While every country has plenty of stupid people, I am starting to believe that my beloved America has more than most.
Out of curiosity, do you live in the US? Being immersed on the stupidity of one country, it's easy to conclude that it's higher than another country you don't live in and don't see the crap on a day-to-day basis. Alternatively, if you do live in another country, it's hard to be sure you're actually seeing less stupidity, and not just seeing different stupidity that is novel and you haven't really equated. In other words, it's hard to measure either way. Fortunately, the results aren't really that important.
When I was living in japan, I thought they were smarter initially, then once I got used to it, I realized that in at least Tokyo, they're at least as superficial as they are in New York, there's much more follow the leader blindly groupthink, and more fear of outsiders. I concluded that other people aren't smarter, they're just differently stupid.
I don't think it was always this way but I think our education system has declined to the point that we're left with a bunch of thoughtless ADD'ers who can't think of anything but themselves.
I've heard an idle hypothesis actually that only people with ADD would be crazy enough to make the voyage over to the new world, that people without ADD stayed in europe. Another impossible to prove hypothesis, but interesting nonetheless.
Just ask some younger people anything about history, geography, and forget math... you might be surprised how little they know. Our schools don't teach kids how to think, at least not critically and it's fucking up our country (and the world).
Well, japan has gotten in some international trouble lately for whitewashing of it's history. I've heard that british textbooks downplay the american involvement in WWII a suprising amount. And of course in much of the arab world, education consists of memorizing the Koran, and nothing else. So some perspective is important. We could do better, but we could do much much worse.
The whole tax and governing apparatus is rotten to the core. Money gets wasted without adequate oversight or explanation where it goes. We, the people, are getting shafted and gamed by the people who are supposedly on our payroll.
which to many Americans (who are, let's be honest, people and therefore stupid)
Fixed that minor point for you. It's not like the good people of the rest of the world are magically resistant to propaghanda or sufficiently knowledgeable about economic systems.
Perhaps your bias is so strong to bash US companies that you can't see that?
Are we running against each other for office? If not, are you honestly trying to convince me I'm biased against US companies? What's next, telling me I'm "unamerican?" I didn't read the article, it was jumping to the wrong conclusion. Not bias against american companies.
That said, why did it take them so long to offer something like this? It's not like gas just suddenly became less than plentiful. It was cheaper, yes, but a little foresight and responsibility?
GM saying toyota is wrong for pushing the hybrids, we have an american company naysaying the green car demand. Why are they questioning consumer demands for small and green rather than blindly rushing to meet it like they did when it was for big and inefficient?
Is it reluctance because they think this whole fuel efficiency thing is a passing fancy? They remember the money they were making by selling hummers, expeditions, and escalades, and want to return to the good old days? It's not that they don't want to give us what we want on principle, they were still making gas guzzlers full tilt when gas prices went up and no one wanted them anymore, even though it should have been obvious to anyone working in the industry what was going to happen.
I suspect it's because they're in bed with the oil industry and want to keep demand high by selling gas-guzzlers. There's no positive proof of that, at least not that I know of, but giving large corporations the benefit of the doubt when it comes to public interest is, well, stupid and naive.
Uh... where on earth is there zero gravity... on earth? Underwater is apperantly hazardous to women's heath. In one of those skydiving simulators could be interesting, albeit noisy, and getting chapped would be a concern for me anyway. While actually skydiving has definitely been done.
Anyway, duh: SPACE: the final frontier! To boldly go where no man has gone before!
Yes, the same company that gave us the prius, is apperantly less reluctant to tap into the green car market, and seemed to realize that the american craze of huge gas guzzling SUVs wasn't going to last forever. I was talking specifically about american car companies, they're the ones that were gung ho to give us what we wanted when that was bigger and don't want to do that now that it's smaller.
Why can't somebody just give us a green car that actually looks good?
I remember hearing that there actually was a normal-looking hybrid that preceeded the prius. There are many alternative explanations as to why it didn't sell as well, one of which may have been low gas prices. But at least one theory is that prius owners like the distinctive look because it lets other people know that they're driving a hybrid. The article I was reading had a quote by some loon saying that was half the point. Ridiculous I know. I kind of suspect that automakers are resistant to change and don't like the hybrid movement so they try to squelch it by giving us only ugly options. That's based on nothing but cynisism though.
Kick yourself for not watching the meter, then push/tow your car to the nearest charging station. Maybe call a charging service. It's not like most americans now walk to a gas station and back when they run out of gas.
