Shouldn't limit of quantification be the blank + 10*SD(lowest standard)? It is relating to the quantification, not the detection, so the SD of the blank should not be important.
In my view, it would depend on what level of discomfort accepted in order to please the other party. If the candied walnuts were so expensive that the Ukrainian diplomats family would not eat that day, I would say he was Obamas "bitch". Likewise, if a country dismantles its civil rights in order to please the US, I would say the word "bitch" was in order. I don't know enough about this case or the status of civil rights in Ukraine to determine if it is applicable here.
Argh, I forgot: You never find 0 in analytical chemistry. You determine your limit of detection (the mean value in the blanks plus three times the standard deviation of the value in the blanks), which is the signal where you can confidently state the the compound is present.
Caffeine concentrations in nanopure water (blank) were 2.5 ng/L (SD = 2.0 ng/L). The reporting limit for caffeine was adjusted to account for blank detection. The adjusted reporting limit was determined by adding three times the standard deviation to the mean blank caffeine concentration (8.5 ng/L)[...]Coastal ocean samples from Coos Bay/North Bend and Astoria/Warrenton, two of the most populated areas on the Oregon Coast, both had caffeine concentrations below the reporting limit.
So they did find ocean water with a concentration below the limit of detection.
After a vegetarian meal I'm usually hungry again within the hour. Or if I gorge myself, two hours. And any decent vegetarian meal is usually no cheaper than if I bought a meal with meat.
Carbohydrates will do that. Try adding beans, lentils or chick peas, which are much higher in protein. They will make you full cheaper than meat, and will keep you full for a long time.
Overall, I agree with you, I just have two nits to pick: Figuring out if something is unhealthy without interventional studies is hard, and using religious groups makes it harder, as the ones who eat differently tends to live differently in many other ways (lower alcohol consumption is normal, but there are many other effects that are hard to pick out). While it does seem that mammal meat is unhealthy, e.g. chicken is much more ambiguous.
The amount of protein and energy wasted in making meat depends highly on the animal. Beef seems to be much worse than pork or poultry. Pigs can grow 1 kg for each 3 kgs of wheat they eat. The protein content of wheat is 10-15%, and pork seems to clock in a around 15-20%. With commercial cuts being around 50% of live weight, this means that "only" around 75% of the protein is wasted.
What she should have said is that there must be areas of firefighting where an adult with a smaller frame would prove useful, and that this niche is being overlooked due to all entrants requiring to pass a strength test. I think that women firefighters would be much better operating in confined spaces than men, for example.
Possibly, but that decision should be made on the basis of who would make a useful addition to the firefighters, not what gender is underrepresented in the fire department. Basing the hiring on any job on anything other than a prediction of how good the person will be at doing the job will lead to sub-optimal performance. I, for one, don't want a sub-optimal fire department. A fire department sex distribution closer to 50-50 is a small consolation if you die in a fire as a result.
Now you can argue that the Olympics are won largely by genetic freaks, and there's no Olympics for the "normals", but that's really rather beside the point, because the genetics won't give you the whole puzzle.
Doesn't this argument work for sex as well? "If we don't have separate competitions for women, you could argue that there's no Olympics for women, but that's beside the point, because the sex won't give you the whole puzzle."?
The code can't be copyrighted, it is not a product of creativity. If a knock-off pill was given to me by my doctor after the original patent has run out, why wouldn't the knock-off contain an equivalent chip? You are right that it helps against illegal copies, but that is a good thing for the patient. If it is an illegal copy, why would it contain the active ingredient?
Inflation is way better then string theory in that regard. At least it predicts actual observations in the CMB, so it is falsifiable. Not that it necessarily is great, but comparing it to string theory is just slander.
Great, so given the weight on supersymmetry and string theory in the first laureates, the price will now only be given to people in that field in a self-sustaining effect.
With point 1, that fails to take into account that services like this act as an incorrect redistribution that pulls the US down to pull the world up. The world acts not like a dynamic pie, but a 99.999999999999999999% fixed pie.
You might want to read up on the counterintuitive concept of comparative advantage. In short, free trade benefits everybody, as people can specialize in whatever they are comparatively best at. Of course, there are some assumptions which will hold to a smaller of higher degree, depending on the exact case.
