That article is why scientific journalism has such a bad rap. Clicking through to what the scientist actually said, you find "Eyes are not designed to look directly at light - they are designed to see with light." which is a far cry from the claim that LEDs might be inherently unhealthy. Newsflash, looking at any bright light directly is bad.
The article also mentions the presence of high-energy blue and violet light. That is exactly what color temperature is all about: early LEDs had temperatures above the 5000K mark, reaching near to what you find outside, which is 6500K. Modern LEDs can go down to 2700K or even lower, which is very close to the 2400K of incandescent bulbs, enough that any potential issues related to blue light are gone. By that point, LEDs produce strictly identical light to any other light source.
Meanwhile, I'm going to bet you look at a computer screen on a daily basis even late at night, which should be far more concerning for your eyes than using LEDs or not.
I mean, it's nothing new. Color temperature has been a thing for years, it's just that incandescents could only really do one of them. Neons have a completely different color temperature, and LEDs can actually span the range between incandescents and neons, and then some if you go for the smart bulbs that can literally give you a rainbow if you ask for it.
You're being given choice. I'd say that's pretty nice.
There's no amount of massaging of the statistics that will change the fact the US gets waaaaay more gun deaths per capita than any other Western country. You're up there with Uruguay and Panama. That, alone, is proof enough that the bandwagon fallacy doesn't apply.
Just about every other developed country in the world disagrees. The few that have a similar (well, within a 2-3x factor, the US is just that much of an outlier) level of gun ownership (like Switzerland) do it in a way so incredibly different it may as well be another concept entirely.
It just so happens that the rest of world is also doing fine without all those guns.
Between attempting to use the old label as a first step towards an investigation to find the legitimate owner of the package, and just doing nothing until they sell it off, I'd much rather they attempt to use the old label. It may not point you to the legitimate owner directly, but at least then you're showing good faith attempts to find them.
Almost no one on earth? In America alone, there are 3 million people who do.
Proportionally speaking, 1-2% really isn't a big number. The point isn't that Celiac's disease isn't bad or dangerous, it's that the vast majority of people talking about gluten as though it were Satan's spawn are not suffering from that disease. They're following a fad.
The problem is when the alleged 10% of the population (though the actual ratio is most likely even lower) who might be sensitive to gluten balloons into what appears to be 50% of the population thinking gluten is bad for you. That's when people get mass hysteria over something that's completely safe for the overwhelming majority of the population, much like the anti-vaccine scare.
Ah but there is gluten in meats. Not all meats, but many of them, especially these days where the meats tend to be processed even for plain meat. Now, I don't know if that "gluten-free" label is actually strict enough for Celiac's disease thresholds, but I know that they have to be very careful about meats due to the presence of gluten in them as well.
Except he most likely did, considering the files were taken down last week, not last year. TFS has it wrong (though it says last week later in the summary).
You seem to be confusing operators (or, more generally, functions) with constants here. arccos is just an operator, much like negation, addition, subtraction, etc. Pi is a constant, a numerical value, it has no other interpretation.
Mozilla's problems date back from well before any of this political bullshit. It all started when they lost track of what made Firefox popular and decided to ape Chrome more and more (and to cock up when they didn't ape Chrome). Guess what? When your browser just clones another one, people will have a tendency to migrate to that other one.
Oh, and Mozilla being unable to anticipate and properly react to the mobile market has crippled them hard. Having a unified experience across platforms with bookmark/history/preference syncing is a big deal, and since Firefox for Android is pretty mediocre, people have moved to Chrome on desktop rather than suffering with Firefox on mobile.
I see that the age old Slashdot tradition that Windows is bad is still in full effect. I bet you can't even tell me what's terrible about it without just going "well it's closed source so it's BAD!" or "Micro$oft".
This is yet another case of "we don't have laws for this because nobody's ever broken the social norm before". It's similar in nature to those idiotic warning labels on things (like that "warning: hot" on coffee cups), whereby nobody thought it was necessary to have it explicitly labeled until someone blatantly didn't get it and sued for it.
I would hazard to guess that, in order to measure the material's momentum and location, you must be able to observe it, but that requires the material to emit a particle that can then be captured. Since it is in a ground state, no such particle may be emitted naturally, and if you attempt to inject particles into the system, you've provided the material with energy and thus it is no longer in a ground state. Therefore, while you could in theory know its exact momentum and location if you were able to measure it, you cannot because you can't perform the measurement without disturbing the state.
Shifting the costs is the point here: college students are the ones least able to pay for their own education. They don't have a job yet (that's why they go to college), and unlike high school, the workload from college is often high enough that getting a part-time job would make their education and performance suffer.
Oh I think Trump's one-upped Orwell's worst nightmares: he didn't just lock down the information, he made it so a lot of people actively distrust it. Instead of having to muzzle journalists and take control of news agencies, all he has to do is provide alternative facts and they'll lap it all up. It's far more powerful and much harder to solve.
You forgot that he's leasing the car from Uber, so there's also a monthly cost to that. He's probably making under $8/hr with that factored in, and in a large city (the only place where Uber is really viable as a full-time job) that's basically nothing.
