Before I get slammed for this, note that I certainly don't deny global warming/climate change, but when we get record cold (which some areas got last winter), and "deniers" use that as evidence that global warming is a sham, what do you say to them?
Well... the same thing applies here.
Yes, but frequency of new record highs vs frequency of new record lows is also a statistic, which can be analyzed mathematically. look up nonparametric statistics if anyone's interested.
the basic principle here is not that record highs and lows are useless for making conclusions; rather that an N of 1 is of course unreliable, but when your N is like 20 or so you can make some meaningful deductions from the distribution of the record highs and lows.
Meanwhile, conservative America still has its head up its ass insisting that climate change is a liberal conspiracy and evolution the thing of the devil.
Not here to refute climate change, just to point out that this particular data point doesn't necessarily support it. The fact that the record in the western hemisphere was set in 1913 and has yet to be exceeded suggests that record temperatures are just, you know, kinda rare.
well, as this current flurry of high temp has brought up in the media, there is some disagreement that the 1913 Death Valley record was not an artifact of some sort of measurement error, in that none of the surrounding weather stations recorded a temperature remotely like that on that date, and in that region it is unusual for one station to have an isolated reading different from the neighbors.
at very minimum, though, this indicates that even if the Death Valley record is accurate, it was limited to a single weather station, whereas the current records represent record and near record heat throughout the entire Middle East.
""Yesterday, I met in Washington with 45 nations — defense ministers and foreign ministers — as we were working together on the challenge of [the Islamic State], and terrorism," he said. "It's hard for some people to grasp it, but what we — you — are doing here right now [amending the Montreal Protocol] is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself.""
http://www.washingtonexaminer.... remedial reading for rightwingers. http://www.teacher-of-english.... goes along with that remedial science course they need.
Best advice I ever got from salesman at good audio store when I was looking for decent phono plugs: just solder the cables in. For the frequency of connecting and disconnecting, the fact that my iron was usually hot anyway, and the freedom from connector hassles it was optimal.
Belts only work if your hips are larger than your waist.
A good alternative would go over your shoulder and through your crotch. Very positive pants retention and ability to carry heavy items.
I try to write my code as if I'm explaining it to a new, but competent coder. This serves me well when I write articles and include snippets of the code, as well as when I try and remember what the hell I was doing.
I also make heavy use of:// NOTE:// TODO:// HACK:
and their ilk.
since we started with SAS...
for the kind of things i work with in SAS, you can't break it up into the usual IT/designer/user kind of thing; you need to know the data you're working on inside and out... which variables are reliable, which need to be recoded.... so i put a lot of that stuff in comments./*4000 unique accounts*/ or/*tax_paid is always 0*/. stuff like that.
Dark matter, which is a complete and utter fantasy to cover for the fact that we don't know how gravity works, reminds me of the last time scientists pushed baseless nonsense so they could keep their jobs and keep funding their research into knowingly wrong science. Anyone remember "The Ether?" which was allegedly what empty space was made of. As it turns out empty space is made of empty space. Who would have thought?
i've always thought the idea of "potential energy" is only a hack to adjust calculations of kinetic energy to fit the law of conservation of energy. so, same deal with dark matter.
the result of using cheap cattle feed that included ground-up sheep infected with Scrapie. This induced BSE in the cows,
Today, from the "what the fuck were they thinking?" category...
Seriously, feeding ground up diseased animal to a different animal? What could possibly go wrong? It sounds like the public should have been aware of effects of DDT in 1962, which demonstrates what happens when bad stuff enters the food chain and gets concentrated up.
"I'd like to clear up some misconceptions regarding Krustyburgers. We do not use diseased animal tissue in Krustyburgers. We use healthy tissue from diseased animals" -Krusty the Klown
As the son-in-law of a dairy farmer I can tell you that stressed/unhappy cows are bad for business. They create poor quality milk, which reduces the quality of the entire tank.
That is to say, cow happiness is very much in the financial interest of the farmer.
That isn't to say that all farming is great, but in dairy, there is much more pressure to make the animal happy than in say, chicken farming or, pretty much anything else.
does condensed milk come from condensed cows? and evaporated milk.....?
Nah, try dogs milk.
Nothing wrong with dog's milk. Full of goodness, full of vitamins, full of marrowbone jelly. Lasts longer than any other milk, dog's milk.
