause symptoms like heart palpitations, fatigue, and shortness of breath. Know your treatment options.
Resources for Atrial Fibrillation
Looking for more information on atrial fibrillation (AF)? Check out resources to help aid you in your journey with AF.
Search Exclude

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Living in an area where much of the population is LDS provides a unique atmosphere where discussions on topics related to religious belief often arise. A few of my closest LDS friends and I have pressed one another on such matters to points that might make others feel uncomfortable or violated. Both sides usually begin these conversations by appealing to less subjective factors like history, science, and philosophy. Occasionally, though, a Mormon friend eventually claims that their primary, and sometimes only reason for believing rests on what they call a personal revelation or personal witness. I can sympathize with such claims since I too see experience as essential to one's spiritual life; however I am convinced that insurmountable problems arise for those who rely on subjective bases alone or when other factors clearly contradict their interpretation of their subjective experience.
For instance, imagine there are three women, one Muslim, one Christian, and one Jewish. They all claim that they know their religion is true because God has shown this truth to them through personal revelation. However, all three of these faith traditions have competing claims. If Jesus is in fact the divine Son of God, then Islam and Judaism are, at least in this regard, in error. Likewise, if Muhammad is God's last prophet, then Judaism and Christianity are in error. Put simply, not all of these women can be equally correct in their convictions. Figuring out whether a faith tradition is true can be difficult (some might say impossible) work, so the three women might settle for saying "my faith is right for me, but maybe yours is right for you." Under such a view religious affiliation becomes little more significant than one's preferred color or food. Additionally, the claim of the LDS faith and many other faith traditions is a strong, authoritative one. The LDS faith, according to its official doctrines, claims not to be just one of many different-but-equal options, but the most true religion. Such a claim, as any good debater or philosopher knows, places the burden of proof on the LDS faith.
"The LDS church is true because the Holy Spirit revealed to me that it is so" and similar claims cannot be used to surpass this burden of proof since such a claim is relevant only to the subject making the claim. One can always fall back on "try it for yourself and then you will see," but what if the individual challenged does try and still isn't convinced? I doubt members of the LDS faith would be comfortable concluding that this disproves their faith tradition.
Authoritative claims require proofs or arguments that are understandable and sound to all parties involved in a dialogue. I invite LDS voices to respond to my post so that I might better understand why Mormons stay Mormon and so I might be corrected where I have made errors in this post.


text:
Awesome sentiment!
Cardstock: PTI True Black, Gina K Pure Luxury White
Patterned Paper: Echo Park Apothecary Emporium
Stamps: TE Toil & Trouble and Apothecary Shelf
Ink: Memento Tuxedo Black
Other: Copics
Size: 5.5" x 4.25"
Hey Linda! I like this card..so spooky! Great job with the copics. I really like the spider web on your card!ReplyDelete
Awesome card Linda!! I love the jars with all the ghoully things in them!!ReplyDelete
I love your Halloween cards! I'm a new visitor and follower and am looking forward to your creativity!ReplyDelete
Thanks! That's sweet of you. I am really looking forward to some new Halloween creations this year!Delete


