The elephant in the room is the fact that colleges and forced cheap, easy student loans are being used to keep unemployment numbers down in the recession. Many millions of US student are in college because they couldn't find a good job. Many of them would stop attending immediately if a good job were offered.
It's not education, it's welfare.
This is India. It's possible that the elephant in the room could be an actual elephant, in the room.
Why, it's even possible that citizens in a country with free unfettered access to information of all kinds from all sources could be led to believe that they were in danger of attack by some random country on the other side of the globe, and be stampeded into some panicked invasion and overthrow at a vast cost in money, human lives, and global stability. Yeah, it's ridiculous, but it could happen, given a populace with the sufficient combination of gullibility and paranoia.
This is the third world, after all; if you fail to start climbing the ladder, you fail big time, minimal safety net. Morality and ethics are a luxury most people can't afford, so the social attitudes towards "cheats" are looser than we are used to, and as the center of the curve shifts over to worse, the outliers also move in that direction. for instance, just from a few dsys ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Although you could argue this guy is no worse than Enron or your average mortgage fraudster. Let alone Mr. Cheney's clever way to get business for Halliburton
See also: doing business in China without poisoning your children or pets.
Hydroelectric for some reason is never talked about for green energy. Because of the Hoover dam image. A large structure that completely changes the local environment. The problem is in america, we are still stuck on the idea of Big Energy large grids covering the nation. We don't think in terms of small energy, having a small community powered by modest green sources. And every community can have different sources to meet their needs. Solar is good. But some of us live in areas where there is a lot of tree cover (and cutting trees isn't really the green option), Other areas have a decent wind, and others are near running water. These smaller sections will in agragate may take up more space, their impact is actually a lot less, as a smaller plot of land can heal a lot faster then say plowing down hundred acres.
Not really. Assuming a gallon of gasoline is worth about 10KWH of electricity, and assuming some decent performance efficiency-wise on either side, that would be 8900 grams of CO2 from the gasoline, and 9750 producing that electricity from coal. (any other fossil fuel is better than the gasoline)
And the reality, of course, is that you can't assume the best performance and efficiency from a coal fired power plant as reliably as from an automobile, since automobiles usually don't last more than ten years, but the northeast is still running on coal plants apparently built during the stone age, which were grandfathered in by the Clean Air Act.
And, that's just the CO2; if you include the other pollutants spewed by coal fired power plants, you're better off driving one of those mid sixties 7 liter American road yachts than a Prius or whatever. Not exaggerating; it's been calculated that the negative effects of coal smoke on health and agriculture alone (not including any CO2 climate effects) cost society more than the value of the electricity produced.
Five square metres of solar panel on every single domestic roof in the USA would produce a very significant energy change. 125 million houses * 5Kw is 625 gigawatts. Germany has 23 gigawatts of domestic solar panels, which, on a sunny day, is sufficient to power the whole country. Yes, obviously, it doesn't work twenty-four hours a day, or in bad weather. Yes, obviously, you need to find some way of storing energy, such as compressed air, hydrogen hydrolysis, pumped storage or whatever. None of this is rocket science.
Bottom line: the USA could power its whole economy, including road vehicles, on domestic solar panels alone.
But, of course, solar panel output is highly correlated with the times of peak electricity demand, i.e. sunny summer afternoons.
Maybe because most studies are put out before even verified. Seems like the studies are either stupid, and a lot of them are later disproved, and many are paid to get the desired results. (See climate change)
How do you verify the study before it is published? Ask the same guy to do it again, making all the same mistakes, and see it if comes out the same? Or make peer review include repeating the study?
For citations central to your argument, sure, you need to track down the main papers. It's not that difficult - just look at what papers everybody else is citing. But most citations are just fulfilling the [citation needed] reqs for facts you use in your work. Any one of dozens, sometimes hundreds, of papers would easily fill in for that role.
You find two references about the same thing. As far as citing the fact you need they're essentially equivalent. One will take three weeks and thirty dollars - and half a day of arguing to make the lab pay those thirty dollars - to get, and half the time your thirty bucks will give you a badly printed paper copy. The other you can download into your paper manager and read right now. Guess which one almost everybody will use?
