Then the invention of the bomber allowed civilian murder to be taken to new extremes in WW2. The British bombing campaign was particularly bad, based as it was on the premise that the smallest target that could reliably be hit by night bombers was a city.
Well, that and things like firebombing, as used heavily in places like Dresden and Tokyo. When you have things like urban civilian populations suffocating to death due to lack of oxygen because all the fire raining from the sky is using it up... well, I don't think you can get much worse in terms of disregard for civilians.
Who was discussing "halving the distance" to anything? The post you replied to was talking about doubling the heat transfer rate. As I noted, this is primarily a function of "distance" from body temperature. Absolute zero has no bearing on the situation, so why would the Kelvin zero be any more or less arbitrary in this case than the Celsius one? (It might if we were talking solely about blackbody radiative heat, but instead here we're talking mostly about heat loss through convection.)
So, negative 136 celsius then. That is, after all, "twice as cold" as -40 celsius when computed via Kelvin (the only way that makes sense).
I don't know what the nonsense about Kelvin is about.
Wind chill is effectively a measurement of rate of heat transfer from humans. According to Newton's law of cooling, which is a quick and dirty approximation to heat transfer, the rate of heat transfer is proportional to the temperature difference.
If the human body is 37 degrees C and the outside temperature is -40, then the temperature difference is 77 degrees. If the heat transfer rate were to be doubled, this temperature difference should be doubled to 77*2 = 154 degrees. A temperature that is 154 degrees below body temperature would be 37 - 154 = minus 117 degrees C. Wind chill models are more complicated that this, but I don't think anyone's claiming that the wind chill will be anywhere near -117 degrees C.
So I think both you and the weatherman are saying bogus things. I believe the weatherman in the summary is effectively just saying "double the distance below zero" -- which is decidedly dumb -- and you're rambling on some nonsense about Kelvin when you actually need to be calculating heat transfer rates, not temperature.
Meteorologists warn that the wind-chill factor could make it feel twice as cold
What the hell does "twice as cold" even mean?
Although I doubt that the phrase is being used in a meaningful way here, the very definition of wind chill generally involves a discussion of heat transfer.
Contrary to popular belief, temperature is pretty meaningless as a description of how cold or warm something "feels" to human beings. Why does the coin sitting on your desk feel "colder" than the wood of the desktop? Simple -- because the coin transfers heat from your fingers faster than the desktop. But they are obviously at the same temperature.
So, if you actually want to talk about how hot or cold something feels (as in the quoted passage you mentioned), you need to talk about rate of heat transfer, not temperature. The units of whatever temperature scale are completely irrelevant to how warm or cold something FEELS.
What we need are units of heat transfer (like joules per square meter of exposed skin or something like that), and "twice as cold" in that case will be independent of whether you use metric, imperial, whatever units.
So, a reasonable interpretation of the statement "the wind chill will make it feel twice as cold" is that the heat transfer rate from human skin will be doubled. That's basically how wind chill numbers are computed (though, as mentioned in the linked article, there are a number of models). Similar computations are involved with high humidity and high temperatures, where the evaporation rate of perspiration is lowered and humans experience decreased heat loss, thereby feeling "hotter" (hence, the "heat index" numbers).
If it's intended to mean "double the negative distance from zero", then it's unit-dependent.
Unfortunately, I think that's actually what they mean here, which is -- I agree -- quite stupid.
The same with "half the temperature".
I also agree with you that that sounds a bit dumb too, though people used to using a particular temperature scale will basically understand what that probably means.
Regardless, "feel twice as cold" actually has a measurable meaning independent of units if you think of "coldness" and "hotness" in human perception as relating to rates of heat transfer rather than the relatively meaningless -- to human perception at least -- temperature scale.
But how will our metric friends know what the temperature is if we report -40F? How will they ever tell?!
Exactly. I read the summary, and saw this: "The coldest temperature reported in the lower 48 states on Sunday was minus 40 F (-40 C) in the towns of Babbitt and Embarrass, Minnesota."
I immediately lamented the fact that with the dual units given, there would be no thread here that would begin:
What the heck? The summary just says -40 degrees!?! What is the freakin' unit?!
... followed by a bazillion replies smacking the parent down on F/C equivalence at that temperature.
But thanks for providing some entertainment in its place (including a few *whoosh* replies so far...).
But what has been found true is the human body's reaction to the sweetener in which insulin is still produced even though there is no sugars that it can attach to, which drops the blood sugar levels to an extreme low level.
This is a highly exaggerated account of the study you link to. I've been paying attention to studies on artificial sweeteners for some time, and this is one of the first to show any significant effect.
However, (1) it only had 17 subjects, (2) they were severely obese -- with an average BMI of 42, (3) none had been diagnosed with diabetes, and (4) only one sweetener (sucralose) was tested. Besides the very small number of subjects, the fact that they all were quite obese suggests that many could already have weird metabolism or digestive issues (even if they hadn't officially been diagnosed with diabetes).
As for your claim that the irregular insulin makes the blood sugar drop to "an extreme low level," well that isn't actually proven by the study in your link. What they measured were "enhanced" insulin levels (increased 20%) following the ingestion of caloric food after the artificial sweetener. But previous studies looking at insulin response when the sweeteners were consumed by themselves showed no such response. So, under certain conditions and in certain people who may already have metabolic problems ONE specific artificial sweetener may produce an "enhanced" insulin response when combined with other food.
I absolutely agree that a study like this should DEFINITELY lead to immediate follow-up studies, because artificial sweeteners are ubiquitous these days. If there are subsequent studies that show similar effects, I'll be the first one to start screaming it from the mountaintops.
But given that this is the first study to find a response of this kind -- and given that it was only a tiny group of subjects with abnormal medical histories -- I'd hardly say that your claim "has been found true" yet.
Lots of new studies come out every day that are false for all sorts of reasons, and given the disagreement between this study's results and previous ones, caution is suggested before making too much of the claims.
I don't think you are the target demographic of the GP"s argument. You appear to earn enough with a single income so your spouse can live a life of relative luxury. Most people can't afford that -- if they have to choose whether to work or be a stay-at-home parent, the choice is about economics. "Do I go to work and pay for daycare or a nanny, or do I stay at home and raise my kids myself? Do I go to work and eat crappy take-out food and TV dinners every night because I'm too tired to cook, or do I save money by cooking at home? Do I work overtime and hire a maidservice periodically, or do I stay at home a little more and keep the house relatively clean myself?"
Many people I know who choose to be stay-at-home spouses couldn't afford to live the life you describe. Whether they can't find a job or they can't find one that they like or they just like staying at home, they also have to "pitch in" and do various tasks at home to make it economically viable for their families.
But stay-at-home parents have not returned to traditional home chores - sewing clothes and scrubbing them clean on river rocks, tending crops, grinding meal, gathering water and firewood, tending to or butchering animals, churning butter, beating rugs and so on.
The GP didn't say we were going back to the 19th century. But as someone who was effectively a stay-at-home dad for a couple years, I did in fact repair some clothes (not major sewing, but some), I did sometimes scrub stains off of clothes, I did have a little garden to grow some herbs and vegetables (though not enough to support us), and for small rugs, taking them outside and beating them a bit is actually useful. Because I believe in high-quality food, I have also at times ground my own flour and to save money I'd buy larger cuts of meat and cut them up (and sometimes grind them) myself. Although I like homemade butter, it's not really economical to make it yourself, so I don't generally do it.