It was poorly phrased. Of course the amount of calcium in the milk remains the same, but over heated milk does seem to have reduced bioavailability of calcium. The above poster's claim of a 50% reduction between raw and pasteurized milks seems to be really high, but I can't find any numbers on that. Pasteurization does reduce B and C vitamins in milk by about 5%.
So it was. Unfortunately that's the language commonly used in cheesemaking tutorials. Hence the 3rd paragraph in my original post. One day I might get around to read up on the actual biochemistry and be able to quantify more precisely, but for now I'm too lazy to do that and the cheese works out all right.
Is it really that god damn difficult for you high UID monkeys to use a bit of simple logic? Do you really need literally everything spoon-fed to you?
Are you seriously going to chastise someone when you didn't even bother to try to figure out what the hell is going on yourself? It's pretty obvious from TFS (which is admittedly poorly written, based on a poorly written TFA, based almost directly on a completely ignorant university press release linked in TFS) that the milk is still pasteurized and this is an ADDITIONAL step. So the "temperature" we're raising by "10 degrees" is completely confusing in all of these sources.
SLASHDOT EDITORS: STOP PUTTING UP CRAP ARTICLES WITHOUT A LINK TO THE ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC SOURCE!!!
This is the kind of stupid ignorant discussions we get without the actual scientific source, which can be found here.
Now everyone go read actually what this study did. Most stuff in TFS is confused if not downright wrong. Let me explain the basics of this process, based on the actual scientific study:
(1) Pasteurization is good, but it only results in limited shelf life. Other techniques used for increasing shelf life (ultra-high temp or UHT pasteurization, low-temperature long time or LTLT pasteurization) produce undesirable effects on flavor and/or nutrients, etc.
(2) This process is what the authors describe as "low temperature, short time (LTST) amendment for pasteurization" which could be added after normal pasteurization to increase shelf life dramatically without some of the negative effects described above.
(3) The statement from TFS "The technology they've developed involves increasing the temperature of milk by just 10 degrees for less than a second, which is well below the 70-degree Celsius threshold needed for pasteurization" is complete BS. I don't know what it's supposed to mean. If you go to the actual scientific study, you'll find the temperatures in the chamber for the 5 trials varied between 64.8 C and 83.8 C. In general, chamber temperatures in the trials below 70 C seemed to be much less effective at increasing shelf life and weren't recommended. So TFS -- and the university press it's based on -- are completely wrong.
(4) What is the process really? Well, just after pasteurization (which occurs at or above 72.7C), the milk is reheated in a special chamber and dispersed in droplets. The reheating step only raises the temperature of the milk by 1 to 10C over what it was before (in the words of the authors "at or below pasteurization temperatures" of less than or equal to 72.7C) for 0.02 seconds. As I noted above, the actual temperature achieved in the chamber seems important (definitely above 70 C seems desirable), with higher temperatures being more effective at increasing shelf life.
(5) The process is potentially an improvement over other proposals to increase shelf-life for a number of reasons:
-- No significant loss in nutrients compared with standard pasteurization.
-- No significant taste difference or perceived quality difference among tasters with this additional step.
-- The minimal heat energy required for this step could be incorporated into a standard pasteurization process setting to siphon off heat energy already present from the pasteurization tube, so this wouldn't necessarily require additional energy (and is thus very efficient).
OK? That's what's actually going on here. Now that we know what the original science is actually about, please continue your random Slashdot insults and debates.... perhaps slightly more informed.
and, in addition, there may be a large source of hydrogen gas under the ocean,
The only conclusion I can come to is that you are Timmmmah in disguise (albeit a bad one). So quit making a fool of your self and just leave well enough alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Before I get slammed for this, note that I certainly don't deny global warming/climate change, but when we get record cold (which some areas got last winter), and "deniers" use that as evidence that global warming is a sham, what do you say to them?
Well... the same thing applies here.
Yes, but frequency of new record highs vs frequency of new record lows is also a statistic, which can be analyzed mathematically. look up nonparametric statistics if anyone's interested.
the basic principle here is not that record highs and lows are useless for making conclusions; rather that an N of 1 is of course unreliable, but when your N is like 20 or so you can make some meaningful deductions from the distribution of the record highs and lows.
Meanwhile, conservative America still has its head up its ass insisting that climate change is a liberal conspiracy and evolution the thing of the devil.