These same american car companies seemed all too eager to give us bigger, less fuel efficient tanks while demand was high. Obviously, that was a fad that was unsustainable, but they kept churning them out. Here we have clear proof that people want more efficiency and at least to feel like they're driving green, yet car companies aren't convinced they should give us them? Why is that stopping them now? Surely they haven't learned their lesson to think long-term rather than "Everyone is buying this right now, if these trends continue forever, and they will, then WOO HOO!"
"The look and bouquet of the drink is improved and because of the chemical changes, the alcohol is easier to absorb by the kidneys and therefore, hangovers are virtually eliminated.
After reading that, I'm inclined to think this guy is clearly a con. This makes no sense, I don't believe it's possible to chemically modify the alchohol to make it easier to be cleaned out of the system, if it were chemically modified it wouldnt' be ethanol anymore. I could be wrong but I think the liver, not the kidneys, are the limiting step here. And hangovers aren't caused by leftover alchohol, a lot of the effects are due to dehydration, as alchohol acts as a diuretic to increase your urine output.
I have no idea as to the intensity or frequency compared between the two, and I have to point out that they blasted these mice with 30 mins of highest setting ultrasound, not realistic doses. The effects of a few misplaced neurons are also unknown, but likely not much. And, as the paper points out, no one should be using this as an excuse not to get an ultrasound for prenatal testing, the diagnostic value of it is very clear and important. But yeah, it does appear it may have an effect.
Typically the 'age-worthy' wines are made with the choice fruit, and are designed to age by balancing the acid content with the fruit content. As the fruit mellows over time so do the acids (tannins). It is an art as much as as it is a science.
Are the two chemical processes related by any chance? It seems to me that this process could artificially mellow the tannins and the fruit, even in cheap wine. Since we don't know how or if it works, it's possible. Why is it that bad wine doesn't get better with age?
This definitely seems like an area where science could take out the need for art.
Well, the blurby summary may be off, but your analysis is too. Cheap wine aged may get worse, but I'm more inclined to believe that's because of impurities which degrade the flavor over time. Since this isn't actually aging, that might not be the case.
Since I have no idea how or if this thing works, and don't know what makes good wine (my standard would be does it have EtOH in it and can I put it in my stomach and not die) this is all conjecture, but keep in mind it's not a time travel machine. However it is that time tends to increase the quality of wine, this might do it specifically, in which case even crappy wine would get better. If crappy wine gets worse with age, that might not be the same process, and might not be affected by this.
Hypothetical explanation: good wine has high levels of X component, which tastes good, and low levels of Y component which tastes bad. Over time, X and Y undergo chemical changes increasing their impact. Since good wine has more X, aging will improve it. Bad wine has higher levels of Y and/or lower levels of X. Over time, the impact of Y becomes bigger, so you're better off drinking it before that.
If the ultrasonic treatment specifically causes the chemical change in X but not Y, then no matter the quality, X will increase but not Y. Doing this to good wine will make high X and low Y. Doing this to bad wine will cause high X and low Y as well.
Again (in case it's not blindingly obvious) I have little idea what I'm talking about, but the analysis that this thing can't work because bad wine gets worse over time seems very flawed. It's also a mistake to judge from a single paragraph what probably has much much longer justification and explanation.
Basically, we need a 3rd party account of someone who has tried this before we can judge. The proof is in the pudding.
What's your fucking point anyway? What do you get out of posting at Slashdot? Nothing is ever going to come out of it. You came to this discussion with all your ideas firmly held and no discussion where you disagree with someone on the internet is ever going to change your viewpoint. You're just engaging in intellectual masturbation.
It's pretty funny actually.
Your homework, by the way, is to switch to decaf and throw away your Linkin Park albums.
Slashdot Mirror
While every country has plenty of stupid people, I am starting to believe that my beloved America has more than most.
Out of curiosity, do you live in the US? Being immersed on the stupidity of one country, it's easy to conclude that it's higher than another country you don't live in and don't see the crap on a day-to-day basis. Alternatively, if you do live in another country, it's hard to be sure you're actually seeing less stupidity, and not just seeing different stupidity that is novel and you haven't really equated. In other words, it's hard to measure either way. Fortunately, the results aren't really that important.
