Slashdot Mirror

I don't agree that x = 0. In that case, for 50% paper strategy for him, win is 1/3 vs 1/6 which is 2:1 in my favor. For 50% scissors strategy it is 1/2 versus 1/3 which is 3:2 in my favor. This means he WILL pick up 50% scissors in such case. Increasing x will reduce his winning chance. It will also increase his winning chance on paper strategy, but it will take longer to offset 2:1 disadvantage compared to 3:2.

Equation to solve is

(1/3-x/2)/(1/6+x/2)=(1/2)/(1/6-x/2)

http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

gives x = -0.054093

which means rock of around 0.387.

If you look up their HDI (here), Cuba comes as #2 in the region. #1 in education, #1 in healthcare. Funny how a failed ideology can beat the one true ideology, eh?
If you're curious, the #1 on HDI is Barbados. They also happen to be #2 in the continent, right after Canada.

Contrary to what you say, Cubans can own stuff. They changed the law not too long ago. Despite that, most people there, like most people in the region, can't afford an expensive computer like you or me.

As it happens, those methods are big on drama and small on results. By way of example: here's Europe, in millions, from the mid 19th century to more or less the present.

Notice the two tiny little dips around 1914 and 1939, and the effect (bugger all) if you take the longer view of, say, 1900-1975? That's two world wars, few genocides, and massive devastation of infrastructure. Not much population control per unit unpleasantness...(and if you think of this period as not especially 'sin'-pocked, maybe you would get along well with a certain old testament deity.)

Famine and plague are similarly good for painful, short-term, die-offs that just leave a bit of room below environmental carrying capacity that ends up being filled out by a new crop of poor fuckers within a generation or two. Disposable income and contraception, though? Now that will crater your birthrate more effectively, if less dramatically, than saturation bombing.

Which is like saying you can only add 1s together to get small numbers (aka "microevolution) but not big numbers (aka "macroevolution"). It's an absurd position. New species arise through the accumulation of lots of small changes not the silly "chimp giving birth to a human" fallacious argument that creationists spew.

You are comparing apples to pieces of asphalt. You want to know what an accumulation of lots of small changes is? a mutation https://www.wolframalpha.com/i.... Mutations lead to death not life. Chimps give birth to chimps. If say a chimp gave birth to a hairless chimp, it would die long before it could mate. Thats one of the myriad reasons why micro evolution [adaptation to environment] works and macroevolution [mutation from one genus to another] fails.

I'm sad this didn't work. Perhaps this might be right? I think the graph still needs to be converted to binary. Or something. >.>

I'm sad this didn't work. Perhaps this might be right? I think the graph still needs to be converted to binary. Or something. >.>

Uh, no.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

Where do they claim that, exactly? As far as I can tell reading Wolfram's licensing page, your claim is 100% completely and utterly false. What they do claim is copyright on their presentation and assemblage of the facts (such as plots, graphs, tables, et alia), but not at all on the facts themselves.

You're allowed 3 oz bottles.

One 3 oz bottle of TNT homeopathically potentized to 30C dilution has the explosive power of 100,000,000 yottatons of TNT. (Without containing a single molecule of TNT, of course, so it'll slip RIGHT THROUGH explosives detection!)

For a matter of scale, that's the explosive power of 10,000 solar masses of TNT. Y'all shut up about your puny "megatons".

No, I'm not completely making it up. OTOH, someone who actually believes in homeopathy would probably vague object "it doesn't work that way" (without being able to meaningfully explain how it actually works). So how wrong could my half-assery be?

Learn to calculate? The peak output is obviously 4GW.

So why trying to calculate a useless average? Especially as we all agree the output at night is: zero.

If the plant does not use moving (sun following) panels then the output will be similar shaped like the daily curve of demand.

The power curve follows the cosinus of the angel of the sun, so you can integrate over 12 hours. If you ever had looked at the shape of the cosinus curve you had seen it is pretty steep at the points where it cuts the X axis.

Here is a picture: http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

On top of that, the ambient light of the sky or of the clouds also produce still nice energy.