Not here to refute climate change, just to point out that this particular data point doesn't necessarily support it. The fact that the record in the western hemisphere was set in 1913 and has yet to be exceeded suggests that record temperatures are just, you know, kinda rare.
well, as this current flurry of high temp has brought up in the media, there is some disagreement that the 1913 Death Valley record was not an artifact of some sort of measurement error, in that none of the surrounding weather stations recorded a temperature remotely like that on that date, and in that region it is unusual for one station to have an isolated reading different from the neighbors.
at very minimum, though, this indicates that even if the Death Valley record is accurate, it was limited to a single weather station, whereas the current records represent record and near record heat throughout the entire Middle East.
Kerry says AC is worse than ISIS.
You are a terrorist, apparently.
""Yesterday, I met in Washington with 45 nations — defense ministers and foreign ministers — as we were working together on the challenge of [the Islamic State], and terrorism," he said. "It's hard for some people to grasp it, but what we — you — are doing here right now [amending the Montreal Protocol] is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself."" http://www.washingtonexaminer....
remedial reading for rightwingers. http://www.teacher-of-english....
goes along with that remedial science course they need.
But it's dry heat.
that's a dry humor.
I suspect that belief that computerized brain training can prevent dementia is probably a symptom of early dementia.
I'm just going to install Bluetooth into my auditory nerves.
Yeah;how does one connect to power and phones simultaneously?
Best advice I ever got from salesman at good audio store when I was looking for decent phono plugs: just solder the cables in. For the frequency of connecting and disconnecting, the fact that my iron was usually hot anyway, and the freedom from connector hassles it was optimal.
I write all lower case and let the keyboard capitalize what it wants.
I accidentally put mine down sideways last week and it became invisible for two days until the wind blew it over.
Belts only work if your hips are larger than your waist. A good alternative would go over your shoulder and through your crotch. Very positive pants retention and ability to carry heavy items.
My old Motorola had no phone jack, just a proprietary connector.
I turned my laptop into a laptop, for free
i turned a few android phones into bricks, by upgrading the OS.
I try to write my code as if I'm explaining it to a new, but competent coder. This serves me well when I write articles and include snippets of the code, as well as when I try and remember what the hell I was doing.
I also make heavy use of: // NOTE: // TODO: // HACK:
and their ilk.
since we started with SAS... /*4000 unique accounts*/ or /*tax_paid is always 0*/. stuff like that.
for the kind of things i work with in SAS, you can't break it up into the usual IT/designer/user kind of thing; you need to know the data you're working on inside and out... which variables are reliable, which need to be recoded.... so i put a lot of that stuff in comments.
Scientists' Biggest Search For Dark Matter To Date Just Turned Up Nothing
dude, that's heavy.
Dark matter, which is a complete and utter fantasy to cover for the fact that we don't know how gravity works, reminds me of the last time scientists pushed baseless nonsense so they could keep their jobs and keep funding their research into knowingly wrong science. Anyone remember "The Ether?" which was allegedly what empty space was made of. As it turns out empty space is made of empty space. Who would have thought?
i've always thought the idea of "potential energy" is only a hack to adjust calculations of kinetic energy to fit the law of conservation of energy. so, same deal with dark matter.
so, the search was successful, then.
the result of using cheap cattle feed that included ground-up sheep infected with Scrapie. This induced BSE in the cows,
Today, from the "what the fuck were they thinking?" category...
Seriously, feeding ground up diseased animal to a different animal? What could possibly go wrong? It sounds like the public should have been aware of effects of DDT in 1962, which demonstrates what happens when bad stuff enters the food chain and gets concentrated up.
"I'd like to clear up some misconceptions regarding Krustyburgers. We do not use diseased animal tissue in Krustyburgers. We use healthy tissue from diseased animals" -Krusty the Klown
As the son-in-law of a dairy farmer I can tell you that stressed/unhappy cows are bad for business. They create poor quality milk, which reduces the quality of the entire tank.
That is to say, cow happiness is very much in the financial interest of the farmer.
That isn't to say that all farming is great, but in dairy, there is much more pressure to make the animal happy than in say, chicken farming or, pretty much anything else.
does condensed milk come from condensed cows? and evaporated milk.....?
Nah, try dogs milk. Nothing wrong with dog's milk. Full of goodness, full of vitamins, full of marrowbone jelly. Lasts longer than any other milk, dog's milk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
once you've gotten the little milking stool set up under a dachshund, it's all pretty easy.