I still have and use a vacuum cleaner, washing machine, etc., but where I could save some money or produce something of better quality by doing it myself, I might try it. As the GP said, I did so because I didn't have to hire a "third party" to do it instead... because that wasn't economically feasible.
Or preparing meals that are essentially a luxury - higher quality, but largely more expensive than, a machine-prepared (frozen) or fast-food meal.
I could easily prepare food that is of significantly "higher quality" than frozen foods or fast-food for a much lower cost. Aside from saving on daycare/nanny costs, the biggest economical reason to be a stay-at-home spouse is often to save on food costs. For my family to eat food that cost the same as frozen dinners and take-out food, I could certainly make luxurious meals at home with "conventional" ingredients.
And shuttling kids around appears to be on the verge of obsolescence as well due to automated driving.
I'd hardly say "on the verge of obsolescence." Lots of advances, yes, but I bet we're quite a few years away from widespread adoption... probably decades. Particularly for true automatic driving with human drivers never having to take the wheel in unusual situations, as would be required to shuttle kids without an adult "backup" driver. You really think most parents are going to trust an automatic car to ferry their "little angels" around by itself in the next couple decades? I doubt it... it will take a long time to gain people's trust.
Anyhow, again, I don't think you're the kind of family the GP was talking about. Some folks can afford to have a spouse who either works or stays at home and does very little "housework." Most families can't afford that sort of luxury.
It is likely you might be able to buy a retail copy of Photoshop to convent them, and that probably would work, but then you are spending thousands of dollars.
I don't know if this is helpful, but you don't need to spend thousands of dollars for an old copy of Photoshop. Adobe has effectively released CS2 as freeware. Officially, I believe you are only supposed to download and use this if you already have a CS2 license, but lots of people appear to have interpreted Adobe's actions as effectively releasing free software.
So, you might try this as a solution... CS2 was released in 2005, so if your photos are 10 years old, I imagine this could work.
In particular, he doesn't have a degree in evolutionary biology. He's an entertainer.
And that's a much better qualification in something like this than any scientific degree. As long as he understands evolution well enough not to misrepresent it to a laymen's perspective (and his track record in doing lots of science education probably means he does), that should be plenty.
Debate isn't about technical proficiency. It's about knowing the basic facts well, but the rest is about presentation. The last thing science needs to represent it is an eminent professor who can't do anything but stutter and talk in jargon. Any debate opponent with a shred of charisma would rip such an expert to shreds.
Fortunately, with science you don't have to believe. Belief is for when you want the same warm fuzzy feeling your parents have about whatever religion is popular in that particular region.
I'm a big fan of science. If you search through my posts here, you'll find cases where I've defended evolution vehemently.
But I think you're wrong about science for most people. For 99% of people, they don't have sufficient scientific background to evaluate technical claims in science. Quite a few years ago, for example, when the "intelligent design" movement was first making headway, there were a few credentialed scientists who were supporting it and writing books about it, etc. I got a little intrigued and started reading. Some of the arguments sounded interesting -- after all, archaeologists have to deal with issues of "design" all the time -- is that a random rock formed naturally, or is it an arrowhead carved with intention? How do we know for sure that something could have been formed naturally? How do we know our scientific explanations for those causes are correct?
I never really bought into "intelligent design," but I found it hard to refute on its face, assuming you allowed a possibility for an intelligence to "guide" evolution (not necessarily a god, perhaps an alien species, whatever...).
It was only after spending time literally reading thousands of pages of books on evolutionary theory and the stuff from the "intelligent design" crowd that I eventually felt I could actually dismiss the anti-evolution people and their arguments. Today it all seems a little silly to me, but I was younger and still tried to keep an open mind to all perspectives.
Most people don't have that kind of time, nor the technical expertise, to even evaluate the professional literature in a field like evolutionary biology, let alone perform their own experiments. Same thing for issues like climate change, etc.
So, when it comes to evolution, what it boils down to for most people is whether you trust your pastor or minister or priest... or whether you trust your friendly neighborhood scientist. A lot of classic evolution arguments are not about predictive science in the normal sense where you can say, "watch this thing going down an inclined plane, and let's measure what happens..." which instantly proves your point.
Many people strongly feel that their religion also does something meaningful in their lives, regardless of whether they've done a scientific experiment to test it. And then scientists come along and say that what their religious leaders say is false. Most of these people aren't completely dumb -- they recognize that science does good things and reliably makes predictions and gives right answers. But interpreting past events and creating a narrative of evolution is a little more fuzzy for many people.
So, they listen to the arguments on both sides, and they go with what sounds reasonable to them. Unless they have time and knowledge to investigate further, they go with which authority seems strongest to them -- whether that's science or their church or whatever.
In the end, it does come down to "belief" for >90% of people, including even many people educated in science who also don't have the technical background in that specific area.
Science is for when you want the right answer.
What makes it "right" when we're talking about interpretation of past events? If you're building a bridge, you need scientific data on the physics of the bridge design, the strength of the materials, etc. to conclude what is the "right" strategy to make a safe bridge that won't fall down. If people don't follow those principles, the bridges will fail.
But when you're talking about evolutionary theory and events from many millions of years ago, the way to judge whether something is "wrong" is much more nebulous. Obviously you can't have a theory that directly contradicts
Do you use a coin purse or do you keep high value coins jumbling about your pocket?
A lot of pants already have a solution to this problem. Most jeans have a small pocket on the right side, and good quality dress pants also have an extra small pocket inside the big pocket on the right side. In the past, apparently some used these for watches (among other things), but pocket watches are rather rare these days... so why not actually put these pockets to use? When I have just a few coins, that's where I tend to put them. I'd do the same if the U.S. had higher value coins.
In any case, no "jumbling around" necessary.
I just don't see any advantage to coins except some theoretical savings over constantly reprinting paper money. But that is a pretty negligible cost
Well, the official government estimates for the savings are always well over $100 million per year. Yes, that's not a huge amount within the overall federal budget, but still -- I'd hardly call savings of hundreds of millions of dollars per year "negligible."
Without a way to flawlessly record and maintain books, music, and movies, works would inevitably be lost, or of poor quality, so people needed new works to be produced, or there would be no copyrighted works.
Umm, not really. I work on a regular basis with old books (with include music manuscripts too) that are hundreds of years old, some over a thousand. Parchment required killing lots of animals to make a manuscript; paper books were also quite expensive until the 1900s. Anything that was valued enough to be written down at all was meant to last. And by the time that movies became very popular, copyright terms were 56 years (28+28), whereas movie fads changed so rapidly that a lot of early films from the 1910s and 1920s (and even decades later) have been completely lost.
Not because people couldn't make more copies of films or store them, but because nobody cared.
Which brings up the real reason why new works used to be created (and still do) -- tastes change. People like new stuff. The idea that we should worship "classical" literature and "classical" music pretty much didn't exist before about 1800. Instead, artists just kept making stuff because that's what artists do, and the public likes whatever new fad comes along.
