the "free market" one of one group of self-organised-people (i.e. unions)
Unions tend to (try to) get monopolies on (certain types of) workers, so in most cases, the scare quotes around "free market" are very apt. Not that monopolies are any less "free market" than government solutions are.
How is this the least bit on topic? This highlights not what religion is about, but that governments have been giving people special privileges based on their religion.
Either there is a good reason for the demand that you shouldn't wear anything on your head on official photos, or there isn't. In the first case, why are we allowing people to forgo it because of their religion? In the second case, why is the rule there?
Given measles vaccinations are over 99% effective, they can only spread it to other idiots, so who cares?
And to children too young to be vaccinated. And to the immunocompromised. And to people having legitimate reasons for not being vaccinated, e.g. being allergic to the vaccine (I don't know if this is a problem with the measles vaccine).
Without having read TFA, stability has to do with the frequency relative to the frequency of the same clock earlier, while accuracy has to do with the frequency relative to an external reference. Stability compares two instances of (nearly) the same frequency, which is a hell of a lot easier than comparing vastly different frequencies.
Firstly, please note that I am not the person who originally said you were trolling.
Secondly, the fact that you say something bad about the other person is not enough to make what you say an ad hominem. You have to use that bad characteristic as a counterargument. Claiming that someones argument is ridiculous is not an ad hominem, as it doesn't attack the other person as a way to attack the argument, it attacks the argument.
Calling someone's point "trolling", "FUD", and "ridiculous" matches the definition of ad hominem perfectly.
No it doesn't. As you wrote, it attacks the point, not the person. It could be a red herring, or just irrelevant. An ad hominem could be "Poster is a known troll, so his points are worthless".
The only chlorine compound that I know of that can influence the uptake of iodine is perchlorate, and I have a hard time seeing how sucralose should be converted into perchlorate in the body.
The halogens aren't that chemically similar, and they have vastly different sizes, so I don't think body would generally be in danger of confusing them, except for special cases like perchlorate. Do you have sources that mention which other halogen compounds does the same?
Sucralose contains chlorine, which can block iodine reception in your thyroid. So at least one artificial sweetener is bad to ingest if you want to lose weight - especially if you aren't getting enough iodine in your diet.
What chlorine containing compound is sucralose broken down into that can block iodine uptake? I can only think of perchlorate that does that, and I fail to see how sucralose should be broken down into that. So, is is perchlorate? If yes, how is that done? If no, then what?
The first link seems to simply sum up the second one, so excuse me for no reading any more health news in the Huffington post than I need to, I have a sanity to take care of.
The second link is to a study that, at least from what I can read from the abstract, goes from "glyphosate can inhibit cytochrom P450" to "DEATH INSANITY AUTISM BALDNESS" without wondering whether this would have shown up in the animal tests of glyphosate or of compounds that are more active P450 inhibitors (e.g. azole fungicides are).
From the abstract of the third link: "Recommended dosages of glyphosate did not affect growth rates [of bacteria]."
About the fourth link, glyphosate is toxic to amphibians, but it also binds strongly to soil particles, so it isn't transported very far. It is important to keep it out of the waterways as much as possible, but not spraying too close to streams and not spraying just before rain should take care of that.
Finding glyphosate in the urine of people really isn't alarming, given that is is non-toxic to humans and we are really good at finding very small concentrations.
Yes, the soaps are the most toxic part of any glyphosate formulation is not glyphosate, for the simple reason that glyphosate is not very toxic. We need to evaluate the entire package.
In that case, the farmer knowingly selected for round-up resistance. What was claimed was that Monsanto had never sued anybody having round-up resistant seeds through no act of the own. That case is not applicable here.
It usually isn't your money being spent in this case. At least in my country, if you challenge an expense made in this way, the store will have to produce the receipt. If the signature isn't close enough to what is written on your card, the store gets to pay for the purchase.
Whether the brain is an interface consciousness attaches to or whether consciousness is generated by the brain by some not yet understood physical process, decreasing complexity causing loss of consciousness is consistent with both mode
Sure, but I am not simply talking about loss of consciousness. Changing the brain function can change the level and type if consciousness you have, and it is hard to argue that this is compatible with the brain being a simple receiver.
If consciousness was an on/off thing, then that would be relevant. However, it isn't. Consciousness is a continuum, and where you are on that continuum can be altered by affecting the brain. Consciousness also seems to be comprised of many subsystems, each of which can be altered or shut down with brain damage. For the talk radio, this would be equivalent to one of the debators to say less or not even being present, and the others responding to this, taking up more time and not discussing the points the now missing person would have brought up. This is hard to make compatible with the brains only being a receiver.
You're right, it could, I didn't think that through. On the other hand, a handful or even a barn full of clones of the same mare is not going to produce anywhere near the amount of progeny from one genet (can you use that word for artificial clones?) that we can already get from one stallion with artificial insemination.
I don't think the popular sire effect can be drastically increased in magnitude, not above what artificial insemination provides. And for economically important breeds, we are handling that effect by having extensive pedigree charts, as we have experienced the detrimental effects already (the cows with bad knees I mentioned in the GGP).
