"Computer Systems Engineering" covers it pretty well -- it's a mix of EE and CS so you end up with a ground-up understanding from transistor to circuit to chipset to architecture to OS to software.
But it's often not "Computer systems engineering" anymore, it's CS: computer science. Dropping the E allows you to skimp on or abstract the transistor/circuit, and focus on architecture and software. CSE these days seems to mean "Computational science and engineering," which is a completely other thing, having more to do with the simulation of experiments than the design of computer/software (although you may need to write some software to simulate your expeirments).
Oh, because dave420 is soooo much more identifiable, right Einstein? Pot, Kettle...
AC posts a joke. Sardaukar86 disses AC for not 'hav[ing] the guts' to put his name to it. dave420 points out the hypocrisy in pseudonymously railing against anonymity.
dave420 may or may not agree with sardaukar86's point (that one should have the courage to post insults under his own name), though likely not. dave420 is making a completely different point, that distinguishing between anonymous and pseudonymous is silly. Your 'pot, kettle' reference is appropriately applied to Sardaukar86, not to dave420.
We will have self driving cars long before we have robots that write code.
But we already have robots that write code. Almost no one actually writes machine code anymore, depending instead on assemblers, compilers, templates, or interpreters to do it for them. Those 'robots' have gotten progressively more complex and progressively better at figuring out what the programmer means by larger language constructions. The languages have moved closer to natural languages.
Already, it seems like the difficult part is getting the managers to properly specify the desired functionality. It's not a huge leap to imagine that one might construct a formal language for program specification that would allow you to automate translation of the spec into a code skeleton.
But my point was that usually 443 is a clear indicator of encryption, and hackers don't bother to try it, let alone run a packet sniffer on the port.
Maybe if you're talking about a web browser. If you're talking about a bit of custom software embedded in a TV, then ports 80 and 443 only say "traffic that will probably be allowed by firewall rules."
The problem is the date being sent in the fist place. A likely application is a nice speech-sample database that can then be used to identify people where other means do not work.
You have a microphone in people's living room, broadcasting every conversation they have, and the application you come up with is voice-print identification? Not listening for people reciting strings of numbers like account or social security. Not people discussing passwords, drug deals, or plots to blow up the Capitol. Not people talking about a new car, a new pregnancy, or an imminent wedding. The content of these conversations is (presumably) being sent home at least to do Siri-like speech to text, so even Samsung clearly has the processing power to generate transcripts for all of those conversations, easily searchable, tied to a specific consumer, and salable to marketing or security services.
In the US, the traditional time for networks to show their nightly news is 11pm, after the 'prime time' entertainment and kids have gone to bed. Any unsold prime-time commercial slots are filled with teasers for these news programs, generally of the form "Shocking ways that Foo can kill you! Details at 11," or "Weird tricks to save you money! News at 11."
If there are fewer jobs, how can it not mean unemployment?
Not fewer jobs, different jobs. When the cotton gin put all the seed-pullers out of work, it created demand for cotton pickers. When steamships put the wind jammers out of business, it created demand for longshoremen. You (and I) may not be clever enough to figure out what to do when they automate elevator operators or McWendyKing burger flippers, but there will be something, even for unskilled workers. Think about how many baristas there were in 1980. Or how many microbreweries in 1990. Kids today are going to work in fields that didn't exist 10 years ago.
How are they planning on delivering that? Through injecting ads in your traffic, email spam or letterbox spam?
From AT&T's faq:
For example, if you search for a car online, you may receive an email notifying you of a local dealership's sale.
So expect this to mean out-of-channel advertising. In fact, it sounds like they mean primarily to deliver targeted email, rather than to inject html. I can't really imagine that an email address is worth $30/month to advertisers, so this really does sound like a punitive charge on people who are concerned about privacy.
You do realize that page basically says they're going to collect enough information to bill you for services, right? And that
Other information from the use of Google Fiber Internet (such as URLs of websites visited or content of communications) will not be associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber, except with your consent or to meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request.