text:
Chapter 9 - Stay Stopped!
Well, he stops. He goes. The POINT, however, was to catch him, hmmm?
COMEBEFORES - He'll need to know both Go and Stop.
START HERE - We'll start with the llama in the round pen. You're standing in the middle of the pen.
AIM FOR THIS - When you look at his tail, he moves forward around the pen. When you look at his head, he stops, back ups, or goes the other way. Now you're going to balance him so you can approach him. You'll say "Jimmy!" or "Jimmy, Whoa!", he'll stop and stand still while you walk up to him.
HOW TO TEACH IT - Somewhere between the llama's head and tail, there's a balance point. It's usually just behind the shoulder, but you'll have to ask your llama to help you find the exact location. When your head and shoulders are pointed directly at this spot (remember this is what I mean when I say you're "looking" at that spot), you aren't asking the llama to go forward OR back. You're asking him to stand still. The problem he's going to have is that standing still might be OK, but standing still while you approach him probably isn't on his agenda. When you were asking him to go forward, you rewarded his effort by letting him walk forward out of the pressure zone. Since you're now asking him to stand still, YOU are going to have to turn away or move away from him when he's done a good job. The closer you get to him, the harder it'll be for him to stand still and the more important the reward will be. Ask him to walk forward and stop a couple of times just to be sure you're both communicating. Then with him stopped, instead of rewarding him, switch your power from his head to his balance point. If he's very calm and you're very good, he'll remain standing still. But not likely! Probably, he'll see you moving your power from his head toward his tail and assume you're asking him to move forward. Good thing you've been practising stop and go! If he moves forward, look at his head immediately to stop him. If he moves backward, look at his tail to stop him from going in that direction. You'll have to play around with this a bit until he understands what you're saying. Don't get frustrated, and above all remember to turn away from him to reward him when he gets it right. When you're both good at balancing, you can ask for a little more. With one arm, point at the balance point. Watch for a weight shift or neck movement as he decides to move, and be ready to shift your power to stop him. If he starts to move forward, you'll look at his head. If he starts to move back or turn, you'll look at his tail. As your communication gets better, you'll find that from the balance point you can move or stop him by shifting your power a couple of inches rather than having to look all the way to his head or tail. Keep trying until you can point your arm toward his balance point while looking there without him moving. Be sure to reward him by turning away and lowering your arm when he stands still. Then with your arms at your sides, look at the balance point and take a small step toward it. Stop any forward or backward motion immediately and reward him for standing still. When he's got that, take that small step forward AND point. Somewhere in here he's going to decide you're too darn close and he's going to get out of the way. Usually at this point I'll push him three or four times around the pen and then give him a chance to rest by asking him to stop, then start explaining what I want again. Don't be afraid to back up or start over. You're trying to explain something quite complicated and probably unpleasant to an alien being who doesn't speak English. You're both going to make mistakes!
POSSIBLE PROBLEM - It's really important that you work in a pen with no little spots the llama can get caught in. If he can go face-first into a small cubbyhole, you can't balance him, and constantly having to get him out of the space and back onto the rail isn't going to do your relationship any good at all.
IN OTHER WORDS - If he's taking treats from you, ask him to move around the pen, click and reward him for moving. Move him again, and ask him to stop, click and reward for stopping. Move him again, stop him, balance him, click/reward for balancing. Move him again, stop him, balance him, take a step toward him, C/R for staying still. Keep working until you're touching his withers.
GETTING BETTER - As he's able to trust you to be closer to him, to continue speaking clearly about what you want, and to keep rewarding him when he guesses right, you'll be able to get closer and closer before turning away. Then that magic moment you're looking at his balance point, you're very close to him, he's comfortable you reach your hand out and touch his withers! And he stands still! Don't get too caught up in the moment - this is a good time to make a big impression. At the very least leave the pen for a minute if you can't stop the lesson altogether.