Nope. Civilization is being part of a social contract, which comes with both benefits and obligations. If you don't want to accept the contract, you are free to move to a part of the world with no such contract. I'm not sure you'd appreciate living in those areas.
Ha, you wish. As much as I love C#, there will always be a need for a low-level language that makes zero performance compromises. Games alone ensure that there will be significant demand for it. It might not remain C++ forever, but all of the new languages intending to replace C++ have thus far failed to gain sufficient traction to do so.
For most business applications, C#, Java, Python or even JavaScript are gonna be fine. When you need high performance, they turn into severe limiting factors.
Well, actually, you're contradicting yourself here. In a way, they are morally superior, specifically because social values evolve. They will continue to evolve, yes, so hopefully our children and grandchildren will be even more morally superior (much the same as we hope they'll be technologically superior, have better health and so on). That doesn't in any way change that what they said was entirely true.
Plus, the point wasn't to assert moral superiority, but rather to point out that nostalgia goggles tend to conveniently hide the unsightly elements of the past.
Gender reassignment is just the act of changing the apparent sexual characteristics of the person to match with their psychological perception of their own gender. It's gender, not sex.
That the chromosomes aren't following is completely irrelevant to the discussion or to the act itself.
It'd be nice for these self-proclaimed globalist elites to latch on to something that isn't an obvious failure. I mean, a quick back-of-the-envelope will tell you that an IC engine burning gasoline wins in just about every utility metric you can come up for a personal automobile (buses and trucks are a whole other matter). Yet they're declared the Wave of The Future (TM) by the Davos set.
Oh really? So what does IC do better than electric exactly? I can't think of anything aside from range and refueling. Maintenance is far cheaper and easier on electric. Fuel costs are dramatically lower. Comfort is the same. Security is the same, or better for EVs thanks to the battery pack acting as structure. Sound goes either way (some want the noise, some love the silence). Performance is arguably better for EVs (lower top speed, but still much higher than you'd ever use, and insane acceleration). Space is a net win for EVs due to the lack of a large engine block.
So again, where is this landslide you speak of? All I see is a single concern that's not all that relevant in day-to-day use and which will become progressively less important as battery tech improves.
Provided you aren't driving close to your maximum range every day (and if you do, I feel for you, because 2+ hour commutes are exceedingly rare), EVs are fine. You lose range, yes, but not so much that it's going to strand you in the forest.
Slashdot Mirror
That article is why scientific journalism has such a bad rap. Clicking through to what the scientist actually said, you find "Eyes are not designed to look directly at light - they are designed to see with light." which is a far cry from the claim that LEDs might be inherently unhealthy. Newsflash, looking at any bright light directly is bad.
The article also mentions the presence of high-energy blue and violet light. That is exactly what color temperature is all about: early LEDs had temperatures above the 5000K mark, reaching near to what you find outside, which is 6500K. Modern LEDs can go down to 2700K or even lower, which is very close to the 2400K of incandescent bulbs, enough that any potential issues related to blue light are gone. By that point, LEDs produce strictly identical light to any other light source.
Meanwhile, I'm going to bet you look at a computer screen on a daily basis even late at night, which should be far more concerning for your eyes than using LEDs or not.
I mean, it's nothing new. Color temperature has been a thing for years, it's just that incandescents could only really do one of them. Neons have a completely different color temperature, and LEDs can actually span the range between incandescents and neons, and then some if you go for the smart bulbs that can literally give you a rainbow if you ask for it.
You're being given choice. I'd say that's pretty nice.
There's no amount of massaging of the statistics that will change the fact the US gets waaaaay more gun deaths per capita than any other Western country. You're up there with Uruguay and Panama. That, alone, is proof enough that the bandwagon fallacy doesn't apply.
Just about every other developed country in the world disagrees. The few that have a similar (well, within a 2-3x factor, the US is just that much of an outlier) level of gun ownership (like Switzerland) do it in a way so incredibly different it may as well be another concept entirely.
It just so happens that the rest of world is also doing fine without all those guns.
Between attempting to use the old label as a first step towards an investigation to find the legitimate owner of the package, and just doing nothing until they sell it off, I'd much rather they attempt to use the old label. It may not point you to the legitimate owner directly, but at least then you're showing good faith attempts to find them.
Almost no one on earth? In America alone, there are 3 million people who do.
Proportionally speaking, 1-2% really isn't a big number. The point isn't that Celiac's disease isn't bad or dangerous, it's that the vast majority of people talking about gluten as though it were Satan's spawn are not suffering from that disease. They're following a fad.
The problem is when the alleged 10% of the population (though the actual ratio is most likely even lower) who might be sensitive to gluten balloons into what appears to be 50% of the population thinking gluten is bad for you. That's when people get mass hysteria over something that's completely safe for the overwhelming majority of the population, much like the anti-vaccine scare.
Ah but there is gluten in meats. Not all meats, but many of them, especially these days where the meats tend to be processed even for plain meat. Now, I don't know if that "gluten-free" label is actually strict enough for Celiac's disease thresholds, but I know that they have to be very careful about meats due to the presence of gluten in them as well.