This is very different than AT&T's system, where they say
we may use information about your individual Web browsing activity to deliver ads and offers tailored to your interests. For example, if you search for a car online, you may receive an email notifying you of a local dealership's sale.
Well please find an economic system that deals with the issue of sacristy, and insures its contributers exceed its detractors. At the same time insuring personal liberity.
The Kula Ring in the Trobriand Islands, where the residents of different islands developed a tradition of exchange of 'gifts,' distinct from barter-like trade. There are a number of other 'gift economies' among isolated, pre-industrial cultures. Participation is managed by social expectation and taboo, so one can argue that these systems will necessarily break down once you have enough sociopaths. One can also argue that such communities are better at recognizing and isolating sociopaths so they can't propagate their genes/behavior.
Nor is 'free market' an especially good way to deal with scarcity. If it were, then you wouldn't need social support programs. Or maybe you're going to tell me that anyone receiving social security of SNAP is not truly participating in the economy...
I don't even know where you're going with 'personal liberty.' The economic system has so little to do with what you're allowed to say, which god you're allowed to worship, or how you spend your free time as to be completely orthogonal.
Just because the simulation is imperfect, that doesn't make it worthless. Schizophrenia affects more than two million Americans. It is the most common permanently debilitating mental disorder.
But putting out a 'schizophrenia simulator' that emphasizes perceptual hallucinations completely glosses over that mental disorders alter the processing of thoughts. There's no way to communicate the subjective experience of reality, and emphasizing the visual and auditory aspects risks turning a serious disorder into a fun-house ride. It suggests that you can just learn which experiences are real and filter out that which is not.
Another example: it's quite common for people with stroke to draw clocks with all the numbers scrunched into one quadrant. They'll report that this looks just like the clock on the wall (or sometimes to know that there's something off about the drawing, without being able to say what). This is not a visual hallucination, but a disruption of the comparative processes and a disruption of spatial awareness. A VR system that distorts reality to match the drawings of stroke patients would be a terrible stroke simulator.
People will typically buy much more house than they were renting Finally, a lot of people spend a lot of money on improvements that do not add value.
These are pretty much the assumptions made by all those people saying "buying is a sucker's bet." They're basing their math on comparing renting a 2BR apartment against the costs of maintaining a 4BR house. Or pretending that a renter is smart enough to choose an apartment that "comes with" a pool, but that a buyer chooses to add one after the purchase. They believe that the renter is perfectly happy to use the same stove and appliances for 20 years (or that the landlord replaces them "for free"), but the owner has to replace them periodically.
The only circumstances where it's better to pay mortgage, maintenance, taxes and landlord profit than just mortgage, maintenance and taxes, are if you want the landlord to help you forgo improving your lifestyle. If you can make it all the way to retirement, in the same residence, with the same fixtures, as you lived as a newlywed, then you will definitely have more savings than anyone who spent those 40 years upgrading their house or moving into ever-nicer apartments. Never mind any small distinction due to equity in the house.
As a non-native English speaker, I struggle to understand the meaning of the "Just Saying" statement. It is always done as a last statement though, so sounds passive-aggressive.
I think you've got it exactly right. It's absolutely passive-aggressive, and you might imagine it's a abbreviated form of "I'm just saying that you're wrong, not that you're an idiot."
A home is an asset; a mortgage is a liability. Or do you mean you incur risk from home ownership: liability, taxes, fire? Because you incur all of those risks living in rented property, too, just that they're mostly obscured in your rent payment. Think about this: the property you're living in is owned by someone, and all the costs associated with maintaining that property are paid by someone. If you're not paying those costs directly, then you're paying a middleman's profit on top of the actual costs of ownership. The arguments against owning a home are the same as those in favor of leasing a car and Rent-a-Center TVs.
I agree that a home is high-risk as an "investment," with a much higher cost-of-carry than, say stocks. Calling your home an "investment" is often used to rationalize expensive and unnecessary projects that you would not do for an actual investment. (eg, when's the last time your landlord remodeled your kitchen?) It might be better to think of ownership as a way of economizing on your living expenses, because if you're renting, then you are paying the profit on someone else's investment.