text:
Day 72 / 365
For this week's theme on energy, I invited a company called MyDomino to do some guestposts for me on the economical and ecological benefits of green/clean energy in your home. MyDomino provides a service where they can personalise what programs are available and practical for you and your home and give you some financial projections on when you'll break even on any green energy investments you make. This isn't a sponsored post, I haven't received any money for posting their stories, I am instead happily taking a partial break this week to get after some freelance work outside this blog and share their expert insight with you. I've written the intros but the suggestions are theirs.
Electricity has been around since the dawn of time, we weren't really able to harness it until the early 1800s, and even then, the first incandescent light bulb wasn't patented until 1879. Since then, we've gone on to use electricity to power just about everything we touch and experience. But where that electricity comes from makes all the difference.
The last 10 years has seen a huge jump in advances which make generating electricity sustainably possible on a grand scale, which is a huge thing for our species and the planet, as green power is the key to ditching dirty fuels.
I asked MyDomino to explain for their last guestpost in this series just how and why ditching these dirty fuels can benefit us going forward:
How do we make the transition from dirty fuels to clean, renewable energy? It's simple. We have the technology today to switch from coal, oil, and gas to electricity — in our homes and in our cars. If we switch to electricity, and then use clean sources to generate that electricity, we can get to 100% clean.
This is all within reach. Today, we can use clean, renewable electricity for:
- Lights, appliances, and everything else we're already powering with electricity
- Heating and cooling our homes
- Cooking
- Driving
- Heating and cooling our homes
- Cooking
- Driving
Power all those with solar panels or green power, and you're off dirty energy. Best of all, you don't have to make lifestyle sacrifices. Modern electric cars and appliances work even better than their dirty-energy counterparts, it's a natural progression.
More and more of our appliances and vehicles are running on electricity. In the past, items that ran on dirty fuels were generally considered superior to their electric counterparts. But this is now changing.
Tesla's Model S, for example, has won several Car of the Year awards. It was competing across the entire industry, not just against electric cars. A Model S may be out of reach for many, but a lot of what makes it great isn't related to its price — and many affordable models are coming on the market. Electric cars are safe, drive well, and are more reliable than their gas counterparts. Do we need to mention that they're cleaner?
The benefits of electricity aren't limited to cars. Electric heat pumps can heat and cool your home more efficiently than traditional furnaces. Electric tankless water heaters are catching on, thanks to their ability to heat just the water that's actually coming out of the tap. And electric induction stoves cook food more quickly, allow more control, and are safer to use and easier to clean than other types of stoves.
Making it even easier to go all-electric are modern batteries. Battery technology has come a long way in recent years. The cost is continuing to come down, while performance is improving. Lithium-ion batteries, in particular, have dropped in price as production has vastly ramped up in recent years.
Energy storage density is improving as well. Smaller, longer-lasting batteries are now paving the way for you to use more electrical products throughout your home. And research is going into new types of batteries that will perform even better. Battery storage will be increasingly used along with solar power in coming years.
We're changing how we get our electricity. Instead of buying power from the utility company, more and more people are choosing to make it themselves. Rooftop solar provides homeowners with a way to both save money and switch to clean, renewable energy. Community solar is also becoming increasingly available, and allows anyone — even renters — to make the switch to solar. Green power options around the country are also making it easier for more people to use clean energy.
It's not just individuals who are making the switch. Large companies like Google and Walmart are moving to renewable electricity as well. Even utilities themselves are getting on board and experimenting with micro-grids, which include renewable electricity and battery backups.
It's easy to power your life with electricity
With the world increasingly electrifying everything, we're at a point where ditching dirty fuels makes sense. Household items of all kinds work great with clean, renewable electricity.
If you were planning to get a new car soon, or replace your furnace — or just want to save with solar — now's a great time to take action. Reach out to MyDomino to talk with a concierge and determine what options will work best for you. Curiosity won't 'kill the cat' in these sustainable situations!


text:
April 4, 2018
Physical retail is widely believed to be playing a diminishing role in modern lifestyle. Nonetheless, the most powerful consumer market in the world shows that the future of retail is at the convergence of online and offline. Amazon + Whole Foods, Alibaba + Sun, Tencent's WeChat Pay and its growing family of retail powerhouses – all are defining the winning strategy in global commerce and shaping the future of retail.
WeChat payment, whether in retail, catering or other formats, is gradually promoting and cooperating with the entire retail industry in China, including department stores, supermarkets, and convenience stores. There is no one format that does not support WeChat payment, Bai Zhenjie, Operations Director of WeChat Pay said in a press conference at Tencent's smart unmanned retail industry conference held on March 30.
On top of these open platforms, including Tencent Cloud, social advertisements, and mini programs, Tencent's smart retail solution is optimized through various tools, big data, and intelligent identification of users to further help them improve efficiency and optimize user experience. In the first stage, Tencent will cooperate with industry leaders that are large in scale, digitally capable, and resourceful, especially in supermarkets, convenience stores, shopping malls, and chain stores to provide digital solutions.
Tencent showcased some retailers in unmanned convenience stores, or vending machines, including EasyGo, Miss Fresh, and CityBox. Three companies were using WeChat payment and mini program to operate their businesses.
EasyGo Convenience store asks customers to first scan the QR code to open the door. The assorted goods in the store all have embedded RFID chips. As a customer walks in, grabs an item, and leaves the store, the storefront scanner reads the RFID chip and sends the bill to the mini program in the customer's WeChat app. The customer can pay via WeChat and then leave the store.
The Swiss researchers found four distinct Bitcoin bubbles that correspond to the Log-Periodic Power Law Singularity model, which were followed by crashes or strong corrections.
Looking forward, our analysis identifies a substantial but not unprecedented overvaluation in the price of Bitcoin, suggesting many months of volatile sideways bitcoin prices ahead (from the time of writing, March 2018). – Spencer Wheatley & Didier Sornette, both professors of entrepreneurial risks at ETH Zurich
We emphasize that one should not focus on the instantaneous and rather unpredictable trigger itself, the paper said, but monitor the increasingly unstable state of the bubbly market, and prepare for a correction.
Read more (+ the research paper called Are Bitcoin Bubbles Predictable? Combining a Generalized Metcalfe's Law and the LPPLS Model).
Poor data quality is enemy number one to the widespread, profitable use of machine learning. While the caustic observation, garbage-in, garbage-out has plagued analytics and decision-making for generations, it carries a special warning for machine learning. The quality demands of machine learning are steep, and bad data can rear its ugly head twice – first in the historical data used to train the predictive model and second in the new data used by that model to make future decisions.
To properly train a predictive model, historical data must meet exceptionally broad and high quality standards. First, the data must be right: It must be correct, properly labeled, de-deduped, and so forth. But you must also have the right data – lots of unbiased data, over the entire range of inputs for which one aims to develop the predictive model.