In third world countries, tourists often tip e.g. rickshaw drivers handsomly, basically for the same reason that people want to pay much more to sweatshop employees. It quickly becomes apparant that driving a rickshaw is by far the best earning job for non-skilled, an perhaps even semi-skilled, labor. This drives more people to buy rickshaws, until an equilibrium is reached. As the hourly wage earned by driving around tourists is far higher than any other unskilled job, the equilibrium will consist of rickshaw drivers spending most of their time waiting for customers. The equilibrium ensures that the average wage is the same as for other unskilled work.
Now, compare the two situations, the one with and the one without the tourists. The wages for everybody is the same, but with the tourists, we have transferred a lot of people from productive work to unproductive waiting. This is harmful to the local economy. This effect happens even without the rickshaw drivers becomming the richest people around, it just have to pay markedly more than unskilled work does.
Or in short: If you are external to an economy, don't pay excessively for anything.
Publishing is quite political, and journals are often reluctant to publish controversial findings.
Journals like controversial findings, for the same reason that newspapers up-play their headlines: it attracts attention. Furthermore, a shoddy paper with a controversial conclusion will often spur a slew of debate and comments, each citing the original paper, and thus raising the journals impact factor.
Further, larger / more prestigious journals are extraordinarily reluctant to publish a paper if the author hasn't already published enough in the past, again, regardless of the papers actual quality.
This would be relevant if the paper had been disregarded for not being in a prestigious journal. It wasn't, it was disregarded for not being in any journal. There is always a journal that will publish the paper, it is just a matter of trying until you find it and/or are lucky with the reviewers.
Be honest and let the findings stand or fall on their own merit, not your opinion of the author or how he decided to make his findings available.
The way the research is published often raises some question: If it is good enough to pass peer review, why hasn't it been tried? There is a reason why "science by press conference" is a derogative.
if the Constitution applied, in a practical sense, to everyone on the globe, what is the purpose for national borders?
To delineate who gets the postive rights secured by the rest of the US laws, as opposed to the negative rights from the constitution. To keep people not wanted in the US out of the US. To delineate who has to pay US tax. There are plenty of other uses for national borders than to delineate who gets a certain set of rights.
Why should a US court decide whether the Intelligence Community can target a Chinese military communications hub, or an al Qaeda satellite phone?
Because the intelligence community in question operates on US soil, and is thus held accountable to the US courts. Or do you think they should have the right to arbitrarily kill foreigners in the US as well? Because the intelligence community in question is part of the US government, and is thus bound by the statutes limiting what the US government can do, including the constitution.
Both numbers would be countably infinite, so there exists a 1-to-1 mapping between them. If we make a grid in 3D space, with earth in the origo, we can order the grid points. With a fine enough grid, we can them number the stars according to which grid point they are closest to. We can then number the planets lexicographically, after their stars number and their orbital period around the star. Planets sharing an orbit will give problems, but that is trivially solved as long as there is only finitely many plantes in any one orbit around any one star.
As for the x-to-one mapping, as long as x is finite or countably infinite, the result would still only be countably infitite. For finite numbers, this can be seen from the GPP examble while substituting even numbers with numbers divisible with x. For countably infinite, this is basically numbering the grid-points of a 2D-grid, which can be done in a "spiral".
The parking lots that was built with Phoenix climate in mind is doing fine in Phoenix climate. The mix of asphalt is adjusted to the expected temperature range the finished structure will experience. A hotter climate will soften the asphalt, so a harder mix is chosen, and vice versa. If the climate changes faster than the lifetime of asphalt, there will be trouble, regardless of the direction of the local climate change.
You aren't even trying to explain to me what I don't understand, and you mock my typos. You are clearly not a person one would go to for intelligent discourse, so I will end this discussion now.
You seem to have misunderstood how unions work, they aren't involved in an illegal price setting ring, they are working together to try and enhance their rights, stopping an employer from using their power to drive wages and conditions to the lowest possible level.
By leveraging their monoply. How else would they get the employer to give them more than he would do if no unions existed? What is strikes, if not a demonstration that a monopoly exists? This is not illegal, there is an inherent assymerty in the power of the employer and the employee, which the state tries to even out by allowing unions to leverage monopoly tactics that would be illegal in other areas of commerce. But it is leveraging a monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't limit of quantification be the blank + 10*SD(lowest standard)? It is relating to the quantification, not the detection, so the SD of the blank should not be important.
In my view, it would depend on what level of discomfort accepted in order to please the other party. If the candied walnuts were so expensive that the Ukrainian diplomats family would not eat that day, I would say he was Obamas "bitch". Likewise, if a country dismantles its civil rights in order to please the US, I would say the word "bitch" was in order. I don't know enough about this case or the status of civil rights in Ukraine to determine if it is applicable here.
