The alcohol flush reaction they refer to isn't just about feeling unpleasant. Yes, people with two copies of the gene for it rarely drink. But those with only one copy (that is, they have some of the enzymes to metabolize acetaldehyde), while less likely to drink, often do so anyway (because they can take it, and they enjoy the feeling or feel socially obligated). And when they do, they raise their risk of esophageal (and I believe a few other cancers) significantly more than someone who drinks the same amount but lacks the flush reaction. Acetaldehyde is highly carcinogenic; most people just get rid of it quickly enough to limit the damage.
In short: If you give this to alcoholics, a large number of them will tolerate the side-effects and you've just dramatically increased their risk of cancer.
I've run into this on my car. I've got radar based crash avoidance (it's just brakes, no steering assist); it sometimes detects an imminent collision for a fraction of a second just before crossing railroad tracks. Luckily, it's so quick that I get the audible alert, but the brakes don't kick in. It's disconcerting though. If it took steering control, that would be terrifying.
Because removing the appendix is invasive surgery requiring anesthesia, with all the attendant risks of infection and anesthesia reactions? A lot more people would die of complications from the surgery than would be saved (and of course, there are some theories that support a role, however limited, for the appendix). The foreskin can be removed with far less cost and risk, and apparently produces more benefits.
What is wrong with this? Logically, if one species splits in two, and one of the resulting species splits again, you're going to have both of those secondary split species related to the other with fairly close similarity. Did you know that I'm equally closely related to all of my first cousins (to within a small margin of error)? That's not all that surprising is it?
Never said this was proof. I'm not a biologist, and I don't have a wealth of studies, experiments, statistical models, etc. to draw on. I said that the argument from ignorance is garbage. If you, personally, don't understand how it could have happened, then the answer is not "99% of the biologist community must be wrong" it's "maybe you don't fully understand the theory." If you don't understand, you have two rational options:
Learn the theory, identify weaknesses (not gaps in your knowledge) and develop experiments to confirm your doubts
Come up with a better model that either involves simpler assumptions (no, "God did it" is not simpler, because there would be thousands of assumptions to explain how he manages to exist in a way that is undetectable and yet constantly altering reality) and some evidence from experiments or studies, or come up with a model that has more assumptions, but strong experimental or studies supporting it.
I can come up with hypotheticals all day. None of them require much in the way of assumptions. My previous argument was basically four pillars: 1. Stronger eggs survive in more situations, 2. Stronger eggs require either stronger hatchlings or better tools, 3. Stronger hatchlings require more energy, and therefore tend to do less well in times of drought and famine than weaker hatchlings and 4. Existing species have genetics that can alter by degrees without mutations. I doubt you have any significant problems with any of those assumptions, yet the result is somehow unbelievable to you.
Only because you make invalid assumptions about how it must have evolved. Lets start with an amphibian and egg. Now lets say that a mutation causes the exterior to be a bit more rubbery. Initially 10% of hatchlings that could have handled the tougher exterior can't get out, but 10% more eggs survive being trod on by large animals. Except it's not static. Each generation that gets out of the egg has a greater concentration of the genes that give them the strength to escape the tougher egg. Repeat the process a dozen times over the course of a million years. Eventually you reach an equilibrium; the shell can't get tougher because the resources needed to escape it are expensive enough that the animal would have a higher energy burn, and fare poorly in times of drought or famine.