When I was living in japan, I thought they were smarter initially, then once I got used to it, I realized that in at least Tokyo, they're at least as superficial as they are in New York, there's much more follow the leader blindly groupthink, and more fear of outsiders. I concluded that other people aren't smarter, they're just differently stupid.
I don't think it was always this way but I think our education system has declined to the point that we're left with a bunch of thoughtless ADD'ers who can't think of anything but themselves.
I've heard an idle hypothesis actually that only people with ADD would be crazy enough to make the voyage over to the new world, that people without ADD stayed in europe. Another impossible to prove hypothesis, but interesting nonetheless.
Just ask some younger people anything about history, geography, and forget math... you might be surprised how little they know. Our schools don't teach kids how to think, at least not critically and it's fucking up our country (and the world).
Well, japan has gotten in some international trouble lately for whitewashing of it's history. I've heard that british textbooks downplay the american involvement in WWII a suprising amount. And of course in much of the arab world, education consists of memorizing the Koran, and nothing else. So some perspective is important. We could do better, but we could do much much worse.
Clever, but you're still criticizing spelling. No points but you don't lose points either.
Oh, and the gay marriages are probably driving divorce rates down in blue states too.
Shotgun marriages from knocking up governors' daughters is at least one thing that drives those divorce rates up.
So my cynicism that they were just in bed with the oil industry was unjustified. Hooray! Renewed faith in humanity!
The whole tax and governing apparatus is rotten to the core. Money gets wasted without adequate oversight or explanation where it goes. We, the people, are getting shafted and gamed by the people who are supposedly on our payroll.
In all of history, has it EVER been different?
which to many Americans (who are, let's be honest, people and therefore stupid)
Fixed that minor point for you. It's not like the good people of the rest of the world are magically resistant to propaghanda or sufficiently knowledgeable about economic systems.
The beginning of tagging trolls?
Perhaps your bias is so strong to bash US companies that you can't see that?
Are we running against each other for office? If not, are you honestly trying to convince me I'm biased against US companies? What's next, telling me I'm "unamerican?" I didn't read the article, it was jumping to the wrong conclusion. Not bias against american companies.
That said, why did it take them so long to offer something like this? It's not like gas just suddenly became less than plentiful. It was cheaper, yes, but a little foresight and responsibility?
Oh, yeah I did fail to read TFA. But you did say "But...it's GM that's saying Toyota is wrong..." which sounds like GM saying toyota is wrong.
You're right though, GM does sound like finally they're getting up off their asses. They did take their sweet time though.
GM saying toyota is wrong for pushing the hybrids, we have an american company naysaying the green car demand. Why are they questioning consumer demands for small and green rather than blindly rushing to meet it like they did when it was for big and inefficient?
Is it reluctance because they think this whole fuel efficiency thing is a passing fancy? They remember the money they were making by selling hummers, expeditions, and escalades, and want to return to the good old days? It's not that they don't want to give us what we want on principle, they were still making gas guzzlers full tilt when gas prices went up and no one wanted them anymore, even though it should have been obvious to anyone working in the industry what was going to happen.
I suspect it's because they're in bed with the oil industry and want to keep demand high by selling gas-guzzlers. There's no positive proof of that, at least not that I know of, but giving large corporations the benefit of the doubt when it comes to public interest is, well, stupid and naive.
Explain to me how the drink can be chemically changed to make alchohol absorbed easier after it's already in your bloodstream.
Not to mention afterwards for the guy... does it just STAY up?
Uh... where on earth is there zero gravity... on earth? Underwater is apperantly hazardous to women's heath. In one of those skydiving simulators could be interesting, albeit noisy, and getting chapped would be a concern for me anyway. While actually skydiving has definitely been done.
Anyway, duh: SPACE: the final frontier! To boldly go where no man has gone before!
Yes, the same company that gave us the prius, is apperantly less reluctant to tap into the green car market, and seemed to realize that the american craze of huge gas guzzling SUVs wasn't going to last forever. I was talking specifically about american car companies, they're the ones that were gung ho to give us what we wanted when that was bigger and don't want to do that now that it's smaller.
Why can't somebody just give us a green car that actually looks good?
I remember hearing that there actually was a normal-looking hybrid that preceeded the prius. There are many alternative explanations as to why it didn't sell as well, one of which may have been low gas prices. But at least one theory is that prius owners like the distinctive look because it lets other people know that they're driving a hybrid. The article I was reading had a quote by some loon saying that was half the point. Ridiculous I know. I kind of suspect that automakers are resistant to change and don't like the hybrid movement so they try to squelch it by giving us only ugly options. That's based on nothing but cynisism though.