Now that all copyrighted works are able to be stored in a way that stops any of their original quality from being lost, things have changed a bit.
I don't know about this. We have lots and lots medieval manuscripts that are easily legible which are over a thousand years old. The hides of animals used to make them were and are very durable. We have clay and stone tablets from the ancient world that are thousands of years old.
On the other hand, I have files written in defunct file formats that are less than 20 years old which I can't read without jumping through special hoops. I have video files I purchased less than a decade ago which I can no longer open because of DRM. (I've since learned my lesson....)
Is our current information storage system more durable than animal skin parchment paper that has lasted 1000 years?? We'll see. I think some of the digital archiving problems are being solved, but I already know scholars working on material from the past 20 years that have alluded to them as "lost decades." Historical figures up to the 1970s and 1980s usually kept lots of paper letters and things that can still be accessed by historians. Scholars studying people who have died more recently often are dealing with many years of correspondence simply lost when things had transitioned to email... which often was just deleted or forgotten when a new computer was acquired.
Mostly what has changed in the past few years is not the durability of the storage medium, but rather the ability to make copies very easily at almost no cost. Whether we keep making those copies in formats that we can continue to read is an open question.
the original copyright terms were 14 (17??) years.
The original copyright terms were in Italy in the late 1400s, and typically were granted to individual publishers or authors for a period of 7-10 years. The Statute of Anne (1707, which is the first copyright thing most people have heard of) established a 14-year copyright period with a 14-year renewal, i.e., a maximum of 28 years. The first copyright laws in the U.S. (1790) granted the same rights.
The Constitution clearly states the reason for patent and copyright (to get people to produce more works for the public domain) and states "for limited times". a lifetime plus 95 years is in no way limited, and there's no way to convince Jimi Hendrix to make any more music.
Indeed. The original copyright laws passed in the U.S. right after the Constitution was written allowed for a 14-year term of copyright, with an optional 14-year renewal. It wasn't until 1909 that it reached the 28+28 years formula used in TFA.
Following the original 1790 copyright statute, everything up to 1985 should now be in the public domain -- John Irving's Cider House Rules, James Michener's Texas, Carl Sagan's Contact, and movies like Back to the Future, The Color Purple, Out of Africa, and The Goonies.
This is more like the cashier rang up the sale, and then noticed while loading the cart (waiting to ship) that the sticker price didn't match what the register had rung up, and gave you the choice of either paying the sticker price or not buying the item.
This isn't a good analogy. An online transaction is much more formal than checking out in person with a cashier. Often, a customer has to go through multiple pages being presented with a detailed bill, and then being asked to go forward and "confirm" and/or "submit a final order."
So, it would be more like if you were at a store, the cashier worked out your bill, then formally presented your bill to you (perhaps multiple times), you agreed with the cashier on the prices, then the cashier asked you for your payment. But before taking your credit card, the cashier put out his/her hand, looked you in the eye, and said, "Do we have a deal? If so, please confirm formally by shaking my hand." And then you shook the hand as you handed over the credit card.
Then, just as the cashier was about to run the card through, a manager walks by and sees and error and says, "HOLD UP!! There's an error there. Sorry, no deal."
That's a better analogy to this situation. And in this case, while I believe the store may legally have the right to say "no deal" after it asked you to submit and confirm your order, it would be good business practice to honor the confirmed sales agreement that the consumer made. The "cashier" here is the automated system that accepted orders -- and it did NOT catch the error. Someone else later on did and then interrupted the normal process.
It takes a special kind of spoiled brat to throw a tantrum in such a situation.
I don't know that I'd "throw a tantrum" in this situation. But I do think it might be worth at least raising an objection.
Why, you ask? Because aside from all the formal "confirm your order" and "please be sure to check before you submit your final order" (and sometimes even "no cancellation after this" text), many businesses clearly act as though the placing of an online order is in fact some sort of contract... regardless of whether payment has been processed or the item has been shipped.
My personal experience dealing with cancelling orders shows this. I think I've had to cancel about 4 orders in my lifetime because they became significantly backordered after I ordered them -- so they wouldn't be delivered within the time the business said they would.
In two of those cases that I recall, it was easy to cancel. One asked me whether I wanted to cancel at the point they realized it was backordered, and another went ahead and did it easily when requested.
But I had two encounters with businesses who really treated my "confirm your order" as though I had agreed to sit and wait to receive the item for as long as it might take -- they went ahead and charged my card, and they just expected me to wait for months to get my stuff.
In one case, I had to threaten to dispute the charge, etc., but in the other, where the item had been "backordered" for over two months after they charged my card (and I had no reason to expect they'd ever fulfill the order), I had to dispute the charges and report the business to state consumer agencies before they finally refunded my money. They claimed that my order was "final" and there would be no refunds issued since I had confirmed the order. And this was for an established internet business with quite a few positive reviews on a reputable site.
So -- my experience is that when you hit the "confirm" button, that's pretty much when many businesses treat your transaction as completed. Legally, businesses may have the right to modify it afterward, but my experiences suggest that many treat it as "final." And if they treat it as final, why shouldn't a consumer be able to??
If someone shows up to work clean and well kept, wearing clean clothes, why does something comfortable like a t-shirt and jeans strike so many as "unprofessional" compared to even khakis and a golf shirt? Why is it basically that the less comfortable the clothing, the more "professional" we consider the style?
First, let me be clear that I don't care what people wear. If they're competent, and their clothing isn't actually disruptive in some way, why should I care?
However, I think you're missing a distinction here. It has nothing to do with discomfort, but rather care of the clothes. Proper upkeep of dress shirts, suits, wool pants, etc. requires careful washing, ironing, or (these days) generally dry cleaning. It also often requires more effort in tailoring, customizations, etc. to get appropriate fit. It thus actually requires significantly more effort and attention to detail to keep up a "nice" wardrobe compared to jeans and tee shirts. Even better quality khakis and golf shirts often require ironing, special washing or drying instructions, etc.
I'm not saying we should judge people's competence on this basis, but those clothes do require more care in relation to one's appearance, which could connote to some people that you actually care enough to dress "appropriately" in some contexts.
As for comfort, it's really a matter of preference. I like the feel of nice wool pants and a button-down shirt more than the rough cloth of denim in jeans, etc. There's nothing inherently uncomfortable for business casual clothing. I agree that some people find ties constricting to wear, but I think you're assumptions about what is "uncomfortable" is just your own perception. (A lot of people also don't pay the money to have good clothes properly tailored, and they might only wear them infrequently as their body size/shape changes, so that can also contribute to comfort level.)
Exactly what part of teaching requires you to follow a dress code?
Caring about your appearance used to be a marker of "attention to detail" in general (and still is in some circles). A person who wears the "appropriate" clothes is still seen to care enough to do the minimum for the job.
If a person is teaching at a top university, they presumably are already perceived to be competent, so not caring about clothes might be perceived as someone who is too busy doing high-profile research to care.
I've noticed a similar effect in email etiquette: sometimes you can command more respect from students at a high-profile university sometimes if you deliberately write abrupt emails with apparent typos. I had a colleague who did this deliberately. Taking care to write a careful, measured response with no typos means you have time to waste on email. If you have typos and a one line response, you might be too busy doing "things that matter."