So if you want an average then it is probably something like 75% during daytime and 0% at night (which is fine as at night the actuall demand is below 50% of daytime demand, so your OTHER plants can easy fullfill that)

What about the power? I don't speak horse.

I was going to say "Let me Google that for you!", but Wolfram provides a very detailed answer. http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

Actually it is 1990's $550 million. With estimated 83% inflation [1] [1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=inflation+since+1990

I think you read the game size in bits, not bytes.

20 Gbit: It's under six hours: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20+billion+bits+%2F+1+million+bits%2Fsecond+in+hours (But that assumes you don't get slower speeds at peak times.)

20 GB: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20+billion+bytes+%2F+1+million+bits%2Fsecond+in+hours (45 hours)

I think you read the game size in bits, not bytes.

20 Gbit: It's under six hours: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20+billion+bits+%2F+1+million+bits%2Fsecond+in+hours (But that assumes you don't get slower speeds at peak times.)

20 GB: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20+billion+bytes+%2F+1+million+bits%2Fsecond+in+hours (45 hours)

Because I'm lazy I asked wolfram.alpha to do the math: What is $10.5 billion divided by the population of the usa.
It says $32.90 / person. I briefly thought GM could give everyone a free car as their way of saying "We're sorry" but $32 doesn't really buy much more than a license plate holder.

Becoming a star requires at a minimum many times the mass of jupiter. As small stars exist, there's therefore a likelihood that there are gas giants almost as big a the minimum to make a star.

A quick google seems to suggest that's 8% the size of the son

As Jupiter is 0.1% size the son, 11x the size of jupiter doesn't seem that big. We should be able to find "planets" up to almost 80x larger

http://www.space.com/21420-smallest-star-size-red-dwarf.html http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=jupiter%20mass%20compared%20to%20sun&t=crmtb01

Those are objects known as Brown Dwarfs which would put them at a different category than Jovian planet. I believe that the minimum mass to establish fusion is something on the order of one tenth solar mass. Brown Dwarves radiate Infared radiation due to heat from residual gravitational collapse. Presumably the standard is considerably higher than Jupiter which also radiates more heat than it absorbs from the Sun.

Becoming a star requires at a minimum many times the mass of jupiter. As small stars exist, there's therefore a likelihood that there are gas giants almost as big a the minimum to make a star.

A quick google seems to suggest that's 8% the size of the son

As Jupiter is 0.1% size the son, 11x the size of jupiter doesn't seem that big. We should be able to find "planets" up to almost 80x larger

http://www.space.com/21420-smallest-star-size-red-dwarf.html
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=jupiter%20mass%20compared%20to%20sun&t=crmtb01

6.19%

California has 12%. The last time NY had more than 10% of the population was ~150 years ago. In other words, I don't know what you're smoking, but you should probably start passing it. We all need some and you've done had enough.

Thank you, Luckyo, for injecting a little sanity into this discussion.

Most people from western cultures would recognize that making generalizations about *all christians*, based on the actions of a few (say self-proclaimed KKK members who consider themselves Christians) is not an intelligent way to talk about the world. Certainly "Christians" that are for war have very little if any common ground with modern day Quakers.

Where I still see a lot of ignorance (and I am an ignorant westerner too) is in failing to recognize the diversity of Muslim populations. For crying out loud it's something like 18% of the worlds population: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(number+of+muslims+)+%2F+(number+of+humans)

I don't really consider myself a follower of any faith but I realize that there are all kinds of people in the world. I don't believe that you can really tell a whole lot about a person from a general term like Christian or Muslim or Asian or black or white. Even within a particular religious-cultural-context, the scope of what different people actually believe tends to be pretty broad. A safe generalization to make is that all groups of people have differing opinions and disagreement on a large number of things.

I think it's better to judge individuals by their actions than what religion or country they were born into.

STEVE JOBS: A FEW MEMORIES As Mathematica was being developed, we showed it to Steve Jobs quite often. He always claimed he didn"t understand the math of it (though I later learned from a good friend of mine who had known Steve in high school that Steve had definitely taken at least one calculus course). But he made all sorts of make it simpler" suggestions about the interface and the documentation.