The most frequently cited papers are not great steps forward, but method papers; somebody does some doofy study of fish farts, but it includes a great method for analyzing exhaust gases, so every gas analysis paper ever afterwards references it
I read a study that showed that, ironically.
"My sister says all the good thesis topics have been taken. She's doing hers on how a dust speck bounces when it hits the table"
"My brother is doing his on the letter G".
Killing is not for punishment. No one who says that legal system is about punishment knows what they are talking about. Legals systems are about civil obedience. When the victims, the populous, cry out for blood you need to give it to them or face civil unrest. It is about making an example out of people to discourage other lawbreaking.
After a few thousand years of this experiment failing to have eradicated crime and/or antisocial behavior, perhaps giving a shot at plan b is in order.
"Perhaps if you knew a little bit more about the issue you wouldn't be making silly opinionated statements as if they were fact.
I'm sorry you're too simple minded to understand that some people are not worth letting live, but thats the reality of it. Not everyone is worthy of life, deal with it."
Good thing we have people like you who know more than us to decide! How many folks are in the death panel, or is it just you?
Uh.. just wondering... what do you if your name comes up? Just curiosity, no concreyte plans at all you need to concern yourself with at all.
Neil Gaiman first wrote his version of Death in The Sandman in 1990. Pratchett wrote Mort, in which I believe we first really saw his version of Death, in 1987, so he came first; the OP said "almost any author before him", which I think also allows him to slide over old, obscure short stories.
As you have, because you ignored Luke 1:41-44, Psalm 51, Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:5, and Hosea 12. Those indicate humanity before birth. Interpret as you will, but don't claim the converse as "fact".
Embryonic stem cell research? REALLY? The bible doesn't mention stealing people's credit card information or hijacking airplanes, either, so those must be OK as well.
Are you one of those people who claim that the second amendment only protects muskets (and artillery, obviously)?
Now that you bring it up, the Bible doesn't mention firearms at all.
Prior to the understanding of proteins as little machines, it was theorized that enzymes worked by somehow changing the structure of water so that the reaction being catalyzed was accelerated; the prevailing model was the colloid, where the properties of the suspension are due to its bulk properties, rather than quasimechanical activity of the individual molecules.
My vet had the best explanation for why dogs and cats eat grass. He just looked at me quizzically for a second, and said "They eat grass because they like to eat grass".
The problem is when the placebo effect is not powerfull enough to overcome a medical issue but
Yes it is. Go read about the placebo effect. e.g. there was an operation that was carried out for some time for angina. It was pretty effective for a lot of patients, resulting in long-term symptom relief. I don't recall the exact details, but I think it involved tying up some superficial blood vessels under the assumption that this would reduce pressure on the heart. Some time later a surgeon did a study where some patients received a sham operation. Turns out the sham was as effective as the real operation. Because it was "no better than placebo" the operation got canned. Yet it worked. The reference is in Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" book.
Looks like an interesting book:
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Scie...
Here's the angina section
http://nemaloknig.info/read-23...
you couldn't do anything like that today, as subjecting a human to a sham operation is definitely unethical.
But a similar item is back surgery for back pain; the operation is statistically no better than no operation whatsoever, never mind a sham.
Any article or ad or product which uses the word detox I immediately automatically dismiss. Also the word toxin, unless it's in the specifically scientifically correct denotation of the word. Also cleanse.
Stepping back, all these and similar concepts show an odd view of the world, that our bodies are these pure temples that are polluted by such impure things as coffee or gluten or staying up all night doing drugs. That's not how it works, honest. Might as well go detox your car by doing a muffler cleanse after you've build up toxins from using low budget gasoline.
Slashdot Mirror
The elephant in the room is the fact that colleges and forced cheap, easy student loans are being used to keep unemployment numbers down in the recession. Many millions of US student are in college because they couldn't find a good job. Many of them would stop attending immediately if a good job were offered. It's not education, it's welfare.
This is India. It's possible that the elephant in the room could be an actual elephant, in the room.
