And there is no indication why that efficiency should NOT be individual.
Given that we are all the same species, it is not a bad assumption that we process food in roughly the same way. It might be wrong, it should be tested, but to say that there is no indication why it should not be individual is misleading.
we can't say how much of the available energy (and here the calories are indeed fine) are actually processed and absorbed by the human body as this varies. (Hint: it's not 100% as there is still energy left in the digestive waste products)
The fact that it is not 100% is well known. The method you decry as "piss poor" explicitly takes this into account by measuring the energy content of the faeces. It might still be a piss poor method due to inter-personal variation, or even variation over time in the same person.
The form of radiation that causes the most cancers, year after year, remains sunlight.
That's a good point
Really? w
In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness (ARS), of whom 31 died within the first three months (...) over 6000 cases of thyroid cancer have been reported
So, 6000 cases of cancer over 30 years, which is around 200 per year. Are you saying that there are less then 200 cases of skin cancer per year worldwide? Even if all of those 6000 cases where in the same year, the number of skin cancer cases, most of which are caused by the sun, would dwarf that number.
You also need to take into account random variability. It seems* that you need to have above 8 cases per year for it to be statistically significant for a single year, but if it is a persistent pattern, less will do.
*Unless I have made a mistake in my statistics, which is really likely. To get a conservative estimate, I used the binomial distribution with 45000 trials and a change of success in each at 0.0001, and then checked at what number of successes the cumulative probability of getting more successes was below 0.05. Please correct me if I am in error:-)
It also means they store the passwords in plaintext (or something so close to plaintext as to not matter, or they use a far too easy hashing function).
Sorry for the double-reply, but it does seem that it is round-up ready. It was not clear from the page you linked to, but NormalVisual linked to a page being more clear further down.
That is a Bt containing GMO cultivar, not a round-up ready one. Any issues with glyphosate would be irrelevant there, as it is not more likely than non-GMO corn to be sprayed with glyphosate.
Why is there a stigma about being cautious about introducing GMOs the the ecosystem if we don't have an untouched backup of the ecosystem that sustains us. It's not as if we can un-introduce GMOs to the ecosystem once they are there so what is the problem with having strict controls over their deployment?
Because, if it was reasonable, the same caution would be applied to all new cultivars. Because we have tested quite a lot of them for quite a long time, and they don't seem to yield catastrophic results, yet it doesn't seem to change anybodies minds. Because people oppose golden rice, where most of the concerns people claim are their reason to oppose GMO does not apply. Because many of the groups opposing GMO are misrepresenting reasearch in order to make GMO seem more dangerous.
In short, because people opposing GMO does not act as they would if they had reasonable cautions about the ecosystem. In stead, they act as if they are dogmatically opposing a new technology for no other reason then it being new. That tends to draw a stigma.
Like anything else: We set up an experiment so that, whenever we do A, B happened before we decided to do A. We then replicate the experiment while trying to make sure that there is no way B happening can affect the experiment. Ideally, other researchers then do different variations of the experiment toake sure we have not missed anything.
Not the GPP, but here goes (copy of my post further up):
Faster than light communication is not strictly forbidden. However, FTL communication is equivalent to time travel in special relativity. This means that it breaks causality. Since we haven't observed any breaks in causality, and special relativity is an extremely well tested theory, we assume that FTL communication is not possible.
FTL travel, or even FTL communication, is forbidden by the laws of physics.
It's not strictly forbidden. However, FTL communication is equivalent to time travel in special relativity. This means that it breaks causality. Since we haven't observed any breaks in causality, and special relativity is an extremely well tested theory, we assume that FTL communication can not exist.
While I haven't been following European politics lately, I would think that this is part of the power struggle between the European Parliament (elected directly by the European voters) and the commission (members are selected by the governments of the member states, though I think the parliament have to approve the final result). Traditionally, the parliament have had very little power, and has been getting more power (primarily at the expense of the commission) a little at a time. This kind of votes are usually held to highlight who has what power in the hopes that it will help them change it (so basically telling the people "See? If we had more power, we would do something about this issue.").
Without having delved into the study, those p-values are awfully close to the cutoff of 0.05 (or, alternatively put, the CI nearly encompasses 0). Given how hard it is to control for external factors in epidemiological studies, I would put this in the "probably nothing" category, especially since the effects of two sugar categories have opposite signs.
> but overall sentences yield an extremely random password - moreso than "Correct Horse Battery Staple", it's much shorter, and it's easier to memorize.
So you are saying that first remembering the sentence and then remembering how I abbreviated it is easier than only remembering the sentence?
[Cannabis] is hypocritical that some far worse drugs have social acceptance such as caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol[...]