text:
Our last thread to be woven into our Cloth of Intention is the Thread of Abundance.
So often when we think of abundance we think only of money and wealth, but abundance can be any area of our lives where we are open to receiving. Abundance can be:
- More time
- More space
- Better health
- Living with more passion
- Living more consciously
The best way to live a more abundant life is to be grateful for what we already have, and to give to others without thoughts of "what's in it for me." Gratitude for all that we have - for this new day, for the infinite possibilities contained in it, and for the opportunity to serve others - always gives us more to be grateful for. A grateful heart is an abundant heart.
Service to others is another way to open the doors to a more abundant life. I can remember many times in my own life when I found ways to serve others and to have that service manifest into a life filled with love and appreciation. Not a bad way to live.
So now we have woven all five of our threads, or sutras: Patience, Acceptance, Defenselessness, Compassion and Abundance. What do we do now? We bind it all together to keep it from unraveling. How do we do that? Ah, that's for next week!
And so it is.


text:
Siblings, Cousins and more..
leave a comment
Written by costia
May 31st, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Posted in Uncategorized
Here we go!
Bonjour à toute la famille
le site de constantin.
Written by admin
May 11th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
search site archives
The Journalist template by Lucian E. Marin — Built for WordPress


text:
I've been thinking about what Muhammad Ali said during one of his interviews. A boy asked him what he'd do after he retires from boxing. He did a breakdown of the years – most of the hours we have we'd spend it on sleeping, schooling, commuting, so whatever time we have left, that's the amount of years we get to really live. Makes us realize just how short that is.
I have always thought of it this way: Most of us are already in our twenties, so if we were to live another lifetime, basically multiplying by two, you'd already be about half a century old. If we can still remember our childhood like it was just yesterday, then surely when we reach that stage, we'd think that our youth was just a few years ago. Anyway, who's to guarantee that we'd still be alive by then? Like he said, some of us are gonna die in 20 years time, some in 30 years, 5, 10, 50, all these numbers, who knows? Only He does. We musn't withold our obligations as a Muslim til we're older because nobody guarantees us old age. So many of those who have left us are young people. Death knows no age & escapes no one. Think about it, is it worth disobeying Him for this brief period of time in exchange for eternal pain? Or live this life obeying Him and be rewarded with eternal bliss?
This life is temporary. How scary yet comforting is this word? That means all the happiness in this world won't last, but so does all the sorrow and calamity you see in every corner of this earth. Everything in this life will perish including ourselves… except God. So it only makes sense when Muhammad Ali answered the boy's question in a nutshell, "[I'm gonna] get ready to meet God.