Fast forward a few tens of thousands of years. Another mutation causes the animal to develop one tooth earlier than it should. It's weak, but it allows weaker hatchlings to escape an egg of equivalent strength. The mutation spreads, aided by the occasional drought of famine, where the "weaker" animals survive. Later, another mutation makes this early, poorly formed tooth drop off; it was getting in the way, and it's better to grow strong teeth later. The egg shell toughens more and more, and starts becoming less water permeable as some individuals find a niche laying eggs near the water line where egg eating marine life has less access to it.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Tougher and less water permeable eggs make the eggs survive more often, and in more places. Small changes can be compensated for with existing intra-species variation, but if a novel mutation arises that deals with the costs of the new strategy more effectively, selective pressure will spread it. Follow this chain of events for a hundred million years, and you got from fish to amphibian, and from amphibian to reptile. It's not a whole bunch of lucky coincidences at once, it's one coincidence, adaptation to take advantage of it, then another coincidence and further adaptation, over and over, over the course of millions upon millions of years. It took billions of years to go from single cell life to multicellular life, a hundred million years to go from marine life to amphibians and so on. This is a mind-boggling scale of time; continents circled the globe in the time it took for mammals to evolve from reptiles. You don't see the continents shifting, but it happens all the same.
The tiny changes and recombinations occurring in animals today won't produce many new species "naturally" in your lifetime, but over the next 10,000 years? Million years? 100 million years? I wouldn't bet on animal life remaining unchanged.
Sigh... What part of my post did you read as "I wasn't getting paid enough"? I already said, I was paid quite nicely there. But no amount of money can help when the problem is wanting to do more. Designing software used by thousands of people, supporting some noble goal, whatever. Giving those with lots of money even more money isn't motivating no matter how much they pay you to do it.
There's good money in it, assuming you can get motivation out of making the already absurdly wealthy incrementally richer. I spent time at a hedge fund; paid better than any job I've had before or since, but it was really hard to go to work every morning, because I felt no sense of accomplishment. I just felt like I was squandering my education skimming off the work of others (see High Frequency Trading, the entire speculative commodity futures market, etc.).
The few people who benefited from my work (besides myself) were already so wealthy (the minimum net worth requirements are ridiculous) that every single one of them could stick their money in a savings account and spend it at a rate of $200K a year for the rest of their life with no risk of going broke. Hard to get excited by the prospect of letting them spend $300K a year...
but this is almost the definition of monopolistic behavior.
They only have like 5% of the market?
Closer to 10% now, though your point still stands. That said, it depends on where you draw the distinction between products. Sure, virtually any application could be written to run on virtually any OS. But if you want to run OSX exclusive apps without reinventing them from scratch (which hits all sorts of other IP laws), OSX is your only choice. If Apple machines were some sort of special purpose device, then the argument for linking them together is stronger, but they're clearly not special purpose; the software is sold separately, the hardware is off-the-shelf, etc.
I'm not saying you're wrong. But there is something very odd about a business model that becomes illegal simply by growing in market share. And if OSX were really "just" another desktop OS, then no one would bother making clones. But if you treat Apple as having a monopoly on "OSX" rather than a small share of the "desktop OS" market, then the picture is very different. There's nothing wrong with having a monopoly on OSX, but abusing the monopoly to improve sales of their other product lines is problematic.
Of course? If they sell the software separately, what makes it so obvious that they have the right to say how it will be used? We don't seem to have this sort of system for physical objects. If I buy a car, I can do whatever I want with it (within the law) without checking the rules laid down by the manufacturer. Sure, it may void the warranty, but it's not illegal. Beyond that, lots of software specifies the OS its supposed to run on. If I run a Windows app under WINE, have I somehow broken the law?
It's a much harder line to draw than you make it seem. In my opinion, Apple might be in the right on this specific point, but this is almost the definition of monopolistic behavior. Only Apple can sell OSX, and they're using the software monopoly to artificially prop up their hardware division.
BTW, for the curious, I used this site for my inflation estimates. The range is wide because there are so many different ways to calculate the relative value of the dollar over time.
You're not accounting for inflation. Also, your own source gives a 1990 budget of 1.2 trillion, not 1.1 (1.1 was for '88 and '89). Depending on how you calculate the value of the dollar over time, a dollar in 1990 is worth between $1.57 and $2.60 now, so that means to pay for 1990 equivalent spending, the gov't would require 1.884-3.12 trillion dollars in revenues to avoid a deficit (with the revenue figures you provide, we'd run a deficit of at least 0.7 trillion, or as much as 2 trillion; your source claims the 2012 deficit is 1.3 trillion.