But if you do this at a community college, you're likely to just be a poor teacher who doesn't give a crap.
By the way, I agree that some of the examples in TFA seem to show a perception of confidence in non-conformists. But most of them -- and the example in the summary -- indicate that such confidence will only exist if the non-conformist has some sort of status already. Profs at top universities, MIT students giving presentations, people invited to dinners with fancy dress codes, etc. can score points for ignoring the standards. But if the person isn't actually competent already (which is obviously the reason the researchers used these extra facts), I highly doubt non-conformists would generally be viewed so positively.
Based on the summary, this study seemingly shows little about competence. It shows that students will recognize that a teacher who dresses poorly probably cares less about teaching than about other things.
At a top university, those "other things" are likely to be research, or else the prof wouldn't be there. At a lesser college, the prof may just be a slacker in general.
I don't see how this has much to do with perceptions of "conformity" at all.
Voting for a major party can send a message in a lopsided election but in anything close, it's dangerous. It is arguably the reason we even had GWB in the first place. Gore probably would have won had he not lost so many votes to the Republican party.
There, fixed that for you.
Something like 12% of registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush in the 2000 election -- over 200,000 voters. That's over twice number of ALL Green Party voters in Florida combined (including registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents). Something like five times as many Democrats voted for Bush as voted for Nader.
Wanna blame somebody for GWB? How about the millions of voters (and yes, millions of Democrats) who voted for him? A major reason why the system doesn't work is because of people like you who believe propaganda put out by the major parties convincing people that awful things will happen if they vote for some other party. Guess what? Awful things will still happen, but expressing your support is a stamp of approval for those parties to keep doing what they're doing.
You mightn't call being in the top 9% of households incomes "exceptionally affluent", but the other 91% of people probably do.
For a school that costs $60k a year?
Are kids today really that stupid? If you don't have an income that high, even with a LOT of grants, you're taking on a crushing debt.
You might try doing some research before calling kids (and parents) who go to many top-tier private schools "stupid."
Harvard gives financial aid to the vast majority of its students. See their policies here.
In sum, families who make less than $65k pay NOTHING. Families who pay between $65k and $150k pay a maximum of 10% of family income.
So, your hypothetical $150k household would pay a maximum of $15k per year, totaling about $60k for four years, not the "quarter million" you assume. That puts the cost close to the range of many of the better state universities, since this $15k/year includes room and board (and even factors in some costs for books and personal expenses).
Once you go above a family income of $150k, the cost will rise proportionally above 10%, but the vast majority of Harvard students are not "taking on crushing debt."
I never cook beans for 4 hours. That's just stupid, not to mention wasteful of energy. I soak them for 12-24 hours, then cook them for 20 minutes.
What kind of magic dried beans can you cook in 20 minutes? I've cooked a LOT of beans (and at times in my life have basically eaten them daily for years), and I've cooked at least a dozen different varieties at various points (not including the "15-bean" soup mixtures and such).
I'm not sure I've EVER simmered a batch for only 20 minutes and had them be done. Lentils, sure. Beans? Never... even after soaking overnight. Some varieties might only take an hour of simmering... maybe 45 minutes or slightly less for an especially fresh bag. Some varieties, like black beans, I usually plan on allowing at least 2-2.5 hours, in case they take longer to become tender.
I can't figure out whether you're talking about lentils or what. The only way I could cook dry beans in 20 minutes is with a pressure cooker (which is a standard, but less common method that I would think you would mention explicitly).
We are covered with bacteria a lot of it is rather helpful to us. So by using Anti-bacterial soap we do kill off the good bacteria too.
Absoolutely. The hygiene hypothesis suggests that those "good" bacteria not only play a role in things like digestion, etc., but also may be necessary for a normal functioning immune system.
It may be even worse than that. Triclosan, one of the most common compound used in antibacterial soaps, tends to hang out in the environment for quite a while. What is the effect of large amounts of antibacterial stuff ending up in our systems and the environment around us? Could it eventually disrupt the growth of the normal bacterial biome around us, which is necessary to the normal functioning of our bodies?
I don't think we should be alarmist about this, but it's something at least worth studying, and perhaps being a bit cautious about.
Even if they do kill some bacteria, the important thing is whether they have efficacy in preventing disease. For that matter, killing too many bacteria could even encourage disease, by reducing the effectiveness of our immune systems.
Indeed, the hygiene hypothesis has been getting a lot of attention lately. Some blame some of the growth of autoimmune diseases in recent years on overactive immune systems that don't have enough normal bacteria around to function as they would in the natural world.
We have so many bacteria living inside of us doing good things. Our bodies couldn't function effectively without them. Completely sterilizing parts of our skin repeatedly could also have unwanted side effects.
If you're dealing with people who have compromised immune systems, but all means kill all the stuff on your hands. If you're a surgeon who is going to be sticking your hands inside of someone and wants to prevent infection, by all means, scrub like crazy.
But continuously dropping a chemical "bomb" on your hands many times per day to keep them sterile just for the heck of it? Even if it might prevent a cold or two each year, the potential side effects to fundamentally changing our interaction with the bacterial ecosystem that naturally surrounds our bodies are at best unpredictable... at worst, they could disrupt some basic functions in our bodies.
A bit of perspective here. I worked out the numbers once, and found that a typical CFL has about as much mercury as ~5lbs of swordfish steaks.
You're absolutely right. Now, take into account that many experts (including a number of government agencies) suggest that people seriously limit their consumption of swordfish and other high-mercury fish to a few times per month or so. And, for children and pregnant women, the recommendation is generally to avoid swordfish altogether. Even normal light tuna (not albacore) should probably only be given to kids a few times a month, to avoid excessive mercury.
Okay, so putting your number (which is roughly accurate) in perspective, then a typical CFL contains as much mercury as a child should consume from fish over a period of several years.
I try to be rational about such things, and I'm certainly not afraid of handling and dealing with mercury. I also enjoy eating many types of fish, as an adult.
But breaking a CFL causes the sudden release of a mist of tiny particles of mercury which quickly spreads out into a cloud of mercury vapor. Mercury in vapor form is much more easily absorbed than liquid mercury (even ingested liquid elemental mercury). That means the mercury vapor from a CFL is about as readily absorbed into the bloodstream as the methylmercury compounds in big fish.
I tend to think mercury-phobia is a little crazy. But I wouldn't place CFLs in a child's play area, or in a place where a child or infant could easily knock one down and break it. With children or infants in the home, I wouldn't place one in an area where breakage could lead that vapor to settle on a porous surface (such as a rug), where studies have shown that elevated levels of mercury can remain for several months afterward.
Most adults would think twice about feeding an infant or child 5 lbs. of swordfish steaks, even if they were unaware of the mercury issue. Being aware of it, most adults wouldn't feed it to kids at all, or at least only a few servings now and again.
There is such a thing as being overcautious. But taking reasonable precautions to avoid mercury exposure (particularly for small kids, pregnant women, etc.) isn't quite as ridiculous as you want to make it out to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Then the invention of the bomber allowed civilian murder to be taken to new extremes in WW2. The British bombing campaign was particularly bad, based as it was on the premise that the smallest target that could reliably be hit by night bombers was a city.
