Wiki seems to think that a vegan diet exists and that it is sometimes referred to as a strict vegetarian diet.
Furthermore, this is what he calls himself (a dietary vegan not a vegetan or similar garbage). And when it comes to my friends who may have more limited diets than me, really, the fact that they don't eat eggs and dairy is more important (especially if they're over for dinner) than whether or not they wear leather shoes.
But he's referring to sending signals looking for other races. If there's someone out there just playing phone tag, I doubt they're more primitive than we are.
There are more enlightened beings in the universe than us and their prime directive policies keep them from contacting us.
As much as it's noble to not want to interfere with the development of other species on other planets, if they're scanning the skies looking for radio signals from distant worlds, they're probably about as advanced as we are and it's rather conceited of us to assume that we're smarter or better off than these people. And really, any interaction with intelligent beings from other worlds would probably have a profound effect on us as well.
Oh honey, if you compare eating meat to good sex, you've clearly never been laid properly.
You know what decisions I've made that deprive me of joie de vivre (as you've put it)? I don't go to orgies, I don't eat chocolate 24/7, I don't pay out the nose and go out of my way for the best chocolates in the world, I don't own a car, I haven't moved French Polynesia, I haven't moved somewhere with excellent surfing conditions, I haven't spent every last penny exploring the globe... there are many things that would probably make me happier than my current station in life. Eating meat isn't one of them.
I know a vegan who got there from an entirely environmental stance. Granted, he wears wool and leather (the reasoning being that the synthetic leathers are worse for the environment than the real stuff) but meat/dairy/egg production is hard on the environment so he doesn't eat it unless it's going to waste otherwise.
How does not eating meat result in a diminished quality of life, exactly?
I eat a much more varied diet than I did when I ate meat, I save a ton of money and I feel great. The only downside is that I have to ask what's in a lot of foods (sometimes meat isn't immediately obvious) and sometimes I have to live off side dishes (this is usually when visiting my family since my parents aren't particularly supportive of my dietary choices). I also don't have to worry about various diseases that can result from improperly cooked meat (or meat that comes from animals with diseases).
I can't think of a meat eater I can't keep up with and I can think of several who have much less energy than I do. I'm guessing that your sample size of vegetarians is either small (some vegetarians and vegans really don't eat well) or invented.
Wait. Bailed out the world 60 years ago? You mean sat on their asses while their allies fought hard for years until they were attacked and then finally brought some fresh troops to the front?
I have nothing against Americans but this business of "saving everyone else's ass in WW2" is exaggerated to say the least.
Fusion can occur in the accretion disks around neutron stars (for example), why not black holes?
Granted, it may not be the sort of long sustained fusion reactions one usually thinks of, but jamming some extra protons and neutrons into some nuclei can still get energetic.
So when I use ads to find a publication which discusses a topic while I'm writing a paper because I can't remember where I heard this idea or don't understand it fully, I'm cheating at science? Or when I write a program to get my computer to simulate something for me instead of cranking out the math? Or when I go ask a colleague for help instead of figuring something out on my own? I don't think that if you were in science or understood it properly you would be making these silly analogies. Science is a struggle no matter what you've got in your system. And it isn't a competition in the same way as sports or games are. Yes, there is some level of competition when it comes to jobs and grants, but it's mostly a shared struggle to learn more about the world. Performance enhancing drugs alone won't make someone a good scientist. If you're a good scientist and you can stay awake and focused a bit longer, you'll be able to get more done in a day. That's all.
There's a difference between these drugs and steroids: The drugs mentioned in the article aren't going to make you smarter or come up with better scientific ideas, they're going to help keep you awake and focused. If you're awake and focused for 16 hours but don't have any good ideas or lack the necessary knowledge to do something, you're not going to be as successful as someone who works a standard 10-14 hour day (using a grad student standard day here...), but knows what they're trying to do and knows how to go about it. So with these drugs, it won't be the drugs doing the work. It's you doing the work and the drugs helping you by keeping you awake and alert.
In general, you're going to be competing against a lot of people who have advantages you don't have, there are people who intuitively grasp very difficult concepts, people with photographic memories, people with IQs around 200, people who are lucky, people who know the right people and know how to ask the right questions, people who only need 3 hours of sleep a night without taking drugs et c. Besides, I can think of maybe two people in the department I'm in that don't practically run on caffeine, I don't think these drugs are that much different.