Of course, this also assumes that all costs remain the same. We have a lot more people retired and retiring in the near future than we did in 1990, thanks to the baby boomers. Social security and Medicare (even without the post-1990 expansions to Medicare) are a huge part of the budget; the latter has significantly outpaced inflation. The only way to bring them back to 1990 era spending would be to dramatically cut benefits and/or reduce eligibility (e.g. by raising the eligibility age, refusing to cover specific treatments, etc.)
In summary:
If your only error was the spending from 1990, then there would be a deficit (albeit a small one)
Paying attention to inflation, dropping the income tax and magically rolling back the government 22 years would leave us with a deficit in roughly the same range as we have to day (0.7-2 trillion in your proposed scenario, 1.3 trillion being the actual figure)
And lastly, we address magical thinking. Unless you're suggesting we move to single payer, not-for-profit health care or apply strict rationing, we can't undo 22 years of increasing medical costs (even in those scenarios, I doubt we could undo all of it). And we can't magically undo the post-WWII population bulge at all. So returning to 1990 era spending would also mean turning Social Security into a program that provides no security at all, cutting Medicare to the bone, or raising the minimum retirement age into the 70s.
Yes, that all sounds like a perfectly rational solution that is eminently possible to sell to the American people...
Well, my point was that one socket could power multiple individual LEDs in a single "bulb." Not installing one LED per socket, but several LEDs powered off a single socket using a frame of roughly the same size as a regular bulb. Others have pointed out that they already do this to reach the power levels available now, and that it doesn't scale well in complexity and cost.
Why must a single LED provide all the light? Couldn't an array of, say, four LEDs, each equivalent to a 25W incandescent and using mirrors and/or lenses to even out the light distribution, get the same efficiency and substitute for a 100W bulb? Am I missing something obvious?
Not really. Incandescents (particularly ceiling mounted) don't distribute their heat well, so you rarely get a one-for-one watt exchange. And they heat the house in roughly the same way the emergency heat on a heat pump does; in a wildly inefficient and costly way. In North Dakota, you're probably not using a heat pump (which is at least as efficient as the incandescent at heating, but not much more efficient in truly frigid climates), and would probably be better off (at least monetarily) with CFL/LEDs and a heating oil/natural gas furnace working a little harder.
As others have noted, you're forgetting the cost to power the bulb. Standard incandescent lasts 1000 hours, the LEDs should last 10K (some claim 20K, but we'll go with the lower figure). So for a 100W equivalent, you buy 10 incandescents for 20 cents a piece, or $2. Let's say the LED costs $60.
Next up is the cost of power. Over 10K hours, the incandescents consume 100W * 10K hrs = 1Mwh (1000 Kwh). The LED consumes 23W * 10K hrs = 230 Kwh. At 10 cents per Kwh (I pay about 12 cents; prices in the U.S. range from 8-25 cents), that's $100 to power the incandescents. And $23 to power the LED.
LED total cost = $60 to buy + $23 to power = $83 over total lifespan
Incandescent total cost = $2 to buy + $100 to power = $102 over total lifespan (plus whatever cost you assign to the hassle of changing bulbs 10x as often)
That said, a fluorescent would get roughly the same power cost as the LED, and cost less than a tenth what the LED costs up front. But they're not well-suited to dimmable fixtures, they require special disposal, and they frequently have a delay before they reach full brightness (and some claim they get less "natural" light). If none of that bothers you, then go with fluorescents. But if it does, then your fallback option would be the LED, which is cheaper over its lifespan than even 20 cent incandescents.
This was a single point case of BSE; it wasn't the result of a transmission vector like contaminated feed, it just arose naturally (like prion diseases do in most mammals on rare occasions)
Ever since we stopped feeding ground up cow parts to other cows, the rate of BSE has dropped to near zero; it's only when cow engage in cannibalism that the disease spreads to enough cattle to produce a measurable risk to any human.