Well, that and things like firebombing, as used heavily in places like Dresden and Tokyo. When you have things like urban civilian populations suffocating to death due to lack of oxygen because all the fire raining from the sky is using it up... well, I don't think you can get much worse in terms of disregard for civilians.
Who was discussing "halving the distance" to anything? The post you replied to was talking about doubling the heat transfer rate. As I noted, this is primarily a function of "distance" from body temperature. Absolute zero has no bearing on the situation, so why would the Kelvin zero be any more or less arbitrary in this case than the Celsius one? (It might if we were talking solely about blackbody radiative heat, but instead here we're talking mostly about heat loss through convection.)
So, negative 136 celsius then. That is, after all, "twice as cold" as -40 celsius when computed via Kelvin (the only way that makes sense).
I don't know what the nonsense about Kelvin is about.
Wind chill is effectively a measurement of rate of heat transfer from humans. According to Newton's law of cooling, which is a quick and dirty approximation to heat transfer, the rate of heat transfer is proportional to the temperature difference.
If the human body is 37 degrees C and the outside temperature is -40, then the temperature difference is 77 degrees. If the heat transfer rate were to be doubled, this temperature difference should be doubled to 77*2 = 154 degrees. A temperature that is 154 degrees below body temperature would be 37 - 154 = minus 117 degrees C. Wind chill models are more complicated that this, but I don't think anyone's claiming that the wind chill will be anywhere near -117 degrees C.
So I think both you and the weatherman are saying bogus things. I believe the weatherman in the summary is effectively just saying "double the distance below zero" -- which is decidedly dumb -- and you're rambling on some nonsense about Kelvin when you actually need to be calculating heat transfer rates, not temperature.
Sorry -- in my example unit, I should have said something like "joules per square meter of skin per second," since we are talking about a rate.
Meteorologists warn that the wind-chill factor could make it feel twice as cold
What the hell does "twice as cold" even mean?
Although I doubt that the phrase is being used in a meaningful way here, the very definition of wind chill generally involves a discussion of heat transfer.
Contrary to popular belief, temperature is pretty meaningless as a description of how cold or warm something "feels" to human beings. Why does the coin sitting on your desk feel "colder" than the wood of the desktop? Simple -- because the coin transfers heat from your fingers faster than the desktop. But they are obviously at the same temperature.
So, if you actually want to talk about how hot or cold something feels (as in the quoted passage you mentioned), you need to talk about rate of heat transfer, not temperature. The units of whatever temperature scale are completely irrelevant to how warm or cold something FEELS.
What we need are units of heat transfer (like joules per square meter of exposed skin or something like that), and "twice as cold" in that case will be independent of whether you use metric, imperial, whatever units.
So, a reasonable interpretation of the statement "the wind chill will make it feel twice as cold" is that the heat transfer rate from human skin will be doubled. That's basically how wind chill numbers are computed (though, as mentioned in the linked article, there are a number of models). Similar computations are involved with high humidity and high temperatures, where the evaporation rate of perspiration is lowered and humans experience decreased heat loss, thereby feeling "hotter" (hence, the "heat index" numbers).
If it's intended to mean "double the negative distance from zero", then it's unit-dependent.
Unfortunately, I think that's actually what they mean here, which is -- I agree -- quite stupid.
The same with "half the temperature".
I also agree with you that that sounds a bit dumb too, though people used to using a particular temperature scale will basically understand what that probably means.
Regardless, "feel twice as cold" actually has a measurable meaning independent of units if you think of "coldness" and "hotness" in human perception as relating to rates of heat transfer rather than the relatively meaningless -- to human perception at least -- temperature scale.
But how will our metric friends know what the temperature is if we report -40F? How will they ever tell?!
Exactly. I read the summary, and saw this: "The coldest temperature reported in the lower 48 states on Sunday was minus 40 F (-40 C) in the towns of Babbitt and Embarrass, Minnesota."
I immediately lamented the fact that with the dual units given, there would be no thread here that would begin:
What the heck? The summary just says -40 degrees!?! What is the freakin' unit?!
... followed by a bazillion replies smacking the parent down on F/C equivalence at that temperature.
But thanks for providing some entertainment in its place (including a few *whoosh* replies so far...).
But what has been found true is the human body's reaction to the sweetener in which insulin is still produced even though there is no sugars that it can attach to, which drops the blood sugar levels to an extreme low level.
This is a highly exaggerated account of the study you link to. I've been paying attention to studies on artificial sweeteners for some time, and this is one of the first to show any significant effect.
However, (1) it only had 17 subjects, (2) they were severely obese -- with an average BMI of 42, (3) none had been diagnosed with diabetes, and (4) only one sweetener (sucralose) was tested. Besides the very small number of subjects, the fact that they all were quite obese suggests that many could already have weird metabolism or digestive issues (even if they hadn't officially been diagnosed with diabetes).
As for your claim that the irregular insulin makes the blood sugar drop to "an extreme low level," well that isn't actually proven by the study in your link. What they measured were "enhanced" insulin levels (increased 20%) following the ingestion of caloric food after the artificial sweetener. But previous studies looking at insulin response when the sweeteners were consumed by themselves showed no such response. So, under certain conditions and in certain people who may already have metabolic problems ONE specific artificial sweetener may produce an "enhanced" insulin response when combined with other food.
I absolutely agree that a study like this should DEFINITELY lead to immediate follow-up studies, because artificial sweeteners are ubiquitous these days. If there are subsequent studies that show similar effects, I'll be the first one to start screaming it from the mountaintops.
But given that this is the first study to find a response of this kind -- and given that it was only a tiny group of subjects with abnormal medical histories -- I'd hardly say that your claim "has been found true" yet.
Lots of new studies come out every day that are false for all sorts of reasons, and given the disagreement between this study's results and previous ones, caution is suggested before making too much of the claims.
I don't think you are the target demographic of the GP"s argument. You appear to earn enough with a single income so your spouse can live a life of relative luxury. Most people can't afford that -- if they have to choose whether to work or be a stay-at-home parent, the choice is about economics. "Do I go to work and pay for daycare or a nanny, or do I stay at home and raise my kids myself? Do I go to work and eat crappy take-out food and TV dinners every night because I'm too tired to cook, or do I save money by cooking at home? Do I work overtime and hire a maidservice periodically, or do I stay at home a little more and keep the house relatively clean myself?"
Many people I know who choose to be stay-at-home spouses couldn't afford to live the life you describe. Whether they can't find a job or they can't find one that they like or they just like staying at home, they also have to "pitch in" and do various tasks at home to make it economically viable for their families.
But stay-at-home parents have not returned to traditional home chores - sewing clothes and scrubbing them clean on river rocks, tending crops, grinding meal, gathering water and firewood, tending to or butchering animals, churning butter, beating rugs and so on.
The GP didn't say we were going back to the 19th century. But as someone who was effectively a stay-at-home dad for a couple years, I did in fact repair some clothes (not major sewing, but some), I did sometimes scrub stains off of clothes, I did have a little garden to grow some herbs and vegetables (though not enough to support us), and for small rugs, taking them outside and beating them a bit is actually useful. Because I believe in high-quality food, I have also at times ground my own flour and to save money I'd buy larger cuts of meat and cut them up (and sometimes grind them) myself. Although I like homemade butter, it's not really economical to make it yourself, so I don't generally do it.