Argh, I forgot: You never find 0 in analytical chemistry. You determine your limit of detection (the mean value in the blanks plus three times the standard deviation of the value in the blanks), which is the signal where you can confidently state the the compound is present.
Caffeine concentrations in nanopure water (blank) were 2.5 ng/L (SD = 2.0 ng/L). The reporting limit for caffeine was adjusted to account for blank detection. The adjusted reporting limit was determined by adding three times the standard deviation to the mean blank caffeine concentration (8.5 ng/L)[...]Coastal ocean samples from Coos Bay/North Bend and Astoria/Warrenton, two of the most populated areas on the Oregon Coast, both had caffeine concentrations below the reporting limit.
So they did find ocean water with a concentration below the limit of detection.
Weird. Well, that should teach me not to extrapolate from personal experience.
I really like curries... with meat in them.
After a vegetarian meal I'm usually hungry again within the hour. Or if I gorge myself, two hours. And any decent vegetarian meal is usually no cheaper than if I bought a meal with meat.
Carbohydrates will do that. Try adding beans, lentils or chick peas, which are much higher in protein. They will make you full cheaper than meat, and will keep you full for a long time.
Overall, I agree with you, I just have two nits to pick: Figuring out if something is unhealthy without interventional studies is hard, and using religious groups makes it harder, as the ones who eat differently tends to live differently in many other ways (lower alcohol consumption is normal, but there are many other effects that are hard to pick out). While it does seem that mammal meat is unhealthy, e.g. chicken is much more ambiguous.
The amount of protein and energy wasted in making meat depends highly on the animal. Beef seems to be much worse than pork or poultry. Pigs can grow 1 kg for each 3 kgs of wheat they eat. The protein content of wheat is 10-15%, and pork seems to clock in a around 15-20%. With commercial cuts being around 50% of live weight, this means that "only" around 75% of the protein is wasted.
What she should have said is that there must be areas of firefighting where an adult with a smaller frame would prove useful, and that this niche is being overlooked due to all entrants requiring to pass a strength test. I think that women firefighters would be much better operating in confined spaces than men, for example.
Possibly, but that decision should be made on the basis of who would make a useful addition to the firefighters, not what gender is underrepresented in the fire department. Basing the hiring on any job on anything other than a prediction of how good the person will be at doing the job will lead to sub-optimal performance. I, for one, don't want a sub-optimal fire department. A fire department sex distribution closer to 50-50 is a small consolation if you die in a fire as a result.
Now you can argue that the Olympics are won largely by genetic freaks, and there's no Olympics for the "normals", but that's really rather beside the point, because the genetics won't give you the whole puzzle.
Doesn't this argument work for sex as well? "If we don't have separate competitions for women, you could argue that there's no Olympics for women, but that's beside the point, because the sex won't give you the whole puzzle."?
When crossbreeding mammals and Komodo dragons, determining the sex of the product for sporting events is by far the smallest problem.
The code can't be copyrighted, it is not a product of creativity. If a knock-off pill was given to me by my doctor after the original patent has run out, why wouldn't the knock-off contain an equivalent chip? You are right that it helps against illegal copies, but that is a good thing for the patient. If it is an illegal copy, why would it contain the active ingredient?
Inflation is way better then string theory in that regard. At least it predicts actual observations in the CMB, so it is falsifiable. Not that it necessarily is great, but comparing it to string theory is just slander.
Great, so given the weight on supersymmetry and string theory in the first laureates, the price will now only be given to people in that field in a self-sustaining effect.
We would all be better off if we stopped that fallacy and returned to salary growth with strict border controls.
Generally, comparative advantage disagrees with that conclusion. How does the current situation negate that?
With point 1, that fails to take into account that services like this act as an incorrect redistribution that pulls the US down to pull the world up. The world acts not like a dynamic pie, but a 99.999999999999999999% fixed pie.
You might want to read up on the counterintuitive concept of comparative advantage. In short, free trade benefits everybody, as people can specialize in whatever they are comparatively best at. Of course, there are some assumptions which will hold to a smaller of higher degree, depending on the exact case.
