2 liters of cola has about 220mg of caffeine. Twenty ounces of reasonably strong black coffee (e.g. starbucks) has a bit over 400mg, and many people drink a few cups a day.
If the problem with cola were due to the caffeine, we'd have found the problem already in coffee drinkers who have already been studied to hell and back by people who'd just love to ban yet another enjoyable chemical.
No, as mentioned above the "problem" is probably that the sheer volume of cola flushes out potassium, and maybe the sugar accelerates metabolism or something.
I'm not sure what a "showel" is, but: There is no convincing evidence that moderate consumption of aspartame causes harm. The evidence was all from "accelerated failure studies", where they gave mice extreme doses and extrapolated back to normal consumption. Well, that's not bad for a first approximation, and diet drinks had a cancer warning label for a while. However, the studies were refuted early on and now time has borne out that the studies were incorrect. There's apparently a threshold effect, and under a certain dosage (which is quite high), it's perfectly safe.
If you want to worry about something, worry about brominated vegetable oil, which is used in Mt. Dew and other citrus sodas to disperse the citrus oils uniformly in the drink. Or, if you really want to worry about something which actually has a non-negligible chance of killing/disabling you, look both ways before crossing the street and always wear your seatbelt; and (a distant second) don't smoke.
I almost feel bad. I know what a radon transform is and I've taken a class on inverse problems.
My point was just that the common view of what is mathematics is rather anemic and quick to give engineering credit to relatively simple ideas. I suspect that the patent office has similar fallacious thinking.
Whoa, "radon transform"? Hold on a second, wiz-kid. Does that use poisonous gas or something? It's certainly not mathematics, because that means stuff like "three times four".
It's simpler. Professors at small liberal arts colleges aren't jaded ultra-specialized researchers, which means that they have the time and caring to bother with teaching. More importantly: tenure/promotion evaluations at SLACs also revolve mostly around teaching evals.
Uh, I don't think there are laws about "how to take an average". In some cases, there are NIST or ANSI standards, but they can't cover every possible scenario. It would be impossible to cover all cases. There are laws about incompetence and negligence and it'll be a mess to see if they cover this. Hence the esteemed and virtuous class of lawyers to apply the principles of justice and truth to... ugh... I'm going to vomit.
Write your next book using incredibly abstract language and concepts, so as to be useless to non-academicians. Then charge over $100 in order to milk this very limited market, who will hopefully never get organized enough to pirate the book.
It's what other people seem to do. Seriously, any book with a title like "... for practical people", or "... for real programmers" will get pirated. Surprise! That's the "practical" way to get technical books!
Take heart also that many of the pirates would probably not buy the book if that were the only option.
You can save the memory and still do it correctly by just re-weighting the "running average".
This would be a valid design, however, if the variance of the hardware improved (decreased) as the samples came in, in which case the recent samples should get more weight. I doubt that this is the case, but it may have a reason behind it.
1. Windows works almost exactly the same way, except with a moronic additional "degrade" option which is usually disabled nowadays.
2. If you have occasional spikes of demand (as opposed to continuously running job/game), "powersave" probably uses more power. It's more efficient to spike the proc to max for a few seconds; finish the job; and go back to mostly-idle.
No it wouldn't. It certainly doesn't disprove an intelligent designer. One could argue that it would prove the existence of an IDer, however it does not.
It's eminently possible, even under these circumstances, that the universe evolved atheistically, until some asshole god/demiurge decided to take credit for it and toast Sol III.
I'm not a big fan of either one, but there's just no comparison between the two. Le Guin's works just have incomparably more depth and experience behind them. She's won two Hugos, and also managed to not only finish undergrad, but earned an ivy league Ph.D. in anthropology as well... as opposed to her "competition". (Please, don't bother "pointing out" that a Ph.D. outside of the hard sciences is worthless. It's not. Heinlein wouldn't dedicate a novel to a soft-minded pseudo-thinker...)