Except he most likely did, considering the files were taken down last week, not last year. TFS has it wrong (though it says last week later in the summary).
You seem to be confusing operators (or, more generally, functions) with constants here. arccos is just an operator, much like negation, addition, subtraction, etc. Pi is a constant, a numerical value, it has no other interpretation.
Mozilla's problems date back from well before any of this political bullshit. It all started when they lost track of what made Firefox popular and decided to ape Chrome more and more (and to cock up when they didn't ape Chrome). Guess what? When your browser just clones another one, people will have a tendency to migrate to that other one.
Oh, and Mozilla being unable to anticipate and properly react to the mobile market has crippled them hard. Having a unified experience across platforms with bookmark/history/preference syncing is a big deal, and since Firefox for Android is pretty mediocre, people have moved to Chrome on desktop rather than suffering with Firefox on mobile.
Windows is terrible because it's Windows.
I see that the age old Slashdot tradition that Windows is bad is still in full effect. I bet you can't even tell me what's terrible about it without just going "well it's closed source so it's BAD!" or "Micro$oft".
This is yet another case of "we don't have laws for this because nobody's ever broken the social norm before". It's similar in nature to those idiotic warning labels on things (like that "warning: hot" on coffee cups), whereby nobody thought it was necessary to have it explicitly labeled until someone blatantly didn't get it and sued for it.
I would hazard to guess that, in order to measure the material's momentum and location, you must be able to observe it, but that requires the material to emit a particle that can then be captured. Since it is in a ground state, no such particle may be emitted naturally, and if you attempt to inject particles into the system, you've provided the material with energy and thus it is no longer in a ground state. Therefore, while you could in theory know its exact momentum and location if you were able to measure it, you cannot because you can't perform the measurement without disturbing the state.
But of course, IANAP etc etc.
Shifting the costs is the point here: college students are the ones least able to pay for their own education. They don't have a job yet (that's why they go to college), and unlike high school, the workload from college is often high enough that getting a part-time job would make their education and performance suffer.
First you claim that people are exaggerating, then you basically pull a Godwin on the topic? If that's not hypocritical, I don't know what is.
Oh I think Trump's one-upped Orwell's worst nightmares: he didn't just lock down the information, he made it so a lot of people actively distrust it. Instead of having to muzzle journalists and take control of news agencies, all he has to do is provide alternative facts and they'll lap it all up. It's far more powerful and much harder to solve.
Most jobs don't require a car. You can get by with public transportation, especially in metropolitan areas.
You forgot that he's leasing the car from Uber, so there's also a monthly cost to that. He's probably making under $8/hr with that factored in, and in a large city (the only place where Uber is really viable as a full-time job) that's basically nothing.
Nope. Civilization is being part of a social contract, which comes with both benefits and obligations. If you don't want to accept the contract, you are free to move to a part of the world with no such contract. I'm not sure you'd appreciate living in those areas.
Ha, you wish. As much as I love C#, there will always be a need for a low-level language that makes zero performance compromises. Games alone ensure that there will be significant demand for it. It might not remain C++ forever, but all of the new languages intending to replace C++ have thus far failed to gain sufficient traction to do so.
For most business applications, C#, Java, Python or even JavaScript are gonna be fine. When you need high performance, they turn into severe limiting factors.
Well, actually, you're contradicting yourself here. In a way, they are morally superior, specifically because social values evolve. They will continue to evolve, yes, so hopefully our children and grandchildren will be even more morally superior (much the same as we hope they'll be technologically superior, have better health and so on). That doesn't in any way change that what they said was entirely true.
Plus, the point wasn't to assert moral superiority, but rather to point out that nostalgia goggles tend to conveniently hide the unsightly elements of the past.
Gender reassignment is just the act of changing the apparent sexual characteristics of the person to match with their psychological perception of their own gender. It's gender, not sex.
That the chromosomes aren't following is completely irrelevant to the discussion or to the act itself.
It'd be nice for these self-proclaimed globalist elites to latch on to something that isn't an obvious failure. I mean, a quick back-of-the-envelope will tell you that an IC engine burning gasoline wins in just about every utility metric you can come up for a personal automobile (buses and trucks are a whole other matter). Yet they're declared the Wave of The Future (TM) by the Davos set.
Oh really? So what does IC do better than electric exactly? I can't think of anything aside from range and refueling. Maintenance is far cheaper and easier on electric. Fuel costs are dramatically lower. Comfort is the same. Security is the same, or better for EVs thanks to the battery pack acting as structure. Sound goes either way (some want the noise, some love the silence). Performance is arguably better for EVs (lower top speed, but still much higher than you'd ever use, and insane acceleration). Space is a net win for EVs due to the lack of a large engine block.
So again, where is this landslide you speak of? All I see is a single concern that's not all that relevant in day-to-day use and which will become progressively less important as battery tech improves.
Provided you aren't driving close to your maximum range every day (and if you do, I feel for you, because 2+ hour commutes are exceedingly rare), EVs are fine. You lose range, yes, but not so much that it's going to strand you in the forest.