When did anti-drug groups start caring about the truth?
If they actually educated kids about drugs instead of claiming that pot is as bad as heroin or that they'll wind up completely unmotivated and sit on the couch all day doing nothing or that they'll immediately want to run out and buy some crack if they smoke so much as one joint then there would probably be fewer people doing drugs that are actually bad for you (i.e. heroin) because they might actually believe what they were told about such drugs as kids.
Yes, I know. And buying cocaine puts money into the hands of Columbian drug lords. Neither of these things are related to pot, regardless of what the anti-drug commercials try to say.
Everything that's illegal and/or generally not approved of by the US government "supports the terrorists".
Smoke locally grown pot (as most pot in the US is): you're supporting the terrorists!
Download your music through a peer to peer network: you're supporting the terrorists!
Pirate your software: you're supporting the terrorists!
It's the red scare all over again, but with a different enemy, isn't it? "Don't forget to go spend all your money on things you don't need and can't afford. If you don't spend more than you make and support our corporate buddies, you clearly want the terrorists to win."
If engineers have it so tough, why is it that whenever we (the science physics students) had classes with the engineering students in undergrad, we thoroughly whomped them? Hell, I had to pay extra tuition one year because a required course was cross listed with engineering so it was a four credit course instead of a three credit course (even though it was much less work than my other physics courses, apparently engineering students need extra credit hours to account for having to take a lab).
Also, if this guy wants to complain about being an engineering student and having terrible textbooks, try having to use graduate level textbooks for the last two years of your undergrad because they don't make undergrad textbooks.
Granted, based on my limited experience with engineering professors, they do seem generally terrible, but this is probably something that depends on where you go. However, if you don't expect to learn largely on your own with a crappy textbook, you probably shouldn't be in either engineering or the physical sciences.
Either way, it's a white dwarf with carbon in the atmosphere, which hasn't really been observed either, as the article mentions. It's pretty amazing and exciting, at least for this astronomer.
I wonder how this sort of star came about? I haven't read through the entire article (well, the one that's actually going in the scientific journal not the condensed version that's linked), but it seems really interesting.
Of course I also didn't know that white dwarfs pulsated at all, I generally thought of them as these little lumps of carbon that just cooled down. Does anyone know if the pulsations are due to the star cooling and contracting as it does so (I know this is a likely cause for neutron stars' "starquakes" so it could be an analogous process but on a smaller scale) or if it's something else?
I don't get why he doesn't just hire someone to re-park his car for him. Like he parks in the handicapped spot, throws the keys to random worker who takes the car, drives around the parking lot for half an hour and parks it then retrieves it at the end of the day. Like a personal valet service.
Well, this does sound good, however it is possible that other people actually are offended by the same things and informing the station at least gives them a reason for people turning the channel and if they feel that regaining these viewers is important then they have the opportunity to change the show, but if they don't then they won't. It's much better than siccing some government body on the station to force them to pay a fine. Also, if people contact the station, then it can possibly be influenced either way (i.e., one group of people suggests that a show use milder language, so the show changes, then a bigger group of people complains that the mild language is less authentic so the show changes back). Although I suppose that the real world doesn't really work this way.
Why is it that adults can't act their age and a) change the station when they hear something that offends them or b) contact the station directly to deal with their frustration. If enough people change the station when they hear something offensive, the sponsors will stop putting their ads during a certain programme and the programme will get pulled. If enough people decide that they like shows where people can say "fuck" then the show will stay on the air. Why can't it just work like this?
Also, don't get into this "think of the children!" business. When I was a kid (which wasn't that long ago) there were a lot of shows I wasn't allowed watching because my parents didn't allow me to watch them (I was also only really allowed to listen to one radio station). My parents television got the channels with these shows that I wasn't allowed watching, but they kept an eye on my television habits instead of using tv like a baby-sitter or substitute parent and expecting a government to keep me from seeing or hearing inappropriate things.
Slashdot Mirror
It's silly to go after a company because its employees play the radio at work though, especially since the radio signal is free.
I do agree that it would be awesome if people who blast their car stereos were charged with unlicensed public performance though.
