>You do? I don't care about who's rich, but I do care about fresh air. I'm more concerned with sustainable policies than I am about silly little pretend games like "who's got the most money"
Wow, I'm impressed. I explain the reasoning later in the same post, in a part which you have quoted later, and you still manage to make a straw man argument? Have you considered becoming a politician? You are very skilled in making logical fallacies.
Lol! Grow up!
The person who discounts arguments with a "Lol!" tells me to grow up. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
Because we want there to be an incentive for becomming rich, as people generelly become rich by ensuring benefits for others, thereby getting said others to give them money? Of course, there are plenty of exceptions, but that is generally idea behind capitalism, economic liberalism and "the invisible hand" of the market.
Hmm, maybe the effect of the start button is that the user have started dealing with the problem before they get stuck, and thus are more likely to try other things, whereas if there isn't one button, they haven't started, and it is easier to just give up. No, it's not rational, but I could imagine the psychological effect being there. But I'm just guessing.
No, that was a slashdot article a while back. And the points were thoroughly debunked, mostly by the fact that most household appliances are inductive loads, so the CFL's capacitive load actually makes the situation a bit better for the elctric company.
And doens't in any way tell you what his wishes are (or, doesn't give you any way to tell apart his lessons and the lessons of charlatans), but punishes you for not obeying them. That is a form of c)
So, we used this gene to diagnose cancer before we were able to draw pictures on cave walls? Man, that is some advanced cave men.
"Hey Urh, watch where you put that mammut down, you almost squashed the gene sequencer".
Or perhaps you think "patenting a human gene" means actually patenting having the gene? Man, that would just be stupid. But not much beyond the mental capabilities of patent trolls.
Judges are not normal people like you or me. They are people with extraordinary power that very often goes completely unchecked.
But they are ALSO people, and not allowing them politcal free speach will not make them apolitical.
Of course, we should strive to make sure that their political agenda doesn't affect their judgements. I think a great step in insuring that would be to stop making the naming of judges a political process.
We seem to continue operating under the false assumption that we are still the biggest dog on the block.
[..]I recognize we still have the most bombs, but when or country acts like a petulant child it's still tough to be serious about it. It isn't leading the world, it isn't change. It's thinly veiled fascism.
Well, to be fair, it takes all countries a very long time to stop acting like they are important. I mean, France still does, Russia stil does...
Not better then sodium or potassium. The much higher atomic mass means that for a gram of cesium, much less hydrogen is made, so there is much less to go boom. On the other hand, lithium doesn't really go boom, not in the demonstrations I have seen. Sodium might go boom, potasium will.
The problem is, lithium is highly toxic only very slightly above the theraputic threshold, making it extremely dangerous.
Well, IIRC, the therapeutic window is not as narrow as that of flourine...
and identify the specific class(es) of condition(s) Lithium can deal with and which it can't, I don't know. It would seem easy enough and it would reduce the randomness in the mental healthcare industry.
It is my understanding that the psychiatric litterature suffers from not having standards for the different conditions, so it is difficult to compare studies, leading to the slow progress compared to other areas which have better standardisation, such as cancer.
If that is the reason for the law to be there, it doesn't have to prohibit anyone from putting anything INTO the mailbox.
Of course, I could imagine some other reasons for that, to decimate mail spam, or to avoid the problem of full mailboxes, and what to do with the mail in that case.
Let's see, we build their homes, we (try to) cure them when the get diseases, we help them multiply, we make sure there are flowers around their hives, if nescecary by moving the hive. Oh, and we take the honey and give them sugar to survive the winter on. Yes, purely parasitic.
Also "past performance is not an indicator of future success". The fossil record has plenty of species that have been around for millions of years and then got wiped out.
So, past perfomance tells us that you can't use past perfomance to tell anything? I'm confused.
-since when does polarized light catalyze chiral reactions?? UV light can catalyze reactions, and chiral molecules can cause a reaction to form with a specific handedness, but only chiral MOLECULES can catalyze reactions to cause a more enantiomericly pure product
Not quite, IIRC, there are examples of some reactions with polarized light which gives ~1% excess of one enantiomer. It has been hypothesized to be the origin of the handedness of life. But in itself, it will not give enough of a excess to be meassured with this technique.
Not nescecarily, you cannot directly infer the handedness of the reflected light from the handedness of the molecules, L-amino acids and D-sugars might have the same handedness at some frequencies. But IIRC, the handedness goes way up close to absorption bands, so coloured compounds will account for most of the handedness of the reflected light of a planet. It seems reasonable to assume that the main light-harvesting molecule (chlorophyll in the case of earth) will account for most of the handedness of a planet.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, most of those movies mangled excellent stories to make them more family-friendly, so it did take some original ideas to make them
But zinc weighs 15 times more than lithium (OK, Zn gets a charge of 2, so the effective difference is only 8 times).
(everything sold on iTunes is the same file minus some metadata)
Now now, I know it is popular to say that all pop music sounds identical, but I think that is taking it a bit too far.