It is even worse than that. The closest distance from Earth to Mars equates to about 3 minutes at light speed, the average is 14.1 minutes, and the longest is 15.22 minutes. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Distance+between+earth+and+mars

Or, more solar and wind plugged into decentralised local grids. See: Germany and Denmark who are doing just that without the benefit of Texas Sun.

Lets check on Germany and run the numbers.

Germany peaked at 23.9 GW. At the peak, it was providing for 40% of Germany's electrical usage. Impressive.

But that's the peak. How about overall?

Wolfram Alpha gives 549.1 billion kwh/year for German's total electricity consumption. It also gives 19.1 billion kwh a year from solar, tide or waves and 46 billion kwh a year from wind.

Now we're mixing data from different years (so this is a rough estimate), but I'm seeing a total of 65.1 billion kwh/year from solar + wind, with a usage of 549.1 billion kwh/year. So about 12%. Compare this to to the 94.1 billion kwh/year from nuclear.

Now this neglects another problem - the variability of solar and wind. If solar and wind make up a small fraction of the grid, or it's possible to sell to neighboring countries, it's pretty easy to sell excess energy when it's windy/sunny, and use other power plants when it's not. I'm not sure what overcapacity the US would need if it primarily resorted to wind & solar power.

Not to mention the false dichotomy. We can build solar, we can build wind, we can build nuclear - but we can also build coal power plants, natural gas power plants, and oil power plants.

There's nothing preventing us from building both nuclear and renewable energy power plants in order to reduce the reliance on fossil fuel power plants. If you believe that anthropological global warming is a real problem, I'd suggest that reducing CO2 emissions through a combination of solar, wind & nuclear would be quicker than reducing CO2 emissions by just wind & solar, or by just nuclear.

Or, more solar and wind plugged into decentralised local grids. See: Germany and Denmark who are doing just that without the benefit of Texas Sun.

Lets check on Germany and run the numbers.

Germany peaked at 23.9 GW. At the peak, it was providing for 40% of Germany's electrical usage. Impressive.

But that's the peak. How about overall?

Wolfram Alpha gives 549.1 billion kwh/year for German's total electricity consumption. It also gives 19.1 billion kwh a year from solar, tide or waves and 46 billion kwh a year from wind.

Now we're mixing data from different years (so this is a rough estimate), but I'm seeing a total of 65.1 billion kwh/year from solar + wind, with a usage of 549.1 billion kwh/year. So about 12%. Compare this to to the 94.1 billion kwh/year from nuclear.

Now this neglects another problem - the variability of solar and wind. If solar and wind make up a small fraction of the grid, or it's possible to sell to neighboring countries, it's pretty easy to sell excess energy when it's windy/sunny, and use other power plants when it's not. I'm not sure what overcapacity the US would need if it primarily resorted to wind & solar power.

Not to mention the false dichotomy. We can build solar, we can build wind, we can build nuclear - but we can also build coal power plants, natural gas power plants, and oil power plants.

There's nothing preventing us from building both nuclear and renewable energy power plants in order to reduce the reliance on fossil fuel power plants. If you believe that anthropological global warming is a real problem, I'd suggest that reducing CO2 emissions through a combination of solar, wind & nuclear would be quicker than reducing CO2 emissions by just wind & solar, or by just nuclear.

Or, more solar and wind plugged into decentralised local grids. See: Germany and Denmark who are doing just that without the benefit of Texas Sun.

Lets check on Germany and run the numbers.

Germany peaked at 23.9 GW. At the peak, it was providing for 40% of Germany's electrical usage. Impressive.

But that's the peak. How about overall?

Wolfram Alpha gives 549.1 billion kwh/year for German's total electricity consumption. It also gives 19.1 billion kwh a year from solar, tide or waves and 46 billion kwh a year from wind.

Now we're mixing data from different years (so this is a rough estimate), but I'm seeing a total of 65.1 billion kwh/year from solar + wind, with a usage of 549.1 billion kwh/year. So about 12%. Compare this to to the 94.1 billion kwh/year from nuclear.