It's already infringement if you play music in a shop in some places, apparently.
Wiki seems to think that a vegan diet exists and that it is sometimes referred to as a strict vegetarian diet.
Furthermore, this is what he calls himself (a dietary vegan not a vegetan or similar garbage). And when it comes to my friends who may have more limited diets than me, really, the fact that they don't eat eggs and dairy is more important (especially if they're over for dinner) than whether or not they wear leather shoes.
Touche.
But he's referring to sending signals looking for other races. If there's someone out there just playing phone tag, I doubt they're more primitive than we are.
There are more enlightened beings in the universe than us and their prime directive policies keep them from contacting us.
As much as it's noble to not want to interfere with the development of other species on other planets, if they're scanning the skies looking for radio signals from distant worlds, they're probably about as advanced as we are and it's rather conceited of us to assume that we're smarter or better off than these people. And really, any interaction with intelligent beings from other worlds would probably have a profound effect on us as well.
Oh honey, if you compare eating meat to good sex, you've clearly never been laid properly.
You know what decisions I've made that deprive me of joie de vivre (as you've put it)? I don't go to orgies, I don't eat chocolate 24/7, I don't pay out the nose and go out of my way for the best chocolates in the world, I don't own a car, I haven't moved French Polynesia, I haven't moved somewhere with excellent surfing conditions, I haven't spent every last penny exploring the globe... there are many things that would probably make me happier than my current station in life. Eating meat isn't one of them.
He's a dietary vegan. Same difference as far as I'm concerned.
I know a vegan who got there from an entirely environmental stance. Granted, he wears wool and leather (the reasoning being that the synthetic leathers are worse for the environment than the real stuff) but meat/dairy/egg production is hard on the environment so he doesn't eat it unless it's going to waste otherwise.
How does not eating meat result in a diminished quality of life, exactly?
I eat a much more varied diet than I did when I ate meat, I save a ton of money and I feel great. The only downside is that I have to ask what's in a lot of foods (sometimes meat isn't immediately obvious) and sometimes I have to live off side dishes (this is usually when visiting my family since my parents aren't particularly supportive of my dietary choices). I also don't have to worry about various diseases that can result from improperly cooked meat (or meat that comes from animals with diseases).
I can't think of a meat eater I can't keep up with and I can think of several who have much less energy than I do. I'm guessing that your sample size of vegetarians is either small (some vegetarians and vegans really don't eat well) or invented.
Wait. Bailed out the world 60 years ago? You mean sat on their asses while their allies fought hard for years until they were attacked and then finally brought some fresh troops to the front?
I have nothing against Americans but this business of "saving everyone else's ass in WW2" is exaggerated to say the least.
Fusion can occur in the accretion disks around neutron stars (for example), why not black holes?
Granted, it may not be the sort of long sustained fusion reactions one usually thinks of, but jamming some extra protons and neutrons into some nuclei can still get energetic.
So when I use ads to find a publication which discusses a topic while I'm writing a paper because I can't remember where I heard this idea or don't understand it fully, I'm cheating at science? Or when I write a program to get my computer to simulate something for me instead of cranking out the math? Or when I go ask a colleague for help instead of figuring something out on my own?
I don't think that if you were in science or understood it properly you would be making these silly analogies. Science is a struggle no matter what you've got in your system. And it isn't a competition in the same way as sports or games are. Yes, there is some level of competition when it comes to jobs and grants, but it's mostly a shared struggle to learn more about the world. Performance enhancing drugs alone won't make someone a good scientist. If you're a good scientist and you can stay awake and focused a bit longer, you'll be able to get more done in a day. That's all.
There's a difference between these drugs and steroids: The drugs mentioned in the article aren't going to make you smarter or come up with better scientific ideas, they're going to help keep you awake and focused. If you're awake and focused for 16 hours but don't have any good ideas or lack the necessary knowledge to do something, you're not going to be as successful as someone who works a standard 10-14 hour day (using a grad student standard day here...), but knows what they're trying to do and knows how to go about it. So with these drugs, it won't be the drugs doing the work. It's you doing the work and the drugs helping you by keeping you awake and alert.