Wow, I'm impressed. I explain the reasoning later in the same post, in a part which you have quoted later, and you still manage to make a straw man argument? Have you considered becoming a politician? You are very skilled in making logical fallacies.
Lol! Grow up!
The person who discounts arguments with a "Lol!" tells me to grow up. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
Because we want there to be an incentive for becomming rich, as people generelly become rich by ensuring benefits for others, thereby getting said others to give them money?
Of course, there are plenty of exceptions, but that is generally idea behind capitalism, economic liberalism and "the invisible hand" of the market.
Hmm, maybe the effect of the start button is that the user have started dealing with the problem before they get stuck, and thus are more likely to try other things, whereas if there isn't one button, they haven't started, and it is easier to just give up. No, it's not rational, but I could imagine the psychological effect being there. But I'm just guessing.
No, that was a slashdot article a while back. And the points were thoroughly debunked, mostly by the fact that most household appliances are inductive loads, so the CFL's capacitive load actually makes the situation a bit better for the elctric company.
And doens't in any way tell you what his wishes are (or, doesn't give you any way to tell apart his lessons and the lessons of charlatans), but punishes you for not obeying them. That is a form of c)
As has been said many times, the gene itself is not patented, using it to diagnose diseases is.
No, the gene itself is not patented, using the gene in diagnosing illnesses is. Or something related to that...
So, we used this gene to diagnose cancer before we were able to draw pictures on cave walls? Man, that is some advanced cave men. "Hey Urh, watch where you put that mammut down, you almost squashed the gene sequencer".
Or perhaps you think "patenting a human gene" means actually patenting having the gene? Man, that would just be stupid. But not much beyond the mental capabilities of patent trolls.
In the same way you need a stable neutron to form a stable atom (well, any other atom than H-1, that is)?
No, they're not, according to TFR. They are applying white noise to drown the information, making the office even noisier. Great...
Judges are not normal people like you or me. They are people with extraordinary power that very often goes completely unchecked.
But they are ALSO people, and not allowing them politcal free speach will not make them apolitical.
Of course, we should strive to make sure that their political agenda doesn't affect their judgements. I think a great step in insuring that would be to stop making the naming of judges a political process.
Ha, we foiled your plan by modding you insightful!
We seem to continue operating under the false assumption that we are still the biggest dog on the block. [..]I recognize we still have the most bombs, but when or country acts like a petulant child it's still tough to be serious about it. It isn't leading the world, it isn't change. It's thinly veiled fascism.
Well, to be fair, it takes all countries a very long time to stop acting like they are important. I mean, France still does, Russia stil does...
Not better then sodium or potassium. The much higher atomic mass means that for a gram of cesium, much less hydrogen is made, so there is much less to go boom. On the other hand, lithium doesn't really go boom, not in the demonstrations I have seen. Sodium might go boom, potasium will.
The problem is, lithium is highly toxic only very slightly above the theraputic threshold, making it extremely dangerous.
Well, IIRC, the therapeutic window is not as narrow as that of flourine...
and identify the specific class(es) of condition(s) Lithium can deal with and which it can't, I don't know. It would seem easy enough and it would reduce the randomness in the mental healthcare industry.
It is my understanding that the psychiatric litterature suffers from not having standards for the different conditions, so it is difficult to compare studies, leading to the slow progress compared to other areas which have better standardisation, such as cancer.
Wouldn't your example be a chosen plaintext attack? Or perhaps I'm just confused about different uses of "you" in your post :-)
If that is the reason for the law to be there, it doesn't have to prohibit anyone from putting anything INTO the mailbox.
Of course, I could imagine some other reasons for that, to decimate mail spam, or to avoid the problem of full mailboxes, and what to do with the mail in that case.
Let's see, we build their homes, we (try to) cure them when the get diseases, we help them multiply, we make sure there are flowers around their hives, if nescecary by moving the hive. Oh, and we take the honey and give them sugar to survive the winter on. Yes, purely parasitic.
Also "past performance is not an indicator of future success". The fossil record has plenty of species that have been around for millions of years and then got wiped out.
So, past perfomance tells us that you can't use past perfomance to tell anything? I'm confused.
-since when does polarized light catalyze chiral reactions?? UV light can catalyze reactions, and chiral molecules can cause a reaction to form with a specific handedness, but only chiral MOLECULES can catalyze reactions to cause a more enantiomericly pure product
Not quite, IIRC, there are examples of some reactions with polarized light which gives ~1% excess of one enantiomer. It has been hypothesized to be the origin of the handedness of life. But in itself, it will not give enough of a excess to be meassured with this technique.
(really, outrageously Humongus sized) at one of the lagrange points.
No, please don't give them any more stupid ideas for what to call large telescopes
Not nescecarily, you cannot directly infer the handedness of the reflected light from the handedness of the molecules, L-amino acids and D-sugars might have the same handedness at some frequencies.
But IIRC, the handedness goes way up close to absorption bands, so coloured compounds will account for most of the handedness of the reflected light of a planet. It seems reasonable to assume that the main light-harvesting molecule (chlorophyll in the case of earth) will account for most of the handedness of a planet.