It can happen if the prices weren't that high when most people who're renting out today have bought their property. Which is the case for a lot of areas in and around Seattle.
Only as a temporary imbalance. Typically, landlords expect 10+% yield on their investments, meaning that their cost of ownership and operation is at most 90% of rent. If current purchase prices are literally twice current rent, then an owner can either 1) sell his property for 120% instantaneous gain (assuming 0 equity), equivalent to about 20 years' (net present value) rent or 2) double the rent charged. If neither of those things happens, then Seattle is filled with terrible capitalists.
As a holistic physician, would I recommend a public policy that promotes moderate drinking?
If you think that the reduction in all-cause mortality associated with moderate alcohol consumption is because drinkers go out and socialize, then you should be encouraging the stay-at-home non-drinkers to go out and socialize, not to stay at home and get drunk alone.
Most of the humans that came before you died as children. Most of your ancestors were killed by injury, infection, or parasites before they made it to 60 years old. In that environment, diet is not a huge risk factor. If you want to live to 90, or if you want to be able to move around on your own for a couple of decades after 60, then diet and activity are more important.
Give a nut-allergy sufferer sufficiently small injections of nuts and build it up gradually and the allergy goes away. (Oh, and P.S. peanuts are legumes - literally peas - not nuts, and hence someone who has a "nut" allergy to peanuts and other genuine nuts is quite difficult to explain in those terms).
(Everyone knows this, but we're just too lazy to keep saying "peanut" all the time) It turns out that "allergies" have a spectrum. About 80% of people with childhood food allergies outgrow them. For peanuts in particular, about 20% of people will outgrow their reaction.. A small number of allergy sufferers experience severe anaphylaxis. These are the people for whom epi-pens were developed, and there are probably 5000 of them in the US. These people can not likely be acclimated to their allergen by repeated exposure.
How many people are genuinely lactose-intolerant?
The incidence of adult lactose intolerance ranges from about 2% among Scandinavians through 20-40% among central Europeans and white US, to nearly 100% in southeast Asia. Source It seems to be less about your gut microbiome and more about recent evolution: if you come from a culture that exploited cattle and sheep, being able supplement calories with milk or cheese helped you survive the winter, and you evolved to maintain lactase expression post-weaning.
Inability to digest certain foods are legitimate pathologies. Celiac disease is a real thing; Lactase production is genetically regulated. You can't cure them by force-feeding. They may be over-diagnosed, egged on by hypochondriac parents and overworked physicians, but just because enjoy a good slice of cheese on crackers with peanut butter doesn't mean everyone can be 'trained' to eat them.
The same fraud is happening now with gluten. Even foods that never had gluten are being advertised as gluten-free.
This is not fraud, it's marketing. Of course there's no gluten in your peanut butter. No one who takes a moment to think about it would find this either surprising or a selling feature. Most people don't take that moment, though. They will happily choose the "No added arsenic" product over the unlabeled alternative, even though neither of them actually has arsenic.
Gluten is an awesome example of popular gullibility. For the 0.5-1% of people with defective HLA-DQ genes, gluten is a serious problem. For them, knowing whether a product contains gluten is as important for the peanut-allergic to know whether it contains peanuts. Labeling complex foods as gluten free targets the Celiac disease population and helps these people. Now you've got products labeled as "gluten free," and the public, including physicians, media, and pop-nutrition hucksters can start weaving this into their otherwise uninformed narratives.
Foods advertised as "low-fat" or "reduced fat" are often foods with extra water that include various thickeners.
Once again, this is free-market pressure, not government conspiracy or fraud. It turns out that, if you remove the fats from food, it tastes awful and feels chalky. People don't buy those products twice, and your company goes out of business. Thickening proteins and sugar are added to mask the absence of fats and make the food palatable.
87,282 final rules have been issued in the last 20 years. Thatâ(TM)s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day. The 2013 Federal Register contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever.
If companies would stop devising ever more clever ways to mislead, cheat, and defraud while remaining technically within the letter of existing rules, then government might be able to stop revising the rules.