This is immediately dangerous because it destroys the breeds genetic diversity, and what if 3 or 4 generations later they find that descendants of the clones are developing a terrible disease, or have far less longevity. The clones material could be spread throughout half the breed at that point and could cause the entire thing to collapse. I think they should be allow to protect their breed from the unknown effects at least until a mulch-generational study has been done on clone offspring.
Through insemination, we can already get a lot of offspring from one stud, endagering the genetic diversity. There was a case of this in cattle, where one bull that was extensively used turned out to have bad knees. As its sperm was used to inseminate a lot of cows, this lead to an insane amount of trouble down the line. We learned from that, and have become much better at keeping stock of which bulls are the fathers and grandfathers of which cattle. I don't see how cloning affects the situation significantly.
For a digital currency to be truly viable it needs to be 100% distributed
Like BitCoin? What aspect needs to be improved?
and invulnerable to regulatory intercession otherwise why bother?
Isn't Bitcoin about as invulnerable as a digital currency can be? The government can declare it illegal and seize any computers used, but that is true for anything, not just digital currencies. If a big enough player throws enough computing power after it, they can take over the network, but is there any way to avoid this kind of vulnerability? As far as I understand, it should be clear if this happens.
If any vulnerability in hashes is found, bitcoin could be in trouble, but we are in much larger trouble elsewhere if that happens.
Or maybe it's that gravity ain't what we think it is. Maybe it's NOT QUITE inverse-square, but the difference only becomes observable at interstellar distances.
That would fail to explain thing like the bullet cluster and the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background.
How is "dark matter" not neutral? All it says is that it has mass (is matter) and doesn't interact electromagnetically, which is indeed what we observe. Modifying the laws of gravity doesn't seem to cut it, so I fail to see what further assumptions "dark matter" imposes.
Mind you, I can't forward a better theory to explain why things have mass
Dark matter has nothing to do with why things have mass. That would be the Higgs field (or, rather, why fundamental particles have mass. Most of the mass of normal matter has another explanation).
Slashdot Mirror
the "free market" one of one group of self-organised-people (i.e. unions)
Unions tend to (try to) get monopolies on (certain types of) workers, so in most cases, the scare quotes around "free market" are very apt. Not that monopolies are any less "free market" than government solutions are.
How is this the least bit on topic? This highlights not what religion is about, but that governments have been giving people special privileges based on their religion.
Either there is a good reason for the demand that you shouldn't wear anything on your head on official photos, or there isn't.
In the first case, why are we allowing people to forgo it because of their religion?
In the second case, why is the rule there?
Wait, what? You think Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl was? Why?
Given measles vaccinations are over 99% effective, they can only spread it to other idiots, so who cares?
And to children too young to be vaccinated. And to the immunocompromised. And to people having legitimate reasons for not being vaccinated, e.g. being allergic to the vaccine (I don't know if this is a problem with the measles vaccine).
They probably *measured* a voltage, and then *calculated* the waveform, from which they *calculated* the stability.
To discuss what is *really* being measured gets absurd pretty quickly with modern instrumentation.
Without having read TFA, stability has to do with the frequency relative to the frequency of the same clock earlier, while accuracy has to do with the frequency relative to an external reference. Stability compares two instances of (nearly) the same frequency, which is a hell of a lot easier than comparing vastly different frequencies.
Firstly, please note that I am not the person who originally said you were trolling.
Secondly, the fact that you say something bad about the other person is not enough to make what you say an ad hominem. You have to use that bad characteristic as a counterargument. Claiming that someones argument is ridiculous is not an ad hominem, as it doesn't attack the other person as a way to attack the argument, it attacks the argument.
Calling someone's point "trolling", "FUD", and "ridiculous" matches the definition of ad hominem perfectly.
No it doesn't. As you wrote, it attacks the point, not the person. It could be a red herring, or just irrelevant. An ad hominem could be "Poster is a known troll, so his points are worthless".
The only chlorine compound that I know of that can influence the uptake of iodine is perchlorate, and I have a hard time seeing how sucralose should be converted into perchlorate in the body.
The halogens aren't that chemically similar, and they have vastly different sizes, so I don't think body would generally be in danger of confusing them, except for special cases like perchlorate. Do you have sources that mention which other halogen compounds does the same?
Sucralose contains chlorine, which can block iodine reception in your thyroid. So at least one artificial sweetener is bad to ingest if you want to lose weight - especially if you aren't getting enough iodine in your diet.
What chlorine containing compound is sucralose broken down into that can block iodine uptake? I can only think of perchlorate that does that, and I fail to see how sucralose should be broken down into that. So, is is perchlorate? If yes, how is that done? If no, then what?
Iceland, the land that has outlawed stripping and is trying to outlaw online porn? Yes, a bastion of personal liberty.
The first link seems to simply sum up the second one, so excuse me for no reading any more health news in the Huffington post than I need to, I have a sanity to take care of.
The second link is to a study that, at least from what I can read from the abstract, goes from "glyphosate can inhibit cytochrom P450" to "DEATH INSANITY AUTISM BALDNESS" without wondering whether this would have shown up in the animal tests of glyphosate or of compounds that are more active P450 inhibitors (e.g. azole fungicides are).