text:
We all have our own personal taste when it comes to color. Some people are drawn to bright, bold colors while others prefer softer, calmer colors. While perceptions of color are somewhat subjective, there are some color effects that have universal meaning.
Let's start with the basics of color. In 1666, English scientist Sir Isaac Newton discovered that when pure white light passes through a prism, it separates into all of the visible colors, meaning color is simply light of varying wavelengths and frequencies.
Colors can be classified as "warm" or "cool." Colors in the red area of the color spectrum are known as warm colors and include red, orange and yellow. These warm colors evoke emotions ranging from feelings of warmth and comfort to feelings of anger and hostility.
Colors on the blue side of the spectrum are known as cool colors and include blue, purple and green. These colors are often described as calm, but can also call to mind feelings of sadness or indifference.
Ancient cultures, including the Egyptians and Chinese, practiced chromotherapy (also referred to as light therapy), or using colors to heal. Chromotherapy is still used today as a holistic or alternative treatment.
In this treatment, red was used to stimulate the body and mind and to increase circulation. Yellow was thought to stimulate the nerves and purify the body. Orange was used to heal the lungs and to increase energy levels. Blue was believed to soothe illnesses and treat pain. Indigo shades were thought to alleviate skin problems. Understanding the healing benefits of color can offer guidance when selecting color for our homes and creating a space that is healthy, relaxing and inviting.
Used with permission of The Color Guild. Visit the Color Guild website at www.colorguild.com


text:
My Device
Max Buzz
- How do I pair my Max Buzz with the serial number?
- How do I change the time format on my Max Buzz to 24-hour clock?
- My Max Buzz screen is displaying "Update Advertising," what do I do?
- What is a Max Buzz firmware update?
- How do I reset my Max Buzz?
- How do I enable text/call notifications on the Max Buzz?
Bring Your Own Fitness Tracker
- Can participants use their own device?
- Can I use my own fitness tracker?
- What data can be synced?
- Why do I have to confirm my steps for them to be uploaded to the Global Challenge Platform?
- I use more than one device, can I link them both at the same time?
- How do I see my fitness tracker device steps on the step entry page?
- Pairing and syncing your Pulse
- Why won't my steps sync from my Pulse?
- Can I use my Pulse from last year?
- Is the Pulse waterproof?
- What happens if the plastic strip / battery guard breaks off inside my Pulse?
- Concerned about the safety of the Pulse?


text:
Original author: Dal Tile {(post_author_name)}. Reposted from http://blogs.daltile.com/new-stone-tile-and-countertop-options-luxury {(post_author_url)}.
We added four new marble colors, one new shape, and a never-before-seen texture the summer of 2017.
Empyrean Ice is a white marble with a dusting of grey that doesn't have the rigid veining you're used to from marble. It's the lighter side of marble and is great if you love the colors of classic marble but want a softer visual.
Stormy Mist marble on the floor with Argyle Blend Grey marble mosaic on the wall
Stormy Mist, on the other hand, has the same colors and same softer look but a bit darker and heavier.
Latte is a creamy marble with tan veining in the same light dusting.
Antico Scuro is a black marble with a dusting of grey and hints of warm beige.
Antico Scuro marble in picket shape on the backsplash
Shapes & Textures
These four new colors come in a new shape, picket. The 3 x 15 size makes for an interesting backsplash or feature wall and invites some geometric appeal into your space.
New texture, raked, is also available in the four new colors. Its heavy linear scraped look could go rustic or refined contrast to a more polished aesthetic.
Natural Quartzite in Antigua Quartzite on the island and wall
A beautiful new quartzite joins the portfolio. Antigua Quartzite is a unique looking stone that borders on exotic. The cool grey backdrop is hatched with darker grey and rust-colored veins. It's a stone that won't soon be forgotten.
Three new colors in Stacked Stone were also introduced: Sanya White, Haikou Grey, and Macau Black. All three feature slight color variation for a more monochromatic look that you're used to with this type of quartzite. Natural cleft face and interlocking edges make this a seamless addition to your exterior designs and can even be right at home indoors too.
West Village in Mercer Grey on the countertop and backsplash
A new series of quartz countertop surfaces was added for a more sophisticated, urban option in the quartz line-up. West Village combines the toughness of the Bronx with the beauty of Central Park. The colors are modern and earthy but a perfect fit for the most posh of all urban lofts.
Grey tones influence each of the five colors that range from white to brown. The smooth, monochromatic choices have little variation or graining.
As always, ONE Quartz Surfaces are the standard in durability and ready for anything the big city, or well-appointed farmhouse can dish out.
Go to your local Daltile stone center to sample all the new stone offerings.