I still have and use a vacuum cleaner, washing machine, etc., but where I could save some money or produce something of better quality by doing it myself, I might try it. As the GP said, I did so because I didn't have to hire a "third party" to do it instead... because that wasn't economically feasible.
Or preparing meals that are essentially a luxury - higher quality, but largely more expensive than, a machine-prepared (frozen) or fast-food meal.
I could easily prepare food that is of significantly "higher quality" than frozen foods or fast-food for a much lower cost. Aside from saving on daycare/nanny costs, the biggest economical reason to be a stay-at-home spouse is often to save on food costs. For my family to eat food that cost the same as frozen dinners and take-out food, I could certainly make luxurious meals at home with "conventional" ingredients.
And shuttling kids around appears to be on the verge of obsolescence as well due to automated driving.
I'd hardly say "on the verge of obsolescence." Lots of advances, yes, but I bet we're quite a few years away from widespread adoption... probably decades. Particularly for true automatic driving with human drivers never having to take the wheel in unusual situations, as would be required to shuttle kids without an adult "backup" driver. You really think most parents are going to trust an automatic car to ferry their "little angels" around by itself in the next couple decades? I doubt it... it will take a long time to gain people's trust.
Anyhow, again, I don't think you're the kind of family the GP was talking about. Some folks can afford to have a spouse who either works or stays at home and does very little "housework." Most families can't afford that sort of luxury.
It is likely you might be able to buy a retail copy of Photoshop to convent them, and that probably would work, but then you are spending thousands of dollars.
I don't know if this is helpful, but you don't need to spend thousands of dollars for an old copy of Photoshop. Adobe has effectively released CS2 as freeware. Officially, I believe you are only supposed to download and use this if you already have a CS2 license, but lots of people appear to have interpreted Adobe's actions as effectively releasing free software.
So, you might try this as a solution... CS2 was released in 2005, so if your photos are 10 years old, I imagine this could work.
In particular, he doesn't have a degree in evolutionary biology. He's an entertainer.
And that's a much better qualification in something like this than any scientific degree. As long as he understands evolution well enough not to misrepresent it to a laymen's perspective (and his track record in doing lots of science education probably means he does), that should be plenty.
Debate isn't about technical proficiency. It's about knowing the basic facts well, but the rest is about presentation. The last thing science needs to represent it is an eminent professor who can't do anything but stutter and talk in jargon. Any debate opponent with a shred of charisma would rip such an expert to shreds.
Fortunately, with science you don't have to believe. Belief is for when you want the same warm fuzzy feeling your parents have about whatever religion is popular in that particular region.
I'm a big fan of science. If you search through my posts here, you'll find cases where I've defended evolution vehemently.
But I think you're wrong about science for most people. For 99% of people, they don't have sufficient scientific background to evaluate technical claims in science. Quite a few years ago, for example, when the "intelligent design" movement was first making headway, there were a few credentialed scientists who were supporting it and writing books about it, etc. I got a little intrigued and started reading. Some of the arguments sounded interesting -- after all, archaeologists have to deal with issues of "design" all the time -- is that a random rock formed naturally, or is it an arrowhead carved with intention? How do we know for sure that something could have been formed naturally? How do we know our scientific explanations for those causes are correct?
I never really bought into "intelligent design," but I found it hard to refute on its face, assuming you allowed a possibility for an intelligence to "guide" evolution (not necessarily a god, perhaps an alien species, whatever...).
It was only after spending time literally reading thousands of pages of books on evolutionary theory and the stuff from the "intelligent design" crowd that I eventually felt I could actually dismiss the anti-evolution people and their arguments. Today it all seems a little silly to me, but I was younger and still tried to keep an open mind to all perspectives.
Most people don't have that kind of time, nor the technical expertise, to even evaluate the professional literature in a field like evolutionary biology, let alone perform their own experiments. Same thing for issues like climate change, etc.
So, when it comes to evolution, what it boils down to for most people is whether you trust your pastor or minister or priest... or whether you trust your friendly neighborhood scientist. A lot of classic evolution arguments are not about predictive science in the normal sense where you can say, "watch this thing going down an inclined plane, and let's measure what happens..." which instantly proves your point.
Many people strongly feel that their religion also does something meaningful in their lives, regardless of whether they've done a scientific experiment to test it. And then scientists come along and say that what their religious leaders say is false. Most of these people aren't completely dumb -- they recognize that science does good things and reliably makes predictions and gives right answers. But interpreting past events and creating a narrative of evolution is a little more fuzzy for many people.
So, they listen to the arguments on both sides, and they go with what sounds reasonable to them. Unless they have time and knowledge to investigate further, they go with which authority seems strongest to them -- whether that's science or their church or whatever.
In the end, it does come down to "belief" for >90% of people, including even many people educated in science who also don't have the technical background in that specific area.
Science is for when you want the right answer.
What makes it "right" when we're talking about interpretation of past events? If you're building a bridge, you need scientific data on the physics of the bridge design, the strength of the materials, etc. to conclude what is the "right" strategy to make a safe bridge that won't fall down. If people don't follow those principles, the bridges will fail.
But when you're talking about evolutionary theory and events from many millions of years ago, the way to judge whether something is "wrong" is much more nebulous. Obviously you can't have a theory that directly contradicts
Do you use a coin purse or do you keep high value coins jumbling about your pocket?
A lot of pants already have a solution to this problem. Most jeans have a small pocket on the right side, and good quality dress pants also have an extra small pocket inside the big pocket on the right side. In the past, apparently some used these for watches (among other things), but pocket watches are rather rare these days... so why not actually put these pockets to use? When I have just a few coins, that's where I tend to put them. I'd do the same if the U.S. had higher value coins.
In any case, no "jumbling around" necessary.
I just don't see any advantage to coins except some theoretical savings over constantly reprinting paper money. But that is a pretty negligible cost
Well, the official government estimates for the savings are always well over $100 million per year. Yes, that's not a huge amount within the overall federal budget, but still -- I'd hardly call savings of hundreds of millions of dollars per year "negligible."
Without a way to flawlessly record and maintain books, music, and movies, works would inevitably be lost, or of poor quality, so people needed new works to be produced, or there would be no copyrighted works.
Umm, not really. I work on a regular basis with old books (with include music manuscripts too) that are hundreds of years old, some over a thousand. Parchment required killing lots of animals to make a manuscript; paper books were also quite expensive until the 1900s. Anything that was valued enough to be written down at all was meant to last. And by the time that movies became very popular, copyright terms were 56 years (28+28), whereas movie fads changed so rapidly that a lot of early films from the 1910s and 1920s (and even decades later) have been completely lost.
Not because people couldn't make more copies of films or store them, but because nobody cared.
Which brings up the real reason why new works used to be created (and still do) -- tastes change. People like new stuff. The idea that we should worship "classical" literature and "classical" music pretty much didn't exist before about 1800. Instead, artists just kept making stuff because that's what artists do, and the public likes whatever new fad comes along.