Greenland was "green" at some point in time, which means that the Earth was warmer in not so distant past. So maybe Greenland being green is the default and this time period was when the Earth was too cold and now it is warming back up again.
Per Wikipedia, it was never green, and it may not have been actually called green:
The name Greenland comes from the early Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find a land rumoured to lie to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grønland ("Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers.
Greenland was also called Gruntland (English: "Ground land") on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt ("ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known.
And because they're guilty of one type of bad act, they're guilty of all types of bad acts? Like when I shoplifted last week, got caught, and am now on death row for murder, because being guilty of shoplifting makes me guilty of all other crimes.
Let me know when you find the article that says MS sold access to their phones and operating systems to open up a lucrative market. Anti-trust is bad, but it's not remotely related to selling backdoors for market access.
Slashdot Mirror
The alcohol flush reaction they refer to isn't just about feeling unpleasant. Yes, people with two copies of the gene for it rarely drink. But those with only one copy (that is, they have some of the enzymes to metabolize acetaldehyde), while less likely to drink, often do so anyway (because they can take it, and they enjoy the feeling or feel socially obligated). And when they do, they raise their risk of esophageal (and I believe a few other cancers) significantly more than someone who drinks the same amount but lacks the flush reaction. Acetaldehyde is highly carcinogenic; most people just get rid of it quickly enough to limit the damage.
In short: If you give this to alcoholics, a large number of them will tolerate the side-effects and you've just dramatically increased their risk of cancer.
I've run into this on my car. I've got radar based crash avoidance (it's just brakes, no steering assist); it sometimes detects an imminent collision for a fraction of a second just before crossing railroad tracks. Luckily, it's so quick that I get the audible alert, but the brakes don't kick in. It's disconcerting though. If it took steering control, that would be terrifying.
Because removing the appendix is invasive surgery requiring anesthesia, with all the attendant risks of infection and anesthesia reactions? A lot more people would die of complications from the surgery than would be saved (and of course, there are some theories that support a role, however limited, for the appendix). The foreskin can be removed with far less cost and risk, and apparently produces more benefits.
What is wrong with this? Logically, if one species splits in two, and one of the resulting species splits again, you're going to have both of those secondary split species related to the other with fairly close similarity. Did you know that I'm equally closely related to all of my first cousins (to within a small margin of error)? That's not all that surprising is it?
I can come up with hypotheticals all day. None of them require much in the way of assumptions. My previous argument was basically four pillars: 1. Stronger eggs survive in more situations, 2. Stronger eggs require either stronger hatchlings or better tools, 3. Stronger hatchlings require more energy, and therefore tend to do less well in times of drought and famine than weaker hatchlings and 4. Existing species have genetics that can alter by degrees without mutations. I doubt you have any significant problems with any of those assumptions, yet the result is somehow unbelievable to you.
Only because you make invalid assumptions about how it must have evolved. Lets start with an amphibian and egg. Now lets say that a mutation causes the exterior to be a bit more rubbery. Initially 10% of hatchlings that could have handled the tougher exterior can't get out, but 10% more eggs survive being trod on by large animals. Except it's not static. Each generation that gets out of the egg has a greater concentration of the genes that give them the strength to escape the tougher egg. Repeat the process a dozen times over the course of a million years. Eventually you reach an equilibrium; the shell can't get tougher because the resources needed to escape it are expensive enough that the animal would have a higher energy burn, and fare poorly in times of drought or famine.