I will give you alcohol (because of we have to consume to get an effect, and that is really unhealthy) and nicotine (because of the delivery mechanism. Cannabis typically has the same delivery mechanism, but you would typically smoke less material per day, so it is not as bad), but caffeine? Really?
The graph you link to can only be used to asses the risk of immediately dropping dead as a consequence of taking the drug. As this is not the main risk for any of the three drugs you mention, it is, at best, irrelevant.
[...] as if that means anything. I know what they are trying to say,[...]
If you know what they mean, than it means something. Why are you complaining about language not living up to your arbitrary standards when it performs its purpose, to confer meaning?
The barriers for entry into the online storage market are low to the point of being non-existent. It is much less of a problem in this area than with e.g. OSes or oil production. And we are, presumably, not ending up with one player, but two: Amazon and Google, which should also limit foul play (but not eliminate it).
Even if they don't, the prosecutors depend on the police to help them with their cases. Pressing charges against the police could make evidence in unrelated cases harder to come by, hurting the other cases and the career of the prosecutor.
The assumption behind sexist things is that women are somehow lesser. This means that a man with attributes (e.g. what you said) which are seen as "traditionally female" is assumed to be a "lesser man" because he's more like a woman. And people don't like helping a lesser man because why bother, right?
You don't need a hierarchy to explain the difference, stereotypes will do. Men are not expected to need help, so we don't help them.
If it was a hierarchy, we would expect either "manly" women (better women) or "womanly" men (lesser men) to be preferred, which is not what we observe: Both genders are expected to conform to the stereotype, and are punished for not doing so.
Aren't vdW interactions any non-ionic, non-covalent interactions, including dipole-dipole (though I wouldn't include hydrogen bonding, as they are partly covalent)? With London forces, that falls off with r^-6 being an example of vdW interactions?'
Of course, that still makes the summary wrong, but differently wrong.
It's not a straw man, as I did not indicate that you meant that gold was not a metal. It is an analogy, and possibly a bad analogy, like your platypus-duck one.
they should have said something like "optical fiber effect replicated in thin air"...
If only there was some way to indicate that a phrase wasn't used literally, they could have used that in the title, and then people wouldn't be think they had made air solid and made a fiber out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
And there is no indication why that efficiency should NOT be individual.
Given that we are all the same species, it is not a bad assumption that we process food in roughly the same way. It might be wrong, it should be tested, but to say that there is no indication why it should not be individual is misleading.
we can't say how much of the available energy (and here the calories are indeed fine) are actually processed and absorbed by the human body as this varies. (Hint: it's not 100% as there is still energy left in the digestive waste products)
The fact that it is not 100% is well known. The method you decry as "piss poor" explicitly takes this into account by measuring the energy content of the faeces. It might still be a piss poor method due to inter-personal variation, or even variation over time in the same person.
The form of radiation that causes the most cancers, year after year, remains sunlight.
That's a good point
Really? w
In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness (ARS), of whom 31 died within the first three months (...) over 6000 cases of thyroid cancer have been reported
So, 6000 cases of cancer over 30 years, which is around 200 per year. Are you saying that there are less then 200 cases of skin cancer per year worldwide? Even if all of those 6000 cases where in the same year, the number of skin cancer cases, most of which are caused by the sun, would dwarf that number.
You also need to take into account random variability. It seems* that you need to have above 8 cases per year for it to be statistically significant for a single year, but if it is a persistent pattern, less will do.
:-)
*Unless I have made a mistake in my statistics, which is really likely. To get a conservative estimate, I used the binomial distribution with 45000 trials and a change of success in each at 0.0001, and then checked at what number of successes the cumulative probability of getting more successes was below 0.05. Please correct me if I am in error
It also means they store the passwords in plaintext (or something so close to plaintext as to not matter, or they use a far too easy hashing function).
The round-up ready soybean patent expires this year. I canøt find anything for the other products, because there are so many pages talking about the soy patent expiring.
Sorry for the double-reply, but it does seem that it is round-up ready. It was not clear from the page you linked to, but NormalVisual linked to a page being more clear further down.
That is a Bt containing GMO cultivar, not a round-up ready one. Any issues with glyphosate would be irrelevant there, as it is not more likely than non-GMO corn to be sprayed with glyphosate.
Why is there a stigma about being cautious about introducing GMOs the the ecosystem if we don't have an untouched backup of the ecosystem that sustains us. It's not as if we can un-introduce GMOs to the ecosystem once they are there so what is the problem with having strict controls over their deployment?
Because, if it was reasonable, the same caution would be applied to all new cultivars. Because we have tested quite a lot of them for quite a long time, and they don't seem to yield catastrophic results, yet it doesn't seem to change anybodies minds. Because people oppose golden rice, where most of the concerns people claim are their reason to oppose GMO does not apply. Because many of the groups opposing GMO are misrepresenting reasearch in order to make GMO seem more dangerous.