From the abstract of the third link: "Recommended dosages of glyphosate did not affect growth rates [of bacteria]."
About the fourth link, glyphosate is toxic to amphibians, but it also binds strongly to soil particles, so it isn't transported very far. It is important to keep it out of the waterways as much as possible, but not spraying too close to streams and not spraying just before rain should take care of that.
Finding glyphosate in the urine of people really isn't alarming, given that is is non-toxic to humans and we are really good at finding very small concentrations.
Yes, the soaps are the most toxic part of any glyphosate formulation is not glyphosate, for the simple reason that glyphosate is not very toxic. We need to evaluate the entire package.
In that case, the farmer knowingly selected for round-up resistance. What was claimed was that Monsanto had never sued anybody having round-up resistant seeds through no act of the own. That case is not applicable here.
It usually isn't your money being spent in this case. At least in my country, if you challenge an expense made in this way, the store will have to produce the receipt. If the signature isn't close enough to what is written on your card, the store gets to pay for the purchase.
Whether the brain is an interface consciousness attaches to or whether consciousness is generated by the brain by some not yet understood physical process, decreasing complexity causing loss of consciousness is consistent with both mode
Sure, but I am not simply talking about loss of consciousness. Changing the brain function can change the level and type if consciousness you have, and it is hard to argue that this is compatible with the brain being a simple receiver.
If consciousness was an on/off thing, then that would be relevant. However, it isn't. Consciousness is a continuum, and where you are on that continuum can be altered by affecting the brain. Consciousness also seems to be comprised of many subsystems, each of which can be altered or shut down with brain damage. For the talk radio, this would be equivalent to one of the debators to say less or not even being present, and the others responding to this, taking up more time and not discussing the points the now missing person would have brought up. This is hard to make compatible with the brains only being a receiver.
Vedas and vedic teachers state the brain is more of a radio receiever than a processing unit.
So both are easily proven wrong by even a cursory consideration of the effects of brain damage on consciousness. Good to know.
This research is one step closer to confirming Vedic assumptions on consciousness:
Wait, what?
You're right, it could, I didn't think that through. On the other hand, a handful or even a barn full of clones of the same mare is not going to produce anywhere near the amount of progeny from one genet (can you use that word for artificial clones?) that we can already get from one stallion with artificial insemination.
I don't think the popular sire effect can be drastically increased in magnitude, not above what artificial insemination provides. And for economically important breeds, we are handling that effect by having extensive pedigree charts, as we have experienced the detrimental effects already (the cows with bad knees I mentioned in the GGP).
Anybody can code their own operating system. If I had made Windows, I would not want other office suits to work on it.
Anybody could make their own rail company. If I ran Standard Oil, I would not like the railroad companies to ship the products of my competitors.
This is immediately dangerous because it destroys the breeds genetic diversity, and what if 3 or 4 generations later they find that descendants of the clones are developing a terrible disease, or have far less longevity. The clones material could be spread throughout half the breed at that point and could cause the entire thing to collapse. I think they should be allow to protect their breed from the unknown effects at least until a mulch-generational study has been done on clone offspring.
Through insemination, we can already get a lot of offspring from one stud, endagering the genetic diversity. There was a case of this in cattle, where one bull that was extensively used turned out to have bad knees. As its sperm was used to inseminate a lot of cows, this lead to an insane amount of trouble down the line. We learned from that, and have become much better at keeping stock of which bulls are the fathers and grandfathers of which cattle. I don't see how cloning affects the situation significantly.
For a digital currency to be truly viable it needs to be 100% distributed
Like BitCoin? What aspect needs to be improved?
and invulnerable to regulatory intercession otherwise why bother?
Isn't Bitcoin about as invulnerable as a digital currency can be? The government can declare it illegal and seize any computers used, but that is true for anything, not just digital currencies.
If a big enough player throws enough computing power after it, they can take over the network, but is there any way to avoid this kind of vulnerability? As far as I understand, it should be clear if this happens.
If any vulnerability in hashes is found, bitcoin could be in trouble, but we are in much larger trouble elsewhere if that happens.
Or maybe it's that gravity ain't what we think it is. Maybe it's NOT QUITE inverse-square, but the difference only becomes observable at interstellar distances.
That would fail to explain thing like the bullet cluster and the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background.
How is "dark matter" not neutral? All it says is that it has mass (is matter) and doesn't interact electromagnetically, which is indeed what we observe. Modifying the laws of gravity doesn't seem to cut it, so I fail to see what further assumptions "dark matter" imposes.
Let me know when they find supporting evidence [of dark matter]
You mean like the rotational curves of galaxies, the velocity dispersion of stars in galaxies (including observations of globular clusters with very little dark matter, leaving MOND with even more problems), gravitational lensing (including the bullet cluster), fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background etc.?
Mind you, I can't forward a better theory to explain why things have mass
Dark matter has nothing to do with why things have mass. That would be the Higgs field (or, rather, why fundamental particles have mass. Most of the mass of normal matter has another explanation).