text:
I love LiveCD's – they let you try out an operating system or Linux distro without messing with your current installation. Recently, I've become hooked on LiveUSB distro's that allow you to boot off of a USB stick rather than a CD. I tried putting Backtrack on a 1 GB stick, and then DamnSmallLinux on a 64 MB stick. I started wondering if it would be possible to put several distributions on a larger stick, and then boot from one of your choice. It turns out that it is possible, and here's how.
Things you will need
- an i386 computer running Linux (other architectures won't work with the bootloader)
- ISO images of LiveCDs (or LiveUSBs) you want to run
- a large USB stick that can hold all the images
- Optional: QEmu can be installed to test the stick, or boot LiveCD's from within your host OS.
I started off by downloading five ISO images: Belenix, Backtrack, Freesbie, Knoppix, and NimbleX.
Insert your USB stick. In a console, enter
dmesg | tail
You should see something similar to
sd 9:0:0:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI removable disk
My USB stick is therefore attached at /dev/sdc, although yours will probably be different. From here on out, I'll refer to your drive as driveName. To make sure you have the right drive, as root, enter:
fdisk -l /dev/driveName
It should report the size of your USB stick.
We're going to partition the USB stick for use with each LiveCD. This will destroy all data on the stick! Make sure you're using the correct drive from above too, or you might accidentally wipe your hard drive!
As root, enter
fdisk /dev/driveName
You can enter p to show the current partitions. It should list a number of partitions. Delete each of them by entering d and entering each number.
When you've deleted them all, enter n for a new partition. Choose p for a primary partition, hit enter for the default, and enter +16M to make a 16 MB partition at the beginning of the drive. Enter a to make the partition bootable, and enter t to change the partition type. Enter 6 for the partition type.
Now you're going to make an extended partition, and logical partitions for each of your ISO images. First, note the size in MB of all of your ISO images. Mine were 696, 784, 672, 697, and 200. You can find these in another terminal by running
ls -lh *.iso
in the directory containing your ISO images. When you use these numbers, you'll want to add 5 MB to them to make sure they fit in the partition.
In fdisk, enter n for new partition, e for extended, and enter twice to fill the rest of the drive. Enter n, l for logical, enter for the default, and +sizeM, where size is the size of your first ISO image plus 5 MB. In my case, I ran +701M. Repeat this procedure for the remainder of your ISO files.
When you are done, enter p to make sure everything looks right. Your output should look similar to this:
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sdc1 * 1 3 24066 6 FAT16
/dev/sdc2 4 488 3895762+ 5 Extended
/dev/sdc5 4 97 717824+ 83 Linux
/dev/sdc6 98 203 809984+ 83 Linux
/dev/sdc7 204 294 693248 83 Linux
/dev/sdc8 295 388 718848+ 83 Linux
/dev/sdc9 389 416 209920+ 83 Linux
If everything looks good, enter w to write the changes to the USB stick. If you messed up, you can enter q to quit and try again
Now we're going to install the bootloader. Most Linux distributions use GRUB or LILO, which are great, but since we're trying to boot ISO images off of a USB stick, we're going to use something a little different. Gujin is an alternative bootloader that can boot all sorts of things, and will automatically scan your partitions to look for Linux kernels. It's a handy piece of software, and if you find it useful, you should consider donating. (Disclaimer: I don't know the author and make no money off of your donation)
First, format the first partition on your USB stick by entering
mkfs.msdos -F 16 /dev/driveName1
Then, download the
Gujin installer and unzip it. Enter the gujin-install directory and run
./instboot boot.bin /dev/driveName1 --disk=BIOS:0x80 -w
This will install the bootloader to the first partition. The -w option prints out useful debugging information.
At this point, your USB stick should be bootable. You can test it in another terminal by running
qemu -usb /dev/diskDrive
Your output should look similar to this:
Now, you're ready to copy the ISO images onto your disk. Enter
fdisk -l /dev/diskDrive
and find the number of the first partition under 'extended' block. For example, mine above was sdc5. This is where the first ISO image will go. Make sure you're using the right ISO image for the partition size, and enter
cat nameOfImage1.iso > /dev/diskImage5
to copy the ISO image to partition 5. When that finishes, similarly copy the other ISO images onto the other partitions.
cat nameOfImage2.iso > /dev/diskImage6
cat nameOfImage3.iso > /dev/diskImage7
You can test your USB stick in another terminal again by running
qemu -usb /dev/diskDrive
The full Gujin menu should now be displayed!
At this point, I had to scroll down a page (using Page Down). The options you want are listed with the code 0x80 and the 'El Torito' option:
Press the appropriate key (F1, F2, etc.) to boot and you should see that CD's particular GRUB screen!
If everything works, you should be able to boot any of your LiveCDs from USB.