In third world countries, tourists often tip e.g. rickshaw drivers handsomly, basically for the same reason that people want to pay much more to sweatshop employees. It quickly becomes apparant that driving a rickshaw is by far the best earning job for non-skilled, an perhaps even semi-skilled, labor. This drives more people to buy rickshaws, until an equilibrium is reached. As the hourly wage earned by driving around tourists is far higher than any other unskilled job, the equilibrium will consist of rickshaw drivers spending most of their time waiting for customers. The equilibrium ensures that the average wage is the same as for other unskilled work.
Now, compare the two situations, the one with and the one without the tourists. The wages for everybody is the same, but with the tourists, we have transferred a lot of people from productive work to unproductive waiting. This is harmful to the local economy. This effect happens even without the rickshaw drivers becomming the richest people around, it just have to pay markedly more than unskilled work does.
Or in short: If you are external to an economy, don't pay excessively for anything.
Publishing is quite political, and journals are often reluctant to publish controversial findings.
Journals like controversial findings, for the same reason that newspapers up-play their headlines: it attracts attention. Furthermore, a shoddy paper with a controversial conclusion will often spur a slew of debate and comments, each citing the original paper, and thus raising the journals impact factor.
Further, larger / more prestigious journals are extraordinarily reluctant to publish a paper if the author hasn't already published enough in the past, again, regardless of the papers actual quality.
This would be relevant if the paper had been disregarded for not being in a prestigious journal. It wasn't, it was disregarded for not being in any journal. There is always a journal that will publish the paper, it is just a matter of trying until you find it and/or are lucky with the reviewers.
Be honest and let the findings stand or fall on their own merit, not your opinion of the author or how he decided to make his findings available.
The way the research is published often raises some question: If it is good enough to pass peer review, why hasn't it been tried? There is a reason why "science by press conference" is a derogative.
if the Constitution applied, in a practical sense, to everyone on the globe, what is the purpose for national borders?
To delineate who gets the postive rights secured by the rest of the US laws, as opposed to the negative rights from the constitution. To keep people not wanted in the US out of the US. To delineate who has to pay US tax. There are plenty of other uses for national borders than to delineate who gets a certain set of rights.
Why should a US court decide whether the Intelligence Community can target a Chinese military communications hub, or an al Qaeda satellite phone?
Because the intelligence community in question operates on US soil, and is thus held accountable to the US courts. Or do you think they should have the right to arbitrarily kill foreigners in the US as well? Because the intelligence community in question is part of the US government, and is thus bound by the statutes limiting what the US government can do, including the constitution.
"We are going to implement a backdoor and pray like fucking crazy hackers don't find it to pwn us".
Why do you think the they would need to find it, and why do you call US intelligence services doing industrial espionage hackers?
Oil cans are quite a bit thicker than tin foil. You don't need to take special care to avoid breaking oil cans.
This also goes for the algebraic numbers, the numbers that are roots in any polynomial.
Both numbers would be countably infinite, so there exists a 1-to-1 mapping between them. If we make a grid in 3D space, with earth in the origo, we can order the grid points. With a fine enough grid, we can them number the stars according to which grid point they are closest to. We can then number the planets lexicographically, after their stars number and their orbital period around the star. Planets sharing an orbit will give problems, but that is trivially solved as long as there is only finitely many plantes in any one orbit around any one star.
As for the x-to-one mapping, as long as x is finite or countably infinite, the result would still only be countably infitite. For finite numbers, this can be seen from the GPP examble while substituting even numbers with numbers divisible with x. For countably infinite, this is basically numbering the grid-points of a 2D-grid, which can be done in a "spiral".
The parking lots that was built with Phoenix climate in mind is doing fine in Phoenix climate. The mix of asphalt is adjusted to the expected temperature range the finished structure will experience. A hotter climate will soften the asphalt, so a harder mix is chosen, and vice versa. If the climate changes faster than the lifetime of asphalt, there will be trouble, regardless of the direction of the local climate change.
You aren't even trying to explain to me what I don't understand, and you mock my typos. You are clearly not a person one would go to for intelligent discourse, so I will end this discussion now.
You seem to have misunderstood how unions work, they aren't involved in an illegal price setting ring, they are working together to try and enhance their rights, stopping an employer from using their power to drive wages and conditions to the lowest possible level.
By leveraging their monoply. How else would they get the employer to give them more than he would do if no unions existed? What is strikes, if not a demonstration that a monopoly exists? This is not illegal, there is an inherent assymerty in the power of the employer and the employee, which the state tries to even out by allowing unions to leverage monopoly tactics that would be illegal in other areas of commerce. But it is leveraging a monopoly.