Doctorow is a small-fry gimmick writer compared to le Guin, and he knows it. Not that there's anything wrong with that per se. Doctorow's ideas and attitude are important; as they said about McLuhan, "even if he's wrong, it matters." But purely on authorial merit... please.
And do the same thing, again and again, for a couple GP each time... It just annoyed me, although it did show how tedious the "career" of thieving would really be I guess.
He's taking pride in an extra minute or two of boot time? The only complaints I ever hear from normal people about lenovo is that they take too long to boot. (Abnormal people remove the schlocky junk, or install linux.)
Eh, this is slashdot. Where the majority opinion is that it's just fine for a science publisher to take money to publish unreviewed articles about how great those companies' drugs are.
It's a good place to learn about "lowest common denominator libertarianism". Libertarianism which gives no value at all to tradition; morality; reasonable expectations; estoppel; &c.
I didn't misinterpret anything. I agree with what he said, as unremarkable of an observation as it is. I just think spelling "atheism" correctly isn't too much to ask for.
I threw in "Republican" as purely impromptu flavor text. Maybe it was ill-considered.
Anyway. I didn't misinterpret anything, and there was no "substance" for style to supercede.
In conclusion I hope you trip and fall, gouge your knee and get a MRSA infection before being knifed and sodomized repeatedly by a gang of coked-up AIDS-ridden male prostitutes. XOXO
Slashdot Mirror
2 liters of cola has about 220mg of caffeine. Twenty ounces of reasonably strong black coffee (e.g. starbucks) has a bit over 400mg, and many people drink a few cups a day.
If the problem with cola were due to the caffeine, we'd have found the problem already in coffee drinkers who have already been studied to hell and back by people who'd just love to ban yet another enjoyable chemical.
No, as mentioned above the "problem" is probably that the sheer volume of cola flushes out potassium, and maybe the sugar accelerates metabolism or something.
Oh yeah, obviously the above doesn't apply to people with phenylketonuria.
Yes, a very very slow bullet.
I'm not sure what a "showel" is, but: There is no convincing evidence that moderate consumption of aspartame causes harm. The evidence was all from "accelerated failure studies", where they gave mice extreme doses and extrapolated back to normal consumption. Well, that's not bad for a first approximation, and diet drinks had a cancer warning label for a while. However, the studies were refuted early on and now time has borne out that the studies were incorrect. There's apparently a threshold effect, and under a certain dosage (which is quite high), it's perfectly safe.
If you want to worry about something, worry about brominated vegetable oil, which is used in Mt. Dew and other citrus sodas to disperse the citrus oils uniformly in the drink. Or, if you really want to worry about something which actually has a non-negligible chance of killing/disabling you, look both ways before crossing the street and always wear your seatbelt; and (a distant second) don't smoke.
No, only require so-called "reasonable and non-discriminatory", which you can just imagine what that really means...
Also, Knuth has said that under today's patent system he couldn't possibly have legally written TeX...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29707/Letter-to-the-Patent-Office-From-Donald-Knuth
But why would anyone listen to a genius when there is money to be made from thin air...?
unless your a lazy fuck like most workers
Prime example of managerial talent, here...
I almost feel bad. I know what a radon transform is and I've taken a class on inverse problems.
My point was just that the common view of what is mathematics is rather anemic and quick to give engineering credit to relatively simple ideas. I suspect that the patent office has similar fallacious thinking.
Whoa, "radon transform"? Hold on a second, wiz-kid. Does that use poisonous gas or something? It's certainly not mathematics, because that means stuff like "three times four".
Random daily trivia: that phrase comes from a once-common medical practice, and began to be used when it was discredited.
It's simpler. Professors at small liberal arts colleges aren't jaded ultra-specialized researchers, which means that they have the time and caring to bother with teaching. More importantly: tenure/promotion evaluations at SLACs also revolve mostly around teaching evals.
There is no law against being a bad lecturer.