Fast forward a few tens of thousands of years. Another mutation causes the animal to develop one tooth earlier than it should. It's weak, but it allows weaker hatchlings to escape an egg of equivalent strength. The mutation spreads, aided by the occasional drought of famine, where the "weaker" animals survive. Later, another mutation makes this early, poorly formed tooth drop off; it was getting in the way, and it's better to grow strong teeth later. The egg shell toughens more and more, and starts becoming less water permeable as some individuals find a niche laying eggs near the water line where egg eating marine life has less access to it.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Tougher and less water permeable eggs make the eggs survive more often, and in more places. Small changes can be compensated for with existing intra-species variation, but if a novel mutation arises that deals with the costs of the new strategy more effectively, selective pressure will spread it. Follow this chain of events for a hundred million years, and you got from fish to amphibian, and from amphibian to reptile. It's not a whole bunch of lucky coincidences at once, it's one coincidence, adaptation to take advantage of it, then another coincidence and further adaptation, over and over, over the course of millions upon millions of years. It took billions of years to go from single cell life to multicellular life, a hundred million years to go from marine life to amphibians and so on. This is a mind-boggling scale of time; continents circled the globe in the time it took for mammals to evolve from reptiles. You don't see the continents shifting, but it happens all the same.
The tiny changes and recombinations occurring in animals today won't produce many new species "naturally" in your lifetime, but over the next 10,000 years? Million years? 100 million years? I wouldn't bet on animal life remaining unchanged.
Sigh... What part of my post did you read as "I wasn't getting paid enough"? I already said, I was paid quite nicely there. But no amount of money can help when the problem is wanting to do more. Designing software used by thousands of people, supporting some noble goal, whatever. Giving those with lots of money even more money isn't motivating no matter how much they pay you to do it.
There's good money in it, assuming you can get motivation out of making the already absurdly wealthy incrementally richer. I spent time at a hedge fund; paid better than any job I've had before or since, but it was really hard to go to work every morning, because I felt no sense of accomplishment. I just felt like I was squandering my education skimming off the work of others (see High Frequency Trading, the entire speculative commodity futures market, etc.).
The few people who benefited from my work (besides myself) were already so wealthy (the minimum net worth requirements are ridiculous) that every single one of them could stick their money in a savings account and spend it at a rate of $200K a year for the rest of their life with no risk of going broke. Hard to get excited by the prospect of letting them spend $300K a year...
In many states you do. And in this case, the summary notes that she has her master's in education.
but this is almost the definition of monopolistic behavior.
They only have like 5% of the market?
Closer to 10% now, though your point still stands. That said, it depends on where you draw the distinction between products. Sure, virtually any application could be written to run on virtually any OS. But if you want to run OSX exclusive apps without reinventing them from scratch (which hits all sorts of other IP laws), OSX is your only choice. If Apple machines were some sort of special purpose device, then the argument for linking them together is stronger, but they're clearly not special purpose; the software is sold separately, the hardware is off-the-shelf, etc.
I'm not saying you're wrong. But there is something very odd about a business model that becomes illegal simply by growing in market share. And if OSX were really "just" another desktop OS, then no one would bother making clones. But if you treat Apple as having a monopoly on "OSX" rather than a small share of the "desktop OS" market, then the picture is very different. There's nothing wrong with having a monopoly on OSX, but abusing the monopoly to improve sales of their other product lines is problematic.
Of course? If they sell the software separately, what makes it so obvious that they have the right to say how it will be used? We don't seem to have this sort of system for physical objects. If I buy a car, I can do whatever I want with it (within the law) without checking the rules laid down by the manufacturer. Sure, it may void the warranty, but it's not illegal. Beyond that, lots of software specifies the OS its supposed to run on. If I run a Windows app under WINE, have I somehow broken the law?
It's a much harder line to draw than you make it seem. In my opinion, Apple might be in the right on this specific point, but this is almost the definition of monopolistic behavior. Only Apple can sell OSX, and they're using the software monopoly to artificially prop up their hardware division.
Posting to undo accidental mod point
BTW, for the curious, I used this site for my inflation estimates. The range is wide because there are so many different ways to calculate the relative value of the dollar over time.