Now this neglects another problem - the variability of solar and wind. If solar and wind make up a small fraction of the grid, or it's possible to sell to neighboring countries, it's pretty easy to sell excess energy when it's windy/sunny, and use other power plants when it's not. I'm not sure what overcapacity the US would need if it primarily resorted to wind & solar power.

Not to mention the false dichotomy. We can build solar, we can build wind, we can build nuclear - but we can also build coal power plants, natural gas power plants, and oil power plants.

There's nothing preventing us from building both nuclear and renewable energy power plants in order to reduce the reliance on fossil fuel power plants. If you believe that anthropological global warming is a real problem, I'd suggest that reducing CO2 emissions through a combination of solar, wind & nuclear would be quicker than reducing CO2 emissions by just wind & solar, or by just nuclear.

Cyanide is not really great for poisoning. It tastes horribly, so people will know if you slip it in their food. You can make HCN, which is a gas which only around 85% of people can smell, but it is 5 times less toxic than chlorine gas which is easy to produce from common household chemicals. To get to a dangerous concentration for a small room (say,t he office I am in), you need nearly 10 g, and that is assuming that all of the gas enters the room, that none of it leaves, and that you get sufficient mixing.

All in all, it isn't a great way to kill anything but rats, or people you can force to ingest things, or people you can get to stay in a non-leaking room.

Figured out your mistake, you're using the diameter, not the radius, actual density is about 3.4 times the density of water.

Well, it's less than half the density of water.

Sorry, you're wrong. It is a bit more rare, and it is dropping off as people like you try to stamp out alternate spellings (invention of spell-check and all that -- the reason why I spell modeling with one 'l' now, instead of two like I used to, even though both are correct)... but there is a long precedent.

Actually it had to do with the inability of the authors (and most commenters) to do simple math. The article said: "[...] were placed on Chicago exchanges 2-3 milliseconds after 2 pm." The speed-of-light-delay between the dc and chicago is 3.2 ms. So, no, not "physically impossible".

Light in fiber is only 1 millisecond slower http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+from+washington+d.c.+to+chicago+%2F+speed+of+light+in+fiberoptic+cable

Where do you get the 7 millisecond figure from? http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+from+washington+d.c.+to+chicago+%2F+speed+of+light+in+fiberoptic+cable says it's 4 milliseconds from Washington, D.C. to Chicago by fiberoptic cable.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=washington+to+chicago

far less than 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe is known to us

I don't mean to be pedantic, but I can't help myself... that line is quite interesting. So, 1e-64? Let's say that we know the Earth, and compare to the visible universe. Wolfram Alpha, can we get some numbers to talk about?

By mass we're talking about 2e-30 By mass

By volume we're talking about 3e-60 By volume

So, I disagree with your statement, but if you're going by volume you were awfully close. Even if you restrict yourself to a volume that represents a couple meters over the landmass of the Earth, you still have an extra zero or two in there, especially with the "far less" bit.

That's not pedantism, this is Slashdot! ;-) But why restrict your scale to assume we know everything about the earth and compare that to the visible universe? We don't know everything about the earth but let's assume we know all there is to know about a plank-length radius sphere (we don't but bear with me). The universe's volume/ plank volume is on the order of 3E60/(4/3*pi*(plank-length 1.6 × 10E -35)^3) =~ 5E-105. If you're talking mass, remember that we don't know all there is about a photon and its rest mass = 0. So the knowledge to ignorance ratio by mass is 2E30 / 0 = infinity. ;-)

Those whom Heaven helps we call the Sons of Heaven. Those who would by learning attain to this seek for what they cannot learn. Those who would by effort attain to this, attempt what effort can never effect. Those who aim by reasoning to reach it reason where reasoning has no place. To know to stop where they cannot arrive by means of knowledge is the highest attainment. Those who cannot do this will be destroyed on the lathe of Heaven. -- Chuang Tzu

far less than 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe is known to us

I don't mean to be pedantic, but I can't help myself... that line is quite interesting. So, 1e-64? Let's say that we know the Earth, and compare to the visible universe. Wolfram Alpha, can we get some numbers to talk about?