What is the dirtiest method of power?????
Burning wood. Runner up: burning gasoline in your car.
Kick yourself for not watching the meter, then push/tow your car to the nearest charging station. Maybe call a charging service. It's not like most americans now walk to a gas station and back when they run out of gas.
These same american car companies seemed all too eager to give us bigger, less fuel efficient tanks while demand was high. Obviously, that was a fad that was unsustainable, but they kept churning them out. Here we have clear proof that people want more efficiency and at least to feel like they're driving green, yet car companies aren't convinced they should give us them? Why is that stopping them now? Surely they haven't learned their lesson to think long-term rather than "Everyone is buying this right now, if these trends continue forever, and they will, then WOO HOO!"
"The look and bouquet of the drink is improved and because of the chemical changes, the alcohol is easier to absorb by the kidneys and therefore, hangovers are virtually eliminated.
After reading that, I'm inclined to think this guy is clearly a con. This makes no sense, I don't believe it's possible to chemically modify the alchohol to make it easier to be cleaned out of the system, if it were chemically modified it wouldnt' be ethanol anymore. I could be wrong but I think the liver, not the kidneys, are the limiting step here. And hangovers aren't caused by leftover alchohol, a lot of the effects are due to dehydration, as alchohol acts as a diuretic to increase your urine output.
This guy is full of shit.
Funny you should ask that...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16901978
I have no idea as to the intensity or frequency compared between the two, and I have to point out that they blasted these mice with 30 mins of highest setting ultrasound, not realistic doses. The effects of a few misplaced neurons are also unknown, but likely not much. And, as the paper points out, no one should be using this as an excuse not to get an ultrasound for prenatal testing, the diagnostic value of it is very clear and important. But yeah, it does appear it may have an effect.
Typically the 'age-worthy' wines are made with the choice fruit, and are designed to age by balancing the acid content with the fruit content. As the fruit mellows over time so do the acids (tannins). It is an art as much as as it is a science.
Are the two chemical processes related by any chance? It seems to me that this process could artificially mellow the tannins and the fruit, even in cheap wine. Since we don't know how or if it works, it's possible. Why is it that bad wine doesn't get better with age?
This definitely seems like an area where science could take out the need for art.
Well, the blurby summary may be off, but your analysis is too. Cheap wine aged may get worse, but I'm more inclined to believe that's because of impurities which degrade the flavor over time. Since this isn't actually aging, that might not be the case.
Since I have no idea how or if this thing works, and don't know what makes good wine (my standard would be does it have EtOH in it and can I put it in my stomach and not die) this is all conjecture, but keep in mind it's not a time travel machine. However it is that time tends to increase the quality of wine, this might do it specifically, in which case even crappy wine would get better. If crappy wine gets worse with age, that might not be the same process, and might not be affected by this.
Hypothetical explanation: good wine has high levels of X component, which tastes good, and low levels of Y component which tastes bad. Over time, X and Y undergo chemical changes increasing their impact. Since good wine has more X, aging will improve it. Bad wine has higher levels of Y and/or lower levels of X. Over time, the impact of Y becomes bigger, so you're better off drinking it before that.
If the ultrasonic treatment specifically causes the chemical change in X but not Y, then no matter the quality, X will increase but not Y. Doing this to good wine will make high X and low Y. Doing this to bad wine will cause high X and low Y as well.
Again (in case it's not blindingly obvious) I have little idea what I'm talking about, but the analysis that this thing can't work because bad wine gets worse over time seems very flawed. It's also a mistake to judge from a single paragraph what probably has much much longer justification and explanation.
Basically, we need a 3rd party account of someone who has tried this before we can judge. The proof is in the pudding.
What's your fucking point anyway? What do you get out of posting at Slashdot? Nothing is ever going to come out of it. You came to this discussion with all your ideas firmly held and no discussion where you disagree with someone on the internet is ever going to change your viewpoint. You're just engaging in intellectual masturbation.
It's pretty funny actually.
Your homework, by the way, is to switch to decaf and throw away your Linkin Park albums.
http://www.gamekyo.com/Webmasters/Images/7383620081001_140251_0_big.jpg
The miis in the bottom right look pretty faked, but the rest looks okay. Of course, I won't hold my breath until we see some videos.