I spoke to a friend who is in ultra-high-end business about those cd transports and how can one sound better than the other (he's not stupid) and after a while we came to the conclusion (well I did anyway, he knew this) that it all boils down to jitter and real-time error correction.
I continue to be baffled that people believe the timing of 1s-and-0s coming out of the CD drive are in any way relevant to the analog signal. Those 1s-and-0s are read out at vastly higher rate than the audio they represent and are buffered in memory between the CD device and the DAC. Data comes out of the CD somewhere between 1.2-30 Mbps. Let's say each "1" lasts about 60ns. "Jitter" in this signal of picoseconds or even nanoseconds is irrelevant to the data that ends up in the buffer.
The only relevant form of jitter is in the timing signal sent to the DAC itself. Analog devices has a nice study demonstrating that clock jitter of a picosecond or so (a full cycle at 1GHz) can produce signal distortions as large as -70 dB, once you get up to signals of 100 or so MHz. AD didn't even bother to check anything less than 1 MHz, because there's no possible influence. Since your ears are pretty well limited to 20 kHz or so (assuming you're 12 years old), and the actual information contained on the CD is limited to 25 kHz or so, "CD transports" are absolutely bogus.
So I crunched the numbers and hourly I found that they make a bit less than a Computer Programmer hourly (for only 8 hours a day, with only 3 weeks of holiday/vacation) Now the Computer Programmer will probably work more then those 8 hours a day too, but that is an other issue.
This can be a misleading calculation. First, not all of the days without classes are teacher vacation days. Second, if the job offers a good wage, but the hours are restricted, then it may still not be a good job.
eg: you may complain about only getting 3 weeks of vacation every year, but how would you feel about a mandatory week of unpaid vacation every month? No overtime those other three weeks, and it'd be nice if you spent some of your vacation time earning continuing education credits.
When I suggested it to me sister while she was doing her teacher training, her response was but it depends on the child, with some suited to phonics and some to whole language, completely missing the point that on *average* one method might lead to higher reading ages than the other and you could perform an experiment to determine which if either was statistically better.
The trouble is getting a sample size large enough for meaningful determination. In the case of teaching phonics vs whole-language, the outcomes depend on student - meaning income, race, geography, parental engagement, preparation, etc - and on the teacher. So you really need a national-scale study, with many different teachers (each following the same syllabus), coordinated over years, with some way to make sure that students don't switch methods just because their parents move.
No one's going to pay for that. No one's patient enough to wait for this year's first graders to graduate from high school to evaluate the techniques.
People will pay to summarize anonymized student data over a few years and a handful of school districts, but that gets you the kind of hand-wavey outcomes everyone's complaining about.
You can do great physics because you can make sure that every piece of steel you test is almost identical. Do a test 5 times, and you can be confident to 4 significant figures. You can do good biology because you can make sure that your mice all have the same genotype, diet, and general environment. You can usually tell +/-10% with a couple dozen animals. Humans? You can't control their genetics or their environment. You can't trust them to finish the experiment. You can't even make many reproducible measurements, because you can't take the subjects apart when the experiment is over, and none of the cognitive tests are objective.
Graphic content can be disturbing to people but it certainly doesn't damage their freedom (whatever that means). There's a reason there is such a thing as a "graphic content warning".
Graphic content is one thing. The message in these videos is "This is an appropriate way to kill infidels. Get to it." That may not be the message that you, a well-adjusted participant in Western society perceives, but that is the message intended by the video producers.
Many countries restrict hate speech, and "Convert the infidels or burn them" seems to fall into that category. Most countries restrict speech intended specifically to incite violence, and "Here's how you burn a caged heathen," seems like it falls into that category.
To me, the question is whether you want to report on the story and explain the distorted vision of Islam being propagated by these groups, or whether you want to propagate their message. You won't see Anderson Cooper reading Klan propaganda to marginalize the KKK; why would you use ISIS propaganda to marginalize them?
Slashdot Mirror
"Computer Systems Engineering" covers it pretty well -- it's a mix of EE and CS so you end up with a ground-up understanding from transistor to circuit to chipset to architecture to OS to software.