Why, it's even possible that citizens in a country with free unfettered access to information of all kinds from all sources could be led to believe that they were in danger of attack by some random country on the other side of the globe, and be stampeded into some panicked invasion and overthrow at a vast cost in money, human lives, and global stability. Yeah, it's ridiculous, but it could happen, given a populace with the sufficient combination of gullibility and paranoia.
Yeah, this sure proves the validity of the small government/libertarian case. After all, look, the free market has solved the problem!
This is the third world, after all; if you fail to start climbing the ladder, you fail big time, minimal safety net. Morality and ethics are a luxury most people can't afford, so the social attitudes towards "cheats" are looser than we are used to, and as the center of the curve shifts over to worse, the outliers also move in that direction. for instance, just from a few dsys ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... Although you could argue this guy is no worse than Enron or your average mortgage fraudster. Let alone Mr. Cheney's clever way to get business for Halliburton
See also: doing business in China without poisoning your children or pets.
This is a business school, after all. These students have gotten a very good education in the very basis of business, corporate style.
If only India would have had a Second Amendment, the victims would have been able to prevent this tragedy.
Hydroelectric for some reason is never talked about for green energy. Because of the Hoover dam image. A large structure that completely changes the local environment. The problem is in america, we are still stuck on the idea of Big Energy large grids covering the nation. We don't think in terms of small energy, having a small community powered by modest green sources. And every community can have different sources to meet their needs. Solar is good. But some of us live in areas where there is a lot of tree cover (and cutting trees isn't really the green option), Other areas have a decent wind, and others are near running water. These smaller sections will in agragate may take up more space, their impact is actually a lot less, as a smaller plot of land can heal a lot faster then say plowing down hundred acres.
Not really. Assuming a gallon of gasoline is worth about 10KWH of electricity, and assuming some decent performance efficiency-wise on either side, that would be 8900 grams of CO2 from the gasoline, and 9750 producing that electricity from coal. (any other fossil fuel is better than the gasoline)
And the reality, of course, is that you can't assume the best performance and efficiency from a coal fired power plant as reliably as from an automobile, since automobiles usually don't last more than ten years, but the northeast is still running on coal plants apparently built during the stone age, which were grandfathered in by the Clean Air Act.
And, that's just the CO2; if you include the other pollutants spewed by coal fired power plants, you're better off driving one of those mid sixties 7 liter American road yachts than a Prius or whatever. Not exaggerating; it's been calculated that the negative effects of coal smoke on health and agriculture alone (not including any CO2 climate effects) cost society more than the value of the electricity produced.
Five square metres of solar panel on every single domestic roof in the USA would produce a very significant energy change. 125 million houses * 5Kw is 625 gigawatts. Germany has 23 gigawatts of domestic solar panels, which, on a sunny day, is sufficient to power the whole country. Yes, obviously, it doesn't work twenty-four hours a day, or in bad weather. Yes, obviously, you need to find some way of storing energy, such as compressed air, hydrogen hydrolysis, pumped storage or whatever. None of this is rocket science.
Bottom line: the USA could power its whole economy, including road vehicles, on domestic solar panels alone.
But, of course, solar panel output is highly correlated with the times of peak electricity demand, i.e. sunny summer afternoons.
anonyments.
Has science gone too far?
Stupid GPS.
Maybe because most studies are put out before even verified. Seems like the studies are either stupid, and a lot of them are later disproved, and many are paid to get the desired results. (See climate change)
How do you verify the study before it is published? Ask the same guy to do it again, making all the same mistakes, and see it if comes out the same? Or make peer review include repeating the study?
For citations central to your argument, sure, you need to track down the main papers. It's not that difficult - just look at what papers everybody else is citing. But most citations are just fulfilling the [citation needed] reqs for facts you use in your work. Any one of dozens, sometimes hundreds, of papers would easily fill in for that role.
You find two references about the same thing. As far as citing the fact you need they're essentially equivalent. One will take three weeks and thirty dollars - and half a day of arguing to make the lab pay those thirty dollars - to get, and half the time your thirty bucks will give you a badly printed paper copy. The other you can download into your paper manager and read right now. Guess which one almost everybody will use?