Now that all copyrighted works are able to be stored in a way that stops any of their original quality from being lost, things have changed a bit.
I don't know about this. We have lots and lots medieval manuscripts that are easily legible which are over a thousand years old. The hides of animals used to make them were and are very durable. We have clay and stone tablets from the ancient world that are thousands of years old.
On the other hand, I have files written in defunct file formats that are less than 20 years old which I can't read without jumping through special hoops. I have video files I purchased less than a decade ago which I can no longer open because of DRM. (I've since learned my lesson....)
Is our current information storage system more durable than animal skin parchment paper that has lasted 1000 years?? We'll see. I think some of the digital archiving problems are being solved, but I already know scholars working on material from the past 20 years that have alluded to them as "lost decades." Historical figures up to the 1970s and 1980s usually kept lots of paper letters and things that can still be accessed by historians. Scholars studying people who have died more recently often are dealing with many years of correspondence simply lost when things had transitioned to email... which often was just deleted or forgotten when a new computer was acquired.
Mostly what has changed in the past few years is not the durability of the storage medium, but rather the ability to make copies very easily at almost no cost. Whether we keep making those copies in formats that we can continue to read is an open question.
the original copyright terms were 14 (17??) years.
The original copyright terms were in Italy in the late 1400s, and typically were granted to individual publishers or authors for a period of 7-10 years. The Statute of Anne (1707, which is the first copyright thing most people have heard of) established a 14-year copyright period with a 14-year renewal, i.e., a maximum of 28 years. The first copyright laws in the U.S. (1790) granted the same rights.
The Constitution clearly states the reason for patent and copyright (to get people to produce more works for the public domain) and states "for limited times". a lifetime plus 95 years is in no way limited, and there's no way to convince Jimi Hendrix to make any more music.
Indeed. The original copyright laws passed in the U.S. right after the Constitution was written allowed for a 14-year term of copyright, with an optional 14-year renewal. It wasn't until 1909 that it reached the 28+28 years formula used in TFA.
Following the original 1790 copyright statute, everything up to 1985 should now be in the public domain -- John Irving's Cider House Rules, James Michener's Texas, Carl Sagan's Contact, and movies like Back to the Future, The Color Purple, Out of Africa, and The Goonies.
This is more like the cashier rang up the sale, and then noticed while loading the cart (waiting to ship) that the sticker price didn't match what the register had rung up, and gave you the choice of either paying the sticker price or not buying the item.
This isn't a good analogy. An online transaction is much more formal than checking out in person with a cashier. Often, a customer has to go through multiple pages being presented with a detailed bill, and then being asked to go forward and "confirm" and/or "submit a final order."
So, it would be more like if you were at a store, the cashier worked out your bill, then formally presented your bill to you (perhaps multiple times), you agreed with the cashier on the prices, then the cashier asked you for your payment. But before taking your credit card, the cashier put out his/her hand, looked you in the eye, and said, "Do we have a deal? If so, please confirm formally by shaking my hand." And then you shook the hand as you handed over the credit card.
Then, just as the cashier was about to run the card through, a manager walks by and sees and error and says, "HOLD UP!! There's an error there. Sorry, no deal."
That's a better analogy to this situation. And in this case, while I believe the store may legally have the right to say "no deal" after it asked you to submit and confirm your order, it would be good business practice to honor the confirmed sales agreement that the consumer made. The "cashier" here is the automated system that accepted orders -- and it did NOT catch the error. Someone else later on did and then interrupted the normal process.
It takes a special kind of spoiled brat to throw a tantrum in such a situation.
I don't know that I'd "throw a tantrum" in this situation. But I do think it might be worth at least raising an objection.
Why, you ask? Because aside from all the formal "confirm your order" and "please be sure to check before you submit your final order" (and sometimes even "no cancellation after this" text), many businesses clearly act as though the placing of an online order is in fact some sort of contract... regardless of whether payment has been processed or the item has been shipped.
My personal experience dealing with cancelling orders shows this. I think I've had to cancel about 4 orders in my lifetime because they became significantly backordered after I ordered them -- so they wouldn't be delivered within the time the business said they would.
In two of those cases that I recall, it was easy to cancel. One asked me whether I wanted to cancel at the point they realized it was backordered, and another went ahead and did it easily when requested.
But I had two encounters with businesses who really treated my "confirm your order" as though I had agreed to sit and wait to receive the item for as long as it might take -- they went ahead and charged my card, and they just expected me to wait for months to get my stuff.
In one case, I had to threaten to dispute the charge, etc., but in the other, where the item had been "backordered" for over two months after they charged my card (and I had no reason to expect they'd ever fulfill the order), I had to dispute the charges and report the business to state consumer agencies before they finally refunded my money. They claimed that my order was "final" and there would be no refunds issued since I had confirmed the order. And this was for an established internet business with quite a few positive reviews on a reputable site.
So -- my experience is that when you hit the "confirm" button, that's pretty much when many businesses treat your transaction as completed. Legally, businesses may have the right to modify it afterward, but my experiences suggest that many treat it as "final." And if they treat it as final, why shouldn't a consumer be able to??
If someone shows up to work clean and well kept, wearing clean clothes, why does something comfortable like a t-shirt and jeans strike so many as "unprofessional" compared to even khakis and a golf shirt? Why is it basically that the less comfortable the clothing, the more "professional" we consider the style?
First, let me be clear that I don't care what people wear. If they're competent, and their clothing isn't actually disruptive in some way, why should I care?
However, I think you're missing a distinction here. It has nothing to do with discomfort, but rather care of the clothes. Proper upkeep of dress shirts, suits, wool pants, etc. requires careful washing, ironing, or (these days) generally dry cleaning. It also often requires more effort in tailoring, customizations, etc. to get appropriate fit. It thus actually requires significantly more effort and attention to detail to keep up a "nice" wardrobe compared to jeans and tee shirts. Even better quality khakis and golf shirts often require ironing, special washing or drying instructions, etc.
I'm not saying we should judge people's competence on this basis, but those clothes do require more care in relation to one's appearance, which could connote to some people that you actually care enough to dress "appropriately" in some contexts.
As for comfort, it's really a matter of preference. I like the feel of nice wool pants and a button-down shirt more than the rough cloth of denim in jeans, etc. There's nothing inherently uncomfortable for business casual clothing. I agree that some people find ties constricting to wear, but I think you're assumptions about what is "uncomfortable" is just your own perception. (A lot of people also don't pay the money to have good clothes properly tailored, and they might only wear them infrequently as their body size/shape changes, so that can also contribute to comfort level.)
Exactly what part of teaching requires you to follow a dress code?
Caring about your appearance used to be a marker of "attention to detail" in general (and still is in some circles). A person who wears the "appropriate" clothes is still seen to care enough to do the minimum for the job.
If a person is teaching at a top university, they presumably are already perceived to be competent, so not caring about clothes might be perceived as someone who is too busy doing high-profile research to care.
I've noticed a similar effect in email etiquette: sometimes you can command more respect from students at a high-profile university sometimes if you deliberately write abrupt emails with apparent typos. I had a colleague who did this deliberately. Taking care to write a careful, measured response with no typos means you have time to waste on email. If you have typos and a one line response, you might be too busy doing "things that matter."