But it's often not "Computer systems engineering" anymore, it's CS: computer science. Dropping the E allows you to skimp on or abstract the transistor/circuit, and focus on architecture and software. CSE these days seems to mean "Computational science and engineering," which is a completely other thing, having more to do with the simulation of experiments than the design of computer/software (although you may need to write some software to simulate your expeirments).
Oh, because dave420 is soooo much more identifiable, right Einstein? Pot, Kettle...
AC posts a joke. Sardaukar86 disses AC for not 'hav[ing] the guts' to put his name to it. dave420 points out the hypocrisy in pseudonymously railing against anonymity.
dave420 may or may not agree with sardaukar86's point (that one should have the courage to post insults under his own name), though likely not. dave420 is making a completely different point, that distinguishing between anonymous and pseudonymous is silly. Your 'pot, kettle' reference is appropriately applied to Sardaukar86, not to dave420.
We will have self driving cars long before we have robots that write code.
But we already have robots that write code. Almost no one actually writes machine code anymore, depending instead on assemblers, compilers, templates, or interpreters to do it for them. Those 'robots' have gotten progressively more complex and progressively better at figuring out what the programmer means by larger language constructions. The languages have moved closer to natural languages.
Already, it seems like the difficult part is getting the managers to properly specify the desired functionality. It's not a huge leap to imagine that one might construct a formal language for program specification that would allow you to automate translation of the spec into a code skeleton.
But my point was that usually 443 is a clear indicator of encryption, and hackers don't bother to try it, let alone run a packet sniffer on the port.
Maybe if you're talking about a web browser. If you're talking about a bit of custom software embedded in a TV, then ports 80 and 443 only say "traffic that will probably be allowed by firewall rules."
The problem is the date being sent in the fist place. A likely application is a nice speech-sample database that can then be used to identify people where other means do not work.
You have a microphone in people's living room, broadcasting every conversation they have, and the application you come up with is voice-print identification? Not listening for people reciting strings of numbers like account or social security. Not people discussing passwords, drug deals, or plots to blow up the Capitol. Not people talking about a new car, a new pregnancy, or an imminent wedding. The content of these conversations is (presumably) being sent home at least to do Siri-like speech to text, so even Samsung clearly has the processing power to generate transcripts for all of those conversations, easily searchable, tied to a specific consumer, and salable to marketing or security services.
Why, always, 11, ... ?
In the US, the traditional time for networks to show their nightly news is 11pm, after the 'prime time' entertainment and kids have gone to bed. Any unsold prime-time commercial slots are filled with teasers for these news programs, generally of the form "Shocking ways that Foo can kill you! Details at 11," or "Weird tricks to save you money! News at 11."
If there are fewer jobs, how can it not mean unemployment?
Not fewer jobs, different jobs. When the cotton gin put all the seed-pullers out of work, it created demand for cotton pickers. When steamships put the wind jammers out of business, it created demand for longshoremen. You (and I) may not be clever enough to figure out what to do when they automate elevator operators or McWendyKing burger flippers, but there will be something, even for unskilled workers. Think about how many baristas there were in 1980. Or how many microbreweries in 1990. Kids today are going to work in fields that didn't exist 10 years ago.
How are they planning on delivering that? Through injecting ads in your traffic, email spam or letterbox spam?
From AT&T's faq:
For example, if you search for a car online, you may receive an email notifying you of a local dealership's sale.
So expect this to mean out-of-channel advertising. In fact, it sounds like they mean primarily to deliver targeted email, rather than to inject html. I can't really imagine that an email address is worth $30/month to advertisers, so this really does sound like a punitive charge on people who are concerned about privacy.
You do realize that page basically says they're going to collect enough information to bill you for services, right? And that
Other information from the use of Google Fiber Internet (such as URLs of websites visited or content of communications) will not be associated with the Google Account you use for Fiber, except with your consent or to meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request.
This is very different than AT&T's system, where they say
we may use information about your individual Web browsing activity to deliver ads and offers tailored to your interests. For example, if you search for a car online, you may receive an email notifying you of a local dealership's sale.