By mass we're talking about 2e-30 By mass

By volume we're talking about 3e-60 By volume

So, I disagree with your statement, but if you're going by volume you were awfully close. Even if you restrict yourself to a volume that represents a couple meters over the landmass of the Earth, you still have an extra zero or two in there, especially with the "far less" bit.

That's not pedantism, this is Slashdot! ;-) But why restrict your scale to assume we know everything about the earth and compare that to the visible universe? We don't know everything about the earth but let's assume we know all there is to know about a plank-length radius sphere (we don't but bear with me). The universe's volume/ plank volume is on the order of 3E60/(4/3*pi*(plank-length 1.6 × 10E -35)^3) =~ 5E-105. If you're talking mass, remember that we don't know all there is about a photon and its rest mass = 0. So the knowledge to ignorance ratio by mass is 2E30 / 0 = infinity. ;-)

Those whom Heaven helps we call the Sons of Heaven. Those who would by learning attain to this seek for what they cannot learn. Those who would by effort attain to this, attempt what effort can never effect. Those who aim by reasoning to reach it reason where reasoning has no place. To know to stop where they cannot arrive by means of knowledge is the highest attainment. Those who cannot do this will be destroyed on the lathe of Heaven. -- Chuang Tzu

far less than 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe is known to us

I don't mean to be pedantic, but I can't help myself... that line is quite interesting. So, 1e-64? Let's say that we know the Earth, and compare to the visible universe. Wolfram Alpha, can we get some numbers to talk about?

By mass we're talking about 2e-30 By mass

By volume we're talking about 3e-60 By volume

So, I disagree with your statement, but if you're going by volume you were awfully close. Even if you restrict yourself to a volume that represents a couple meters over the landmass of the Earth, you still have an extra zero or two in there, especially with the "far less" bit.

far less than 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe is known to us

I don't mean to be pedantic, but I can't help myself... that line is quite interesting. So, 1e-64? Let's say that we know the Earth, and compare to the visible universe. Wolfram Alpha, can we get some numbers to talk about?

By mass we're talking about 2e-30 By mass

By volume we're talking about 3e-60 By volume

So, I disagree with your statement, but if you're going by volume you were awfully close. Even if you restrict yourself to a volume that represents a couple meters over the landmass of the Earth, you still have an extra zero or two in there, especially with the "far less" bit.

Oh, we are. We're just trying to do it slowly to prevent the public from noticing.

US M1 money supply.

(If someone has a similar chart for M0, or MB, please link.)

could out-innovate knowing that was the one thing they could do that M$ couldn't

Did you buy that four-digit ID on eBay? You've combined Microsoft's favourite word into the same sentence with the most geriatric of all derisions.

Microsoft innovated a metric butt unit, but very little of this advantaged the end consumer. They innovated business methods more so than technologies, especially the business method of crossing the legal and ethical line and getting away with it long enough to sip fine Champagne with one foot on Netscape's corpse while confined to the corner of the room wearing a pearl-crusted dunce cap. Vlad the Impaler tips his hat.

Speaking of Vlad, are you man enough to tell Vlad he can't innovate? To his face? Do you wish to wear the outcome of that assertion? Just because he's never much bothered to tweak the recipe for making Damascene steel or grafted on a lickable hilt (one that actually looks attractively lickable)? No, he just sits there thinking "no matter the sword, they all bleed the same way". Admittedly that's not the hallmark of innovation as celebrated among the proletarian ranks, but it works the gutters and coffers just fine.

One would think given his methods that more of the population would elect to somehow slip between his masochistic fingers. And yet they didn't. That's not what happened. Tell me it doesn't take innovation to become that sadistic and not have your entire empire relocate itself to the next valley over. Are your heirlooms and golden geese locked away in a proprietary chest for which only Vlad possesses the master key? You might have suspected something sooner, but you really liked the gaily-painted wooden wheels and the decorative hollow horse head. Steve never managed to sell that, yet somehow Bill was manning triple shifts under the lash to slake demand.