You're not accounting for inflation. Also, your own source gives a 1990 budget of 1.2 trillion, not 1.1 (1.1 was for '88 and '89). Depending on how you calculate the value of the dollar over time, a dollar in 1990 is worth between $1.57 and $2.60 now, so that means to pay for 1990 equivalent spending, the gov't would require 1.884-3.12 trillion dollars in revenues to avoid a deficit (with the revenue figures you provide, we'd run a deficit of at least 0.7 trillion, or as much as 2 trillion; your source claims the 2012 deficit is 1.3 trillion.
Of course, this also assumes that all costs remain the same. We have a lot more people retired and retiring in the near future than we did in 1990, thanks to the baby boomers. Social security and Medicare (even without the post-1990 expansions to Medicare) are a huge part of the budget; the latter has significantly outpaced inflation. The only way to bring them back to 1990 era spending would be to dramatically cut benefits and/or reduce eligibility (e.g. by raising the eligibility age, refusing to cover specific treatments, etc.)
In summary:
Yes, that all sounds like a perfectly rational solution that is eminently possible to sell to the American people...
Well, my point was that one socket could power multiple individual LEDs in a single "bulb." Not installing one LED per socket, but several LEDs powered off a single socket using a frame of roughly the same size as a regular bulb. Others have pointed out that they already do this to reach the power levels available now, and that it doesn't scale well in complexity and cost.
Why must a single LED provide all the light? Couldn't an array of, say, four LEDs, each equivalent to a 25W incandescent and using mirrors and/or lenses to even out the light distribution, get the same efficiency and substitute for a 100W bulb? Am I missing something obvious?
Not really. Incandescents (particularly ceiling mounted) don't distribute their heat well, so you rarely get a one-for-one watt exchange. And they heat the house in roughly the same way the emergency heat on a heat pump does; in a wildly inefficient and costly way. In North Dakota, you're probably not using a heat pump (which is at least as efficient as the incandescent at heating, but not much more efficient in truly frigid climates), and would probably be better off (at least monetarily) with CFL/LEDs and a heating oil/natural gas furnace working a little harder.
I don't know. Is your opponent promising to increase the size of the pipe?
So, something like this?
As others have noted, you're forgetting the cost to power the bulb. Standard incandescent lasts 1000 hours, the LEDs should last 10K (some claim 20K, but we'll go with the lower figure). So for a 100W equivalent, you buy 10 incandescents for 20 cents a piece, or $2. Let's say the LED costs $60.
Next up is the cost of power. Over 10K hours, the incandescents consume 100W * 10K hrs = 1Mwh (1000 Kwh). The LED consumes 23W * 10K hrs = 230 Kwh. At 10 cents per Kwh (I pay about 12 cents; prices in the U.S. range from 8-25 cents), that's $100 to power the incandescents. And $23 to power the LED.
That said, a fluorescent would get roughly the same power cost as the LED, and cost less than a tenth what the LED costs up front. But they're not well-suited to dimmable fixtures, they require special disposal, and they frequently have a delay before they reach full brightness (and some claim they get less "natural" light). If none of that bothers you, then go with fluorescents. But if it does, then your fallback option would be the LED, which is cheaper over its lifespan than even 20 cent incandescents.
Ever since we stopped feeding ground up cow parts to other cows, the rate of BSE has dropped to near zero; it's only when cow engage in cannibalism that the disease spreads to enough cattle to produce a measurable risk to any human.
Republican party platform: Life begins at conception and ends at birth.
Greenland was "green" at some point in time, which means that the Earth was warmer in not so distant past. So maybe Greenland being green is the default and this time period was when the Earth was too cold and now it is warming back up again.
Per Wikipedia, it was never green, and it may not have been actually called green:
Your premise is wrong. Care to retract?
And because they're guilty of one type of bad act, they're guilty of all types of bad acts? Like when I shoplifted last week, got caught, and am now on death row for murder, because being guilty of shoplifting makes me guilty of all other crimes.
Let me know when you find the article that says MS sold access to their phones and operating systems to open up a lucrative market. Anti-trust is bad, but it's not remotely related to selling backdoors for market access.