Well please find an economic system that deals with the issue of sacristy, and insures its contributers exceed its detractors. At the same time insuring personal liberity.
The Kula Ring in the Trobriand Islands, where the residents of different islands developed a tradition of exchange of 'gifts,' distinct from barter-like trade. There are a number of other 'gift economies' among isolated, pre-industrial cultures. Participation is managed by social expectation and taboo, so one can argue that these systems will necessarily break down once you have enough sociopaths. One can also argue that such communities are better at recognizing and isolating sociopaths so they can't propagate their genes/behavior.
Nor is 'free market' an especially good way to deal with scarcity. If it were, then you wouldn't need social support programs. Or maybe you're going to tell me that anyone receiving social security of SNAP is not truly participating in the economy...
I don't even know where you're going with 'personal liberty.' The economic system has so little to do with what you're allowed to say, which god you're allowed to worship, or how you spend your free time as to be completely orthogonal.
Just because the simulation is imperfect, that doesn't make it worthless. Schizophrenia affects more than two million Americans. It is the most common permanently debilitating mental disorder.
But putting out a 'schizophrenia simulator' that emphasizes perceptual hallucinations completely glosses over that mental disorders alter the processing of thoughts. There's no way to communicate the subjective experience of reality, and emphasizing the visual and auditory aspects risks turning a serious disorder into a fun-house ride. It suggests that you can just learn which experiences are real and filter out that which is not.
Another example: it's quite common for people with stroke to draw clocks with all the numbers scrunched into one quadrant. They'll report that this looks just like the clock on the wall (or sometimes to know that there's something off about the drawing, without being able to say what). This is not a visual hallucination, but a disruption of the comparative processes and a disruption of spatial awareness. A VR system that distorts reality to match the drawings of stroke patients would be a terrible stroke simulator.
People will typically buy much more house than they were renting
Finally, a lot of people spend a lot of money on improvements that do not add value.
These are pretty much the assumptions made by all those people saying "buying is a sucker's bet." They're basing their math on comparing renting a 2BR apartment against the costs of maintaining a 4BR house. Or pretending that a renter is smart enough to choose an apartment that "comes with" a pool, but that a buyer chooses to add one after the purchase. They believe that the renter is perfectly happy to use the same stove and appliances for 20 years (or that the landlord replaces them "for free"), but the owner has to replace them periodically.
The only circumstances where it's better to pay mortgage, maintenance, taxes and landlord profit than just mortgage, maintenance and taxes, are if you want the landlord to help you forgo improving your lifestyle. If you can make it all the way to retirement, in the same residence, with the same fixtures, as you lived as a newlywed, then you will definitely have more savings than anyone who spent those 40 years upgrading their house or moving into ever-nicer apartments. Never mind any small distinction due to equity in the house.
As a non-native English speaker, I struggle to understand the meaning of the "Just Saying" statement. It is always done as a last statement though, so sounds passive-aggressive.
I think you've got it exactly right. It's absolutely passive-aggressive, and you might imagine it's a abbreviated form of "I'm just saying that you're wrong, not that you're an idiot."
A home is a *liability*, not an investment.
A home is an asset; a mortgage is a liability. Or do you mean you incur risk from home ownership: liability, taxes, fire? Because you incur all of those risks living in rented property, too, just that they're mostly obscured in your rent payment. Think about this: the property you're living in is owned by someone, and all the costs associated with maintaining that property are paid by someone. If you're not paying those costs directly, then you're paying a middleman's profit on top of the actual costs of ownership. The arguments against owning a home are the same as those in favor of leasing a car and Rent-a-Center TVs.
I agree that a home is high-risk as an "investment," with a much higher cost-of-carry than, say stocks. Calling your home an "investment" is often used to rationalize expensive and unnecessary projects that you would not do for an actual investment. (eg, when's the last time your landlord remodeled your kitchen?) It might be better to think of ownership as a way of economizing on your living expenses, because if you're renting, then you are paying the profit on someone else's investment.