text:
Governors are worried that the proposed expansion of Medicaid — the most efficient way to cover lower income Americans — would strain local budgets and force states to "either raise taxes or make further cuts to state budgets."
But today, in a speech delivered today at the Center for American Progress, Christina Romer, the chairwoman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), stressed that the savings from health reform would outweigh the costs of Medicaid expansion:
Indeed, we believe our measured expenditures are a reasonable estimate of the actual savings, even taking into account that reform will not eliminate all uncompensated care. This is true because we are virtually certain that there is a substantial amount of state and local spending on care for the uninsured that we have not yet identified. Expanding our projections to all fifty states and the District of Columbia implies savings of roughly $116 billion to state and local governments between 2014 and 2019.
For example, CBO estimates that under the Senate Finance Committee proposal, states will spend about $33 billion on increased Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) over the same 2014–2019 period. Even taking account of this cost, there is therefore a net savings to state and local governments of some $83 billion over six years. When you consider that we are paying for all of the Federal expenditures with other savings and revenue increases, this is $83 billion of additional government saving.
In other words, expanding Medicaid is cheaper than paying for the same population in the emergency room. Recent CEA research of health care spending in 16 states found that those states are spending "at least $4.2 billion on care for the uninsured each year." "We estimated that they are spending another $600 million on higher insurance premiums for state and local government employees because of the hidden tax uncompensated care adds to all private insurance premiums. All told, the states in our sample are spending at least $4.2 billion on care for the uninsured each year."
"Health care reform that expands insurance coverage will greatly reduce these state and local expenditures for uncompensated care," Romer predicted.


text:
Kings Point, NY – The USMMA women's swimming and diving team won six races against Coast Guard on Saturday but the Bears ultimately won Saturday's dual meet over the Mariners, 175-114. Merchant Marine had numerous swimmers post season best times versus their service academy rivals.
"We had a fantastic day," said Head Coach Sean Tedesco. "I'm very happy with our performance and effort today."
Freshman Jolyn Green (Riverside, CA) touched the wall first in the 100 backstroke with a mark of 1:04.39. Green's second win of the day came in 2:32.91 in the 200 breaststroke as the exciting race saw just a .03 second differential to second-place. Emily Olsen (Glenwood, NJ) and Emily Boyson (Garland, TX) notched a one-two finish in the 100 breaststroke.
Jacqueline White (Oradell, NJ) clocked in at 2:16.70 to take first-place in the 200 butterfly and later triumphed in the 200 backstroke with a time of 2:15.30. Nina Demet (Lake Forest, IL) out-touched the competition by .15 seconds in the 100 freestyle, winning the event in 56.40 seconds.
Merchant Marine returns to the pool Thursday night for a home meet against York and Old Westbury.


text:
Boston Pops Fireworks Spectacular is one of the country's most renowned Independence Day celebrations features a brilliant marriage of music, color, and revelry. As the evening comes to a celebratory close, fireworks light up Boston Harbor in a display that is always memorable.
Related Read: Watch Macy's 4th of July Fireworks Spectacular 2010 Live online
Boston Pops 4th of July 2010 Orchestra
The Boston Pops, led by Keith Lockhart, will be on hand at the Hatch Shell, providing the dramatic musical backdrop for the fireworks show. Every year, there is also a special musical guest. This year, it will be country music superstar Toby Keith. In 2009, it was Neil Diamond.
The Boston Pops concert begins at 8:30 p.m. while the Fireworks begin at 10:30 p.m. The Pops concert takes place at the Hatch Shell, located on the Charles River Esplanade.
Watch Boston Pops 4th of July 2010 Fireworks Spectacular Live online for free
1. Watch Boston Pops 4th of July 2010 Fireworks Spectacular Live online for free on atdhe
2. Boston Pops 4th of July 2010 Live streaming online for free on ChannelSurfing
3. Watch Boston Pops live streaming online for free on Ustream
More links will be updated as and when they become available