In general, you're going to be competing against a lot of people who have advantages you don't have, there are people who intuitively grasp very difficult concepts, people with photographic memories, people with IQs around 200, people who are lucky, people who know the right people and know how to ask the right questions, people who only need 3 hours of sleep a night without taking drugs et c. Besides, I can think of maybe two people in the department I'm in that don't practically run on caffeine, I don't think these drugs are that much different.
When did anti-drug groups start caring about the truth?
If they actually educated kids about drugs instead of claiming that pot is as bad as heroin or that they'll wind up completely unmotivated and sit on the couch all day doing nothing or that they'll immediately want to run out and buy some crack if they smoke so much as one joint then there would probably be fewer people doing drugs that are actually bad for you (i.e. heroin) because they might actually believe what they were told about such drugs as kids.
Yes, I know. And buying cocaine puts money into the hands of Columbian drug lords. Neither of these things are related to pot, regardless of what the anti-drug commercials try to say.
Everything that's illegal and/or generally not approved of by the US government "supports the terrorists".
Smoke locally grown pot (as most pot in the US is): you're supporting the terrorists!
Download your music through a peer to peer network: you're supporting the terrorists!
Pirate your software: you're supporting the terrorists!
It's the red scare all over again, but with a different enemy, isn't it? "Don't forget to go spend all your money on things you don't need and can't afford. If you don't spend more than you make and support our corporate buddies, you clearly want the terrorists to win."
If engineers have it so tough, why is it that whenever we (the science physics students) had classes with the engineering students in undergrad, we thoroughly whomped them? Hell, I had to pay extra tuition one year because a required course was cross listed with engineering so it was a four credit course instead of a three credit course (even though it was much less work than my other physics courses, apparently engineering students need extra credit hours to account for having to take a lab).
Also, if this guy wants to complain about being an engineering student and having terrible textbooks, try having to use graduate level textbooks for the last two years of your undergrad because they don't make undergrad textbooks.
Granted, based on my limited experience with engineering professors, they do seem generally terrible, but this is probably something that depends on where you go. However, if you don't expect to learn largely on your own with a crappy textbook, you probably shouldn't be in either engineering or the physical sciences.
There aren't black giants, but there are black holes... perhaps this gives your imagination license to take your thoughts into the gutter. :P
Either way, it's a white dwarf with carbon in the atmosphere, which hasn't really been observed either, as the article mentions. It's pretty amazing and exciting, at least for this astronomer.
I wonder how this sort of star came about? I haven't read through the entire article (well, the one that's actually going in the scientific journal not the condensed version that's linked), but it seems really interesting.
Of course I also didn't know that white dwarfs pulsated at all, I generally thought of them as these little lumps of carbon that just cooled down. Does anyone know if the pulsations are due to the star cooling and contracting as it does so (I know this is a likely cause for neutron stars' "starquakes" so it could be an analogous process but on a smaller scale) or if it's something else?
I don't get why he doesn't just hire someone to re-park his car for him. Like he parks in the handicapped spot, throws the keys to random worker who takes the car, drives around the parking lot for half an hour and parks it then retrieves it at the end of the day. Like a personal valet service.
Well, this does sound good, however it is possible that other people actually are offended by the same things and informing the station at least gives them a reason for people turning the channel and if they feel that regaining these viewers is important then they have the opportunity to change the show, but if they don't then they won't. It's much better than siccing some government body on the station to force them to pay a fine. Also, if people contact the station, then it can possibly be influenced either way (i.e., one group of people suggests that a show use milder language, so the show changes, then a bigger group of people complains that the mild language is less authentic so the show changes back). Although I suppose that the real world doesn't really work this way.
Why is it that adults can't act their age and a) change the station when they hear something that offends them or b) contact the station directly to deal with their frustration. If enough people change the station when they hear something offensive, the sponsors will stop putting their ads during a certain programme and the programme will get pulled. If enough people decide that they like shows where people can say "fuck" then the show will stay on the air. Why can't it just work like this?
Also, don't get into this "think of the children!" business. When I was a kid (which wasn't that long ago) there were a lot of shows I wasn't allowed watching because my parents didn't allow me to watch them (I was also only really allowed to listen to one radio station). My parents television got the channels with these shows that I wasn't allowed watching, but they kept an eye on my television habits instead of using tv like a baby-sitter or substitute parent and expecting a government to keep me from seeing or hearing inappropriate things.