It can happen if the prices weren't that high when most people who're renting out today have bought their property. Which is the case for a lot of areas in and around Seattle.
Only as a temporary imbalance. Typically, landlords expect 10+% yield on their investments, meaning that their cost of ownership and operation is at most 90% of rent. If current purchase prices are literally twice current rent, then an owner can either 1) sell his property for 120% instantaneous gain (assuming 0 equity), equivalent to about 20 years' (net present value) rent or 2) double the rent charged. If neither of those things happens, then Seattle is filled with terrible capitalists.
As a holistic physician, would I recommend a public policy that promotes moderate drinking?
If you think that the reduction in all-cause mortality associated with moderate alcohol consumption is because drinkers go out and socialize, then you should be encouraging the stay-at-home non-drinkers to go out and socialize, not to stay at home and get drunk alone.
Most of the humans that came before you died as children. Most of your ancestors were killed by injury, infection, or parasites before they made it to 60 years old. In that environment, diet is not a huge risk factor. If you want to live to 90, or if you want to be able to move around on your own for a couple of decades after 60, then diet and activity are more important.
Give a nut-allergy sufferer sufficiently small injections of nuts and build it up gradually and the allergy goes away. (Oh, and P.S. peanuts are legumes - literally peas - not nuts, and hence someone who has a "nut" allergy to peanuts and other genuine nuts is quite difficult to explain in those terms).
(Everyone knows this, but we're just too lazy to keep saying "peanut" all the time) It turns out that "allergies" have a spectrum. About 80% of people with childhood food allergies outgrow them. For peanuts in particular, about 20% of people will outgrow their reaction.. A small number of allergy sufferers experience severe anaphylaxis. These are the people for whom epi-pens were developed, and there are probably 5000 of them in the US. These people can not likely be acclimated to their allergen by repeated exposure.
How many people are genuinely lactose-intolerant?
The incidence of adult lactose intolerance ranges from about 2% among Scandinavians through 20-40% among central Europeans and white US, to nearly 100% in southeast Asia. Source It seems to be less about your gut microbiome and more about recent evolution: if you come from a culture that exploited cattle and sheep, being able supplement calories with milk or cheese helped you survive the winter, and you evolved to maintain lactase expression post-weaning.
Inability to digest certain foods are legitimate pathologies. Celiac disease is a real thing; Lactase production is genetically regulated. You can't cure them by force-feeding. They may be over-diagnosed, egged on by hypochondriac parents and overworked physicians, but just because enjoy a good slice of cheese on crackers with peanut butter doesn't mean everyone can be 'trained' to eat them.
The same fraud is happening now with gluten. Even foods that never had gluten are being advertised as gluten-free.
This is not fraud, it's marketing. Of course there's no gluten in your peanut butter. No one who takes a moment to think about it would find this either surprising or a selling feature. Most people don't take that moment, though. They will happily choose the "No added arsenic" product over the unlabeled alternative, even though neither of them actually has arsenic.
Gluten is an awesome example of popular gullibility. For the 0.5-1% of people with defective HLA-DQ genes, gluten is a serious problem. For them, knowing whether a product contains gluten is as important for the peanut-allergic to know whether it contains peanuts. Labeling complex foods as gluten free targets the Celiac disease population and helps these people. Now you've got products labeled as "gluten free," and the public, including physicians, media, and pop-nutrition hucksters can start weaving this into their otherwise uninformed narratives.
Foods advertised as "low-fat" or "reduced fat" are often foods with extra water that include various thickeners.
Once again, this is free-market pressure, not government conspiracy or fraud. It turns out that, if you remove the fats from food, it tastes awful and feels chalky. People don't buy those products twice, and your company goes out of business. Thickening proteins and sugar are added to mask the absence of fats and make the food palatable.
87,282 final rules have been issued in the last 20 years. Thatâ(TM)s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day. The 2013 Federal Register contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever.
If companies would stop devising ever more clever ways to mislead, cheat, and defraud while remaining technically within the letter of existing rules, then government might be able to stop revising the rules.
