HN user
Your point, although interesting, does not invalidate the quote. Let A be « you would sleep past the alarm clock without it » and B « you are sleep-deprived » They say A → B. You say false since I got B and not(A). A → B does not imply B → A which would be proved false by your case.
Previous discussion : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14131086
Thank you for your reply, I am going to look into the figures of blood exchanges between countries.
What about the window between an infection by the HIV and the production of antibodies ?
Parent's argument doesn't seem to be irrelevant, otherwise, if the screenings were totally reliable why would we bother asking for risky behaviours ?
Lying is one of the arguments against paid blood donations in France, the other being that poor people may be incentivized to put their health at risk by donating to often (donations are anonymous). The WHO seems to advocate for unpaid donations :
An adequate and reliable supply of safe blood can be assured by a stable base of regular, voluntary, unpaid blood donors. These donors are also the safest group of donors as the prevalence of bloodborne infections is lowest among this group. World Health Assembly resolution WHA63.12 urges all Member States to develop national blood systems based on voluntary unpaid donations and to work towards the goal of self-sufficiency.[1]
Also, Germany does not export its nuclear waste, dear France.
I guess this is incorrect :
Gorleben Nuclear Waste Repository. The waste comes from Germany's nuclear power plants, was reprocessed in France at La Hague, and the unusable remains then sent back to Germany in spent nuclear fuel shipping casks for final storage, according to the contract with the reprocessing company, Cogema [0].
But even if it comes from France what's the matter? If nuclear wastes go to Gorleben it is obviously because the city allows it, because they have a deal with french firms and they have facilities to store it. If you want to blame someone for it blame the city.
In contrast I am sure France does not 'export' its air pollution as much as our dear Germany :p. And France does not have much of a say in that.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben#Nuclear_Waste_Reposit...
In the paper they list two studies.
Stellman et al. 1988 : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/00917435869...
Fowler et al. 2008 : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18535548
"The benefits to French GDP are not mainly from the tickets, but from the tourism-related revenue (hotel stays, restaurants, flights, &c)." yes, you can infer that from the last sentence in my previous comment, but still, they do not monetize it as much as they can because they could have decided not to make the entrance free for the youngsters and they would make more money even if the number of young visitors decreases.
The difference with the google search engine is if you are not willing to pay and so do not use the search engine then google won't make money at all from you whereas few people will decide no to go to Paris just because the Louvre entrance is not free.
"The French tourist officials make sure to monetize the Louvre for all they can."
The access to the Louvre (permanent collection) is free for :
everyone under 18 years old whatever the nationality,
every resident of the European Economic Area (31 countries) under 25 years old,
everyone under 26 years old whatever the nationality the Friday from 6 p.m. to 9:45 p.m.,
everyone the first sunday of each month between october and march and on july 14th,
other specific groups of people,
And it is 15€ for everyone else for a day. Not what I would call particularly excessive.
http://www.louvre.fr/en/hours-admission/admission
The Louvre still relies mainly on public subvention (102 M€ in 2015) tickets bring ~65M€, private subventions ~12M€. But yes it surely brings people and has a good impact on the local economy.
Although I agree with you on the matter of burkini I think the "let people dress however they want" argument is a common fallacy amongst people who defend the burkini that disturbs me.
In France (and other countries) we have already been setting specific legal rules on how to dress : for instance it is illegal to wear nazi uniforms or svastika (unless for historical reason). Note that this is for the sake of the argument, to say that there is no such thing as an absolute freedom on how to dress and some reasons may explain that. If a clothing does not respect the conditions then I don't care wether or not it is a religious clothing and disappoint the believers.
What are these conditions ? There is a safety condition : if a clothing put public safety in danger then it should be banned period. The burqa and niqab ban (late 2010 in France) falls into this one. And I am not talking about terrorism but everyday life : you are supposed to live in the public space with your face uncovered that's all. The burkini and hijab are obviously fine with this.
There is a secularism reason that is invoked by some people and officials for the burkini ban and indeed I find it to be hypocritical since it is more of a circumstance decision (and there are other things than that to do to fight terrorism but whatever) and it can't be justified by secularism which only restricts civil servants clothing. If people want secularism to apply to civilian in the public sphere why not but it must be clear (define precisely what is ostentatious proselytism) and consistent : if we are to ban hijab we must ban kippas and nun's "outfit" too.
Then there is the ideology propaganda and morality question. To say that there is nothing wrong with the burqa is hypocritical too, because it has been and is still a mean to oppress women (watch the numerous photos of women burning burqas recently in Syria or read "Bas les voiles !" by Chahdortt Djavann if you need to be convinced). Stating that "yes maybe in the Middle-East women are forced to wear it but I am in France and just want to decide what to wear" is like saying "yes I know the Nazis ideology is awful but for me the svastika is just a peace symbol from India and I want to wear it because I like it". Ok maybe you are a genuine and sane person but as a natural person evolving in the public space the clothes you wear don't affect only yourself. Ideologies don't stop at boarders.
Criticizing this way of forbidding clothings may make sense from an american point of view where people can wear ku klux klan dress freely. But it is not absurd and not automatically discriminatory in a more european or french spirit.