Wolfram Alpha just made me this nice chart in under sixty seconds and a permanently shareable link. Innovation, or just trying harder to please because you catch more flies with honey than vinegar? [when lacking Vlad's henchman army]:

appl msft profit over time

Microsoft had Apple's number for pretty close to twenty years, and without ever suffering cardiac arrest. Apple is cool like Lance: it's amazing what one can achieve sans so many testicles when clad in relentlessly promoted, well-branded apparel. Apple burned through five heart-lung machines before they regrew their permanent hair, but what flowing fleece it was.

Tell me what company in their right mind would deliver innovation to the end-user riding on top of a such a long, gracefully ascending line? Yeah, it faded a bit over the past five years. But Microsoft had it coming. Boy did they have it coming. A hectare of discarded Champagne bottles began to cultivate a mirulent strain of black mold. And right in their own back yard, less than a stone's throw away. Dang, what a mess to have to clean up.

Apple's time is coming, too. The migrant consumer is already beginning to scout valleys even further afield. People only pay through the A$$ for so long before they wise up, unless they're fleeing from fresh horrors of ruthless innovation in the sprawling valley of the damned.

A kinder, gentler Microsoft won't do anything to help Apple sustain its insanely high profit margins. At the same time, a return to form of the old ruthless Microsoft could turn into an expensive tactical nightmare, with the Koreans nipping at their other flank.

Much depends on the new Khan. Personally, I hope their first agenda item is to take a giant bite out of Oracle's rapacious backside. Later they release M$inx in a master stroke of branding genius with all the tedious and uncool APIs of XP's cooling corpse completely open sourced and unencumbered. Just think, you can continue running your old copy of Turbo Tax 2005 all the way to the n

Wolfram's coming up with 295.4 million root Manhattans per dog year.

Knock yourself out. Let's assume you're American.

(PDF) In the United States, the national inventory of commercial spent nuclear fuel amounts to nearly 70,000 metric tons, which is stored at 75 sites in 33 states

For simple math that's 219 grams per person.

Now before you grab a shovel and bury that half-pound nuisance in your back yard, that's the uranium weight. Since there is binder and filler and stuff in that as well as the results of fission heat production (cesium, tritium and whatnot) and fissile uranium weight is typically only 3% of fuel rods, your actual weight of high-level nuclear waste to dispose of is 33x that, or 7.227 Kilos, or 16 pounds. Per person: man, woman, child. If you have usual the 2+3 nuclear family that's 80 pounds of crap that's never going to be safe in your lifetime to be put in a safe place for 100,000 years. Some of it is plutonium - one of the most toxic materials on Earth - which must also be protected from nation-states that desire it for weapons production, so budget for armed guards, hazard pay and regular audits of your 80LB bundle of joy - forever. That's just your share today. That top line figure grows by 3,000 metric tons per year.

Frankly here's the lie about fast reactors: Even in the utopian world where they work, can be built, deliver on their promises and create 100% of the world's electical power too cheap to meter - they don't need even 10% of our current spent fuel output, let alone the stores we've been saving up for 50 years. They could not consume the spent fuel ever.

The Masai and Inuit are famous for showing you can be healthy on a low carb high fat/protein diet, a fact I never argued with.

Excellent, then perhaps I misunderstood your position.

I'd take it a step farther and state that they also give us prominent evidence that ancestral cultures in wildly differing environments tended towards a low carb, high fat/protein diet.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/are-we-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-part-iii/

Is a guy selling protein supplements really a reliable source for analysis on whether we're naturally meat eaters?

Even then at best he shows that the European paleolithic population ate a lot of meat. But there's a big before and after period and we don't know how relevant the paleolithic diet is to modern nutrition. Certainly most populations will eat fatty meat when available because it's a great energy source, that doesn't mean doing the same when you have unlimited quantities will keep you thin!

Advanced culture who's high carb and low obesity? Japan.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sugar%20consumption%20per%20capita%20in%20USA%20and%20Japan

I never said Japan ate a lot of sugar, I said they ate a lot of carbs.