I spoke to a friend who is in ultra-high-end business about those cd transports and how can one sound better than the other (he's not stupid) and after a while we came to the conclusion (well I did anyway, he knew this) that it all boils down to jitter and real-time error correction.
I continue to be baffled that people believe the timing of 1s-and-0s coming out of the CD drive are in any way relevant to the analog signal. Those 1s-and-0s are read out at vastly higher rate than the audio they represent and are buffered in memory between the CD device and the DAC. Data comes out of the CD somewhere between 1.2-30 Mbps. Let's say each "1" lasts about 60ns. "Jitter" in this signal of picoseconds or even nanoseconds is irrelevant to the data that ends up in the buffer.
The only relevant form of jitter is in the timing signal sent to the DAC itself. Analog devices has a nice study demonstrating that clock jitter of a picosecond or so (a full cycle at 1GHz) can produce signal distortions as large as -70 dB, once you get up to signals of 100 or so MHz. AD didn't even bother to check anything less than 1 MHz, because there's no possible influence. Since your ears are pretty well limited to 20 kHz or so (assuming you're 12 years old), and the actual information contained on the CD is limited to 25 kHz or so, "CD transports" are absolutely bogus.
So I crunched the numbers and hourly I found that they make a bit less than a Computer Programmer hourly (for only 8 hours a day, with only 3 weeks of holiday/vacation) Now the Computer Programmer will probably work more then those 8 hours a day too, but that is an other issue.
This can be a misleading calculation. First, not all of the days without classes are teacher vacation days. Second, if the job offers a good wage, but the hours are restricted, then it may still not be a good job.
eg: you may complain about only getting 3 weeks of vacation every year, but how would you feel about a mandatory week of unpaid vacation every month? No overtime those other three weeks, and it'd be nice if you spent some of your vacation time earning continuing education credits.
When I suggested it to me sister while she was doing her teacher training, her response was but it depends on the child, with some suited to phonics and some to whole language, completely missing the point that on *average* one method might lead to higher reading ages than the other and you could perform an experiment to determine which if either was statistically better.
The trouble is getting a sample size large enough for meaningful determination. In the case of teaching phonics vs whole-language, the outcomes depend on student - meaning income, race, geography, parental engagement, preparation, etc - and on the teacher. So you really need a national-scale study, with many different teachers (each following the same syllabus), coordinated over years, with some way to make sure that students don't switch methods just because their parents move.
No one's going to pay for that. No one's patient enough to wait for this year's first graders to graduate from high school to evaluate the techniques.
People will pay to summarize anonymized student data over a few years and a handful of school districts, but that gets you the kind of hand-wavey outcomes everyone's complaining about.
You can do great physics because you can make sure that every piece of steel you test is almost identical. Do a test 5 times, and you can be confident to 4 significant figures. You can do good biology because you can make sure that your mice all have the same genotype, diet, and general environment. You can usually tell +/-10% with a couple dozen animals. Humans? You can't control their genetics or their environment. You can't trust them to finish the experiment. You can't even make many reproducible measurements, because you can't take the subjects apart when the experiment is over, and none of the cognitive tests are objective.
Its not as if they turn on the computer all of a sudden a burning man is on the screen.
Sounds to me like ganjadude has never been rickrolled or goatse'd. It's nice to know that such naivete still exists.
Graphic content can be disturbing to people but it certainly doesn't damage their freedom (whatever that means). There's a reason there is such a thing as a "graphic content warning".
Graphic content is one thing. The message in these videos is "This is an appropriate way to kill infidels. Get to it." That may not be the message that you, a well-adjusted participant in Western society perceives, but that is the message intended by the video producers.
Many countries restrict hate speech, and "Convert the infidels or burn them" seems to fall into that category. Most countries restrict speech intended specifically to incite violence, and "Here's how you burn a caged heathen," seems like it falls into that category.
To me, the question is whether you want to report on the story and explain the distorted vision of Islam being propagated by these groups, or whether you want to propagate their message. You won't see Anderson Cooper reading Klan propaganda to marginalize the KKK; why would you use ISIS propaganda to marginalize them?