The most frequently cited papers are not great steps forward, but method papers; somebody does some doofy study of fish farts, but it includes a great method for analyzing exhaust gases, so every gas analysis paper ever afterwards references it
I read a study that showed that, ironically.
"My sister says all the good thesis topics have been taken. She's doing hers on how a dust speck bounces when it hits the table"
"My brother is doing his on the letter G".
that as a clone, the horse will of course be a soulless tool of Satan, existing only to usher in the era of the Antichrist.
Killing is not for punishment. No one who says that legal system is about punishment knows what they are talking about. Legals systems are about civil obedience. When the victims, the populous, cry out for blood you need to give it to them or face civil unrest. It is about making an example out of people to discourage other lawbreaking.
After a few thousand years of this experiment failing to have eradicated crime and/or antisocial behavior, perhaps giving a shot at plan b is in order.
"Perhaps if you knew a little bit more about the issue you wouldn't be making silly opinionated statements as if they were fact. I'm sorry you're too simple minded to understand that some people are not worth letting live, but thats the reality of it. Not everyone is worthy of life, deal with it." Good thing we have people like you who know more than us to decide! How many folks are in the death panel, or is it just you? Uh.. just wondering... what do you if your name comes up? Just curiosity, no concreyte plans at all you need to concern yourself with at all.
Neil Gaiman first wrote his version of Death in The Sandman in 1990. Pratchett wrote Mort, in which I believe we first really saw his version of Death, in 1987, so he came first; the OP said "almost any author before him", which I think also allows him to slide over old, obscure short stories.
"It’s a Mr Death or something he’s come about the reaping" The Meaning of Life (1983) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
As you have, because you ignored Luke 1:41-44, Psalm 51, Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:5, and Hosea 12. Those indicate humanity before birth. Interpret as you will, but don't claim the converse as "fact".
Embryonic stem cell research? REALLY? The bible doesn't mention stealing people's credit card information or hijacking airplanes, either, so those must be OK as well.
Are you one of those people who claim that the second amendment only protects muskets (and artillery, obviously)?
Now that you bring it up, the Bible doesn't mention firearms at all.
Prior to the understanding of proteins as little machines, it was theorized that enzymes worked by somehow changing the structure of water so that the reaction being catalyzed was accelerated; the prevailing model was the colloid, where the properties of the suspension are due to its bulk properties, rather than quasimechanical activity of the individual molecules.
My vet had the best explanation for why dogs and cats eat grass. He just looked at me quizzically for a second, and said "They eat grass because they like to eat grass".
Heck, a hyperflywheel is amazingly efficient and can be installed in an explosionproof container for domestic use.
So given a choice I'd chose the cheaper homeopathy "solutions".
but the drugs that lose to placebos don't get approved by the FDA.
The problem is when the placebo effect is not powerfull enough to overcome a medical issue but
Yes it is. Go read about the placebo effect. e.g. there was an operation that was carried out for some time for angina. It was pretty effective for a lot of patients, resulting in long-term symptom relief. I don't recall the exact details, but I think it involved tying up some superficial blood vessels under the assumption that this would reduce pressure on the heart. Some time later a surgeon did a study where some patients received a sham operation. Turns out the sham was as effective as the real operation. Because it was "no better than placebo" the operation got canned. Yet it worked. The reference is in Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" book.
Looks like an interesting book: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Scie... Here's the angina section http://nemaloknig.info/read-23... you couldn't do anything like that today, as subjecting a human to a sham operation is definitely unethical. But a similar item is back surgery for back pain; the operation is statistically no better than no operation whatsoever, never mind a sham.
Any article or ad or product which uses the word detox I immediately automatically dismiss. Also the word toxin, unless it's in the specifically scientifically correct denotation of the word. Also cleanse. Stepping back, all these and similar concepts show an odd view of the world, that our bodies are these pure temples that are polluted by such impure things as coffee or gluten or staying up all night doing drugs. That's not how it works, honest. Might as well go detox your car by doing a muffler cleanse after you've build up toxins from using low budget gasoline.
i feel very strongly that homeopaths should be allowed to marry.