But if you do this at a community college, you're likely to just be a poor teacher who doesn't give a crap.
By the way, I agree that some of the examples in TFA seem to show a perception of confidence in non-conformists. But most of them -- and the example in the summary -- indicate that such confidence will only exist if the non-conformist has some sort of status already. Profs at top universities, MIT students giving presentations, people invited to dinners with fancy dress codes, etc. can score points for ignoring the standards. But if the person isn't actually competent already (which is obviously the reason the researchers used these extra facts), I highly doubt non-conformists would generally be viewed so positively.
... when making judgments. News at 11.
Seriously?
Based on the summary, this study seemingly shows little about competence. It shows that students will recognize that a teacher who dresses poorly probably cares less about teaching than about other things.
At a top university, those "other things" are likely to be research, or else the prof wouldn't be there. At a lesser college, the prof may just be a slacker in general.
I don't see how this has much to do with perceptions of "conformity" at all.
Voting for a major party can send a message in a lopsided election but in anything close, it's dangerous. It is arguably the reason we even had GWB in the first place. Gore probably would have won had he not lost so many votes to the Republican party.
There, fixed that for you.
Something like 12% of registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush in the 2000 election -- over 200,000 voters. That's over twice number of ALL Green Party voters in Florida combined (including registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents). Something like five times as many Democrats voted for Bush as voted for Nader.
Wanna blame somebody for GWB? How about the millions of voters (and yes, millions of Democrats) who voted for him? A major reason why the system doesn't work is because of people like you who believe propaganda put out by the major parties convincing people that awful things will happen if they vote for some other party. Guess what? Awful things will still happen, but expressing your support is a stamp of approval for those parties to keep doing what they're doing.
You mightn't call being in the top 9% of households incomes "exceptionally affluent", but the other 91% of people probably do.
For a school that costs $60k a year?
Are kids today really that stupid? If you don't have an income that high, even with a LOT of grants, you're taking on a crushing debt.
You might try doing some research before calling kids (and parents) who go to many top-tier private schools "stupid."
Harvard gives financial aid to the vast majority of its students. See their policies here.
In sum, families who make less than $65k pay NOTHING. Families who pay between $65k and $150k pay a maximum of 10% of family income.
So, your hypothetical $150k household would pay a maximum of $15k per year, totaling about $60k for four years, not the "quarter million" you assume. That puts the cost close to the range of many of the better state universities, since this $15k/year includes room and board (and even factors in some costs for books and personal expenses).
Once you go above a family income of $150k, the cost will rise proportionally above 10%, but the vast majority of Harvard students are not "taking on crushing debt."
Agree with most of what you said. However....
I never cook beans for 4 hours. That's just stupid, not to mention wasteful of energy. I soak them for 12-24 hours, then cook them for 20 minutes.
What kind of magic dried beans can you cook in 20 minutes? I've cooked a LOT of beans (and at times in my life have basically eaten them daily for years), and I've cooked at least a dozen different varieties at various points (not including the "15-bean" soup mixtures and such).
I'm not sure I've EVER simmered a batch for only 20 minutes and had them be done. Lentils, sure. Beans? Never... even after soaking overnight. Some varieties might only take an hour of simmering... maybe 45 minutes or slightly less for an especially fresh bag. Some varieties, like black beans, I usually plan on allowing at least 2-2.5 hours, in case they take longer to become tender.
I can't figure out whether you're talking about lentils or what. The only way I could cook dry beans in 20 minutes is with a pressure cooker (which is a standard, but less common method that I would think you would mention explicitly).
We are covered with bacteria a lot of it is rather helpful to us. So by using Anti-bacterial soap we do kill off the good bacteria too.
Absoolutely. The hygiene hypothesis suggests that those "good" bacteria not only play a role in things like digestion, etc., but also may be necessary for a normal functioning immune system.
It may be even worse than that. Triclosan, one of the most common compound used in antibacterial soaps, tends to hang out in the environment for quite a while. What is the effect of large amounts of antibacterial stuff ending up in our systems and the environment around us? Could it eventually disrupt the growth of the normal bacterial biome around us, which is necessary to the normal functioning of our bodies?
I don't think we should be alarmist about this, but it's something at least worth studying, and perhaps being a bit cautious about.
Even if they do kill some bacteria, the important thing is whether they have efficacy in preventing disease. For that matter, killing too many bacteria could even encourage disease, by reducing the effectiveness of our immune systems.
Indeed, the hygiene hypothesis has been getting a lot of attention lately. Some blame some of the growth of autoimmune diseases in recent years on overactive immune systems that don't have enough normal bacteria around to function as they would in the natural world.
We have so many bacteria living inside of us doing good things. Our bodies couldn't function effectively without them. Completely sterilizing parts of our skin repeatedly could also have unwanted side effects.
If you're dealing with people who have compromised immune systems, but all means kill all the stuff on your hands. If you're a surgeon who is going to be sticking your hands inside of someone and wants to prevent infection, by all means, scrub like crazy.
But continuously dropping a chemical "bomb" on your hands many times per day to keep them sterile just for the heck of it? Even if it might prevent a cold or two each year, the potential side effects to fundamentally changing our interaction with the bacterial ecosystem that naturally surrounds our bodies are at best unpredictable... at worst, they could disrupt some basic functions in our bodies.
A bit of perspective here. I worked out the numbers once, and found that a typical CFL has about as much mercury as ~5lbs of swordfish steaks.
You're absolutely right. Now, take into account that many experts (including a number of government agencies) suggest that people seriously limit their consumption of swordfish and other high-mercury fish to a few times per month or so. And, for children and pregnant women, the recommendation is generally to avoid swordfish altogether. Even normal light tuna (not albacore) should probably only be given to kids a few times a month, to avoid excessive mercury.
Okay, so putting your number (which is roughly accurate) in perspective, then a typical CFL contains as much mercury as a child should consume from fish over a period of several years.
I try to be rational about such things, and I'm certainly not afraid of handling and dealing with mercury. I also enjoy eating many types of fish, as an adult.
But breaking a CFL causes the sudden release of a mist of tiny particles of mercury which quickly spreads out into a cloud of mercury vapor. Mercury in vapor form is much more easily absorbed than liquid mercury (even ingested liquid elemental mercury). That means the mercury vapor from a CFL is about as readily absorbed into the bloodstream as the methylmercury compounds in big fish.
I tend to think mercury-phobia is a little crazy. But I wouldn't place CFLs in a child's play area, or in a place where a child or infant could easily knock one down and break it. With children or infants in the home, I wouldn't place one in an area where breakage could lead that vapor to settle on a porous surface (such as a rug), where studies have shown that elevated levels of mercury can remain for several months afterward.
Most adults would think twice about feeding an infant or child 5 lbs. of swordfish steaks, even if they were unaware of the mercury issue. Being aware of it, most adults wouldn't feed it to kids at all, or at least only a few servings now and again.
There is such a thing as being overcautious. But taking reasonable precautions to avoid mercury exposure (particularly for small kids, pregnant women, etc.) isn't quite as ridiculous as you want to make it out to be.