Primitive cultures who are high carb and low obesity? A bunch of other places in Asia and Africa.

Cite?

I don't know a lot about the site, but here's a bunch of carb heavy communities in China compared with a fat heavy community and there's not much difference. How do you explain that with the paleo evidence? If we're all adapted to high fat then why are all those other Chinese communities healthy? If the Chinese are adapted then how is the high fat community thin?

Injecting insulin not causing obesity? Done with mice.

Human evidence contraindicates.

It does? I assume you're not referring to the evidence that insulin is the mechanism for fat storage in humans, because it plays the exact same role in mice.

Replacing x% of calories from fat with pure sugar not causing obesity? Done with people.

Missing the insulin resistance factor.

People losing weight on high carb diets? Tons of vegetarians do this.

Again, insulin resistance factor.

So as long as you don't become insulin resistant then carbs won't make you fat? How do non-insulin resistant people lose weight on low carb diets then? Do you have to become insulin resistant before you become obese? (Assuming we ignore the non-insulin resistant obese)

If none of this data convinces you then what data possibly could?

Those aren't data, those are assertions.

Every "assertion" (except the vegetarian thing) I backed up in previous posts, often multiple times, with links to studies, journal articles, or blog posts with extensive citations to journal articles. How is that not data?

The Masai and Inuit are famous for showing you can be healthy on a low carb high fat/protein diet, a fact I never argued with.

Excellent, then perhaps I misunderstood your position.

I'd take it a step farther and state that they also give us prominent evidence that ancestral cultures in wildly differing environments tended towards a low carb, high fat/protein diet.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/are-we-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-part-iii/

The fact you can be healthy on a low carb diet doesn't mean you need a low carb diet.

But it could mean that fat people need a low carb diet.

Advanced culture who's high carb and low obesity? Japan.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sugar%20consumption%20per%20capita%20in%20USA%20and%20Japan

Primitive cultures who are high carb and low obesity? A bunch of other places in Asia and Africa.

Cite?

Injecting insulin not causing obesity? Done with mice.

Human evidence contraindicates.

Replacing x% of calories from fat with pure sugar not causing obesity? Done with people.

Missing the insulin resistance factor.

People losing weight on high carb diets? Tons of vegetarians do this.

Again, insulin resistance factor.

If none of this data convinces you then what data possibly could?

Those aren't data, those are assertions.

Your calculations are wrong, it's 0.87 hectares of land per person or roughly the size of a football field. Still a shockingly small area. If every person in the world had a western meat-rich diet, you'd need a whole lot of earths to feed them.

More precisely, ~3.785% annual growth would compound to 45% over ten years.

It's nice to know I managed to remember my logarithms.

I know exactly what a median is - the middle value of an ordered set. I guess you aren't actually reading the linked Wiki page, but for your given set the median would be 1. Here's Wolfram Alpha if you don't believe me. Again, by definition, exactly the same number of people earn above the median wage as earn below the median wage. The mean would be skewed by an unbalanced income distribution as it's calculated based on the values, but the median is based on the position of the values within the set and so outliers have a negligible impact.

Interesting I though I would try this:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average+age+of+all+the+countries.

Romansh is not the same as Romanian, which is spoken in Romania.

As a reference Geneva is 1573 km from Bucharest.

I don't think we see another 80s-style boom in our lifetimes.

Are you aware that the S&P 500 has yielded 25% over the past year? I don't know how long it will sustain that growth, but now is a pretty good time to be in the stock market.

if you can create imaginary engine giving you even 0.1g of constant acceleration for spaceship over period of few decades, entire galaxy is yours.

No. There is not enough reaction mass in the entire universe to accelerate a payload to relativistic speeds with an ion engine. With an exhaust velocity of 40 km/s, you would need one trillion kg of propellant to accelerate a tiny 100 kg payload to just 0.3% of the speed of light. The only method that comes even close would be a pure anti-matter drive.

Tsiolkovsky rocket equation calculator

Wolfram Alpha says $52,762 per year