Uh, I don't think there are laws about "how to take an average". In some cases, there are NIST or ANSI standards, but they can't cover every possible scenario. It would be impossible to cover all cases. There are laws about incompetence and negligence and it'll be a mess to see if they cover this. Hence the esteemed and virtuous class of lawyers to apply the principles of justice and truth to ... ugh... I'm going to vomit.
Write your next book using incredibly abstract language and concepts, so as to be useless to non-academicians. Then charge over $100 in order to milk this very limited market, who will hopefully never get organized enough to pirate the book.
It's what other people seem to do. Seriously, any book with a title like "... for practical people", or "... for real programmers" will get pirated. Surprise! That's the "practical" way to get technical books!
Take heart also that many of the pirates would probably not buy the book if that were the only option.
You can save the memory and still do it correctly by just re-weighting the "running average".
This would be a valid design, however, if the variance of the hardware improved (decreased) as the samples came in, in which case the recent samples should get more weight. I doubt that this is the case, but it may have a reason behind it.
Uh, does Windows software magically not have source code or something?
1. Windows works almost exactly the same way, except with a moronic additional "degrade" option which is usually disabled nowadays.
2. If you have occasional spikes of demand (as opposed to continuously running job/game), "powersave" probably uses more power. It's more efficient to spike the proc to max for a few seconds; finish the job; and go back to mostly-idle.
No it wouldn't. It certainly doesn't disprove an intelligent designer. One could argue that it would prove the existence of an IDer, however it does not.
It's eminently possible, even under these circumstances, that the universe evolved atheistically, until some asshole god/demiurge decided to take credit for it and toast Sol III.
Demonstrating (something) does not demonstrate the non-existence of an intelligent designer.
Indeed; nothing can.
I'm not a big fan of either one, but there's just no comparison between the two. Le Guin's works just have incomparably more depth and experience behind them. She's won two Hugos, and also managed to not only finish undergrad, but earned an ivy league Ph.D. in anthropology as well... as opposed to her "competition". (Please, don't bother "pointing out" that a Ph.D. outside of the hard sciences is worthless. It's not. Heinlein wouldn't dedicate a novel to a soft-minded pseudo-thinker...)
Doctorow is a small-fry gimmick writer compared to le Guin, and he knows it. Not that there's anything wrong with that per se. Doctorow's ideas and attitude are important; as they said about McLuhan, "even if he's wrong, it matters." But purely on authorial merit... please.
And do the same thing, again and again, for a couple GP each time... It just annoyed me, although it did show how tedious the "career" of thieving would really be I guess.
It's called a warrant, you fucking fascist. They've been around a while and I don't see a reason to change things.
Wow, that's a very pessimistic explanation! Not to say it's wrong.
I would have thought that the five-digit and low-6-digit UIDs would have gotten over that bullshit by now. Maybe not.
He's taking pride in an extra minute or two of boot time? The only complaints I ever hear from normal people about lenovo is that they take too long to boot. (Abnormal people remove the schlocky junk, or install linux.)
Ah well. So much for Lenovo I think...
Eh, this is slashdot. Where the majority opinion is that it's just fine for a science publisher to take money to publish unreviewed articles about how great those companies' drugs are.
It's a good place to learn about "lowest common denominator libertarianism". Libertarianism which gives no value at all to tradition; morality; reasonable expectations; estoppel; &c.
I didn't misinterpret anything. I agree with what he said, as unremarkable of an observation as it is. I just think spelling "atheism" correctly isn't too much to ask for.
I threw in "Republican" as purely impromptu flavor text. Maybe it was ill-considered.
Anyway. I didn't misinterpret anything, and there was no "substance" for style to supercede.
In conclusion I hope you trip and fall, gouge your knee and get a MRSA infection before being knifed and sodomized repeatedly by a gang of coked-up AIDS-ridden male prostitutes. XOXO
It's spelled "atheism", you illiterate Republican fucksocket.
Apparently he knew enough to tell (or guess) that it would take over a decade for what he was suggesting to become feasible...