In short, because people opposing GMO does not act as they would if they had reasonable cautions about the ecosystem. In stead, they act as if they are dogmatically opposing a new technology for no other reason then it being new. That tends to draw a stigma.
Its galactic orbit is pretty similar to the Sun's, so its motion relative to the sun is not that large. Still, even if we assumed that only the sun moved, given the galactic speed of the sun, the change in distance would still only be 6 light years, or 1% of its current distance.
Like anything else: We set up an experiment so that, whenever we do A, B happened before we decided to do A. We then replicate the experiment while trying to make sure that there is no way B happening can affect the experiment. Ideally, other researchers then do different variations of the experiment toake sure we have not missed anything.
Not the GPP, but here goes (copy of my post further up): Faster than light communication is not strictly forbidden. However, FTL communication is equivalent to time travel in special relativity. This means that it breaks causality. Since we haven't observed any breaks in causality, and special relativity is an extremely well tested theory, we assume that FTL communication is not possible.
FTL travel, or even FTL communication, is forbidden by the laws of physics.
It's not strictly forbidden. However, FTL communication is equivalent to time travel in special relativity. This means that it breaks causality. Since we haven't observed any breaks in causality, and special relativity is an extremely well tested theory, we assume that FTL communication can not exist.
While I haven't been following European politics lately, I would think that this is part of the power struggle between the European Parliament (elected directly by the European voters) and the commission (members are selected by the governments of the member states, though I think the parliament have to approve the final result). Traditionally, the parliament have had very little power, and has been getting more power (primarily at the expense of the commission) a little at a time. This kind of votes are usually held to highlight who has what power in the hopes that it will help them change it (so basically telling the people "See? If we had more power, we would do something about this issue.").
Without having delved into the study, those p-values are awfully close to the cutoff of 0.05 (or, alternatively put, the CI nearly encompasses 0). Given how hard it is to control for external factors in epidemiological studies, I would put this in the "probably nothing" category, especially since the effects of two sugar categories have opposite signs.
all passwords should expire after at most 60
Why? How does this help with security?
> but overall sentences yield an extremely random password - moreso than "Correct Horse Battery Staple", it's much shorter, and it's easier to memorize. So you are saying that first remembering the sentence and then remembering how I abbreviated it is easier than only remembering the sentence?
[Cannabis] is hypocritical that some far worse drugs have social acceptance such as caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol[...]
I will give you alcohol (because of we have to consume to get an effect, and that is really unhealthy) and nicotine (because of the delivery mechanism. Cannabis typically has the same delivery mechanism, but you would typically smoke less material per day, so it is not as bad), but caffeine? Really?
The graph you link to can only be used to asses the risk of immediately dropping dead as a consequence of taking the drug. As this is not the main risk for any of the three drugs you mention, it is, at best, irrelevant.
That figure is misleading in the extreme. Even the 1 billion figure is low-balling it.
[...] as if that means anything. I know what they are trying to say,[...]
If you know what they mean, than it means something. Why are you complaining about language not living up to your arbitrary standards when it performs its purpose, to confer meaning?
The barriers for entry into the online storage market are low to the point of being non-existent. It is much less of a problem in this area than with e.g. OSes or oil production. And we are, presumably, not ending up with one player, but two: Amazon and Google, which should also limit foul play (but not eliminate it).
Even if they don't, the prosecutors depend on the police to help them with their cases. Pressing charges against the police could make evidence in unrelated cases harder to come by, hurting the other cases and the career of the prosecutor.
The assumption behind sexist things is that women are somehow lesser. This means that a man with attributes (e.g. what you said) which are seen as "traditionally female" is assumed to be a "lesser man" because he's more like a woman. And people don't like helping a lesser man because why bother, right?
You don't need a hierarchy to explain the difference, stereotypes will do. Men are not expected to need help, so we don't help them.
If it was a hierarchy, we would expect either "manly" women (better women) or "womanly" men (lesser men) to be preferred, which is not what we observe: Both genders are expected to conform to the stereotype, and are punished for not doing so.
Aren't vdW interactions any non-ionic, non-covalent interactions, including dipole-dipole (though I wouldn't include hydrogen bonding, as they are partly covalent)? With London forces, that falls off with r^-6 being an example of vdW interactions?'
Of course, that still makes the summary wrong, but differently wrong.
nice straw-man you built there
It's not a straw man, as I did not indicate that you meant that gold was not a metal. It is an analogy, and possibly a bad analogy, like your platypus-duck one.
they should have said something like "optical fiber effect replicated in thin air" ...
If only there was some way to indicate that a phrase wasn't used literally, they could have used that in the title, and then people wouldn't be think they had made air solid and made a fiber out of it.