It was poorly phrased. Of course the amount of calcium in the milk remains the same, but over heated milk does seem to have reduced bioavailability of calcium. The above poster's claim of a 50% reduction between raw and pasteurized milks seems to be really high, but I can't find any numbers on that. Pasteurization does reduce B and C vitamins in milk by about 5%.
So it was. Unfortunately that's the language commonly used in cheesemaking tutorials. Hence the 3rd paragraph in my original post. One day I might get around to read up on the actual biochemistry and be able to quantify more precisely, but for now I'm too lazy to do that and the cheese works out all right.
About adding Ca: http://curd-nerd.com/calcium-c...
blessed are the cheesemakers.
38.6C, the temp it comes out of the cow.
Is it really that god damn difficult for you high UID monkeys to use a bit of simple logic? Do you really need literally everything spoon-fed to you?
Are you seriously going to chastise someone when you didn't even bother to try to figure out what the hell is going on yourself? It's pretty obvious from TFS (which is admittedly poorly written, based on a poorly written TFA, based almost directly on a completely ignorant university press release linked in TFS) that the milk is still pasteurized and this is an ADDITIONAL step. So the "temperature" we're raising by "10 degrees" is completely confusing in all of these sources.
SLASHDOT EDITORS: STOP PUTTING UP CRAP ARTICLES WITHOUT A LINK TO THE ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC SOURCE!!!
This is the kind of stupid ignorant discussions we get without the actual scientific source, which can be found here.
Now everyone go read actually what this study did. Most stuff in TFS is confused if not downright wrong. Let me explain the basics of this process, based on the actual scientific study:
(1) Pasteurization is good, but it only results in limited shelf life. Other techniques used for increasing shelf life (ultra-high temp or UHT pasteurization, low-temperature long time or LTLT pasteurization) produce undesirable effects on flavor and/or nutrients, etc.
(2) This process is what the authors describe as "low temperature, short time (LTST) amendment for pasteurization" which could be added after normal pasteurization to increase shelf life dramatically without some of the negative effects described above.
(3) The statement from TFS "The technology they've developed involves increasing the temperature of milk by just 10 degrees for less than a second, which is well below the 70-degree Celsius threshold needed for pasteurization" is complete BS. I don't know what it's supposed to mean. If you go to the actual scientific study, you'll find the temperatures in the chamber for the 5 trials varied between 64.8 C and 83.8 C. In general, chamber temperatures in the trials below 70 C seemed to be much less effective at increasing shelf life and weren't recommended. So TFS -- and the university press it's based on -- are completely wrong.
(4) What is the process really? Well, just after pasteurization (which occurs at or above 72.7C), the milk is reheated in a special chamber and dispersed in droplets. The reheating step only raises the temperature of the milk by 1 to 10C over what it was before (in the words of the authors "at or below pasteurization temperatures" of less than or equal to 72.7C) for 0.02 seconds. As I noted above, the actual temperature achieved in the chamber seems important (definitely above 70 C seems desirable), with higher temperatures being more effective at increasing shelf life.
(5) The process is potentially an improvement over other proposals to increase shelf-life for a number of reasons: -- No significant loss in nutrients compared with standard pasteurization. -- No significant taste difference or perceived quality difference among tasters with this additional step. -- The minimal heat energy required for this step could be incorporated into a standard pasteurization process setting to siphon off heat energy already present from the pasteurization tube, so this wouldn't necessarily require additional energy (and is thus very efficient).
OK? That's what's actually going on here. Now that we know what the original science is actually about, please continue your random Slashdot insults and debates.... perhaps slightly more informed.
and, in addition, there may be a large source of hydrogen gas under the ocean,
The only conclusion I can come to is that you are Timmmmah in disguise (albeit a bad one). So quit making a fool of your self and just leave well enough alone.
Maybe he recently joined the American Non Sequitur Society.
ice cream has no bones.
The references make sense if they're related subjects, but the only connection is 'scientists' this time.
Could be the "fast-spreading tectonic plates" as that's the best place to drill for milk.
1) many people drink milk
2) many people live on a tectonic plate
Both stories directly relate to events on planet Earth.
perhaps we can also extend then storage life of hydrogen by increasing the temp by ten degrees for a munute