if threats are judged from the perspective of a reasonable recipient, rather than the intent of the sender, then the "oh, everyone makes death threats online, they'd never follow through" defense fizzles away.
Uh, you mean the opposite? If you can demonstrate that there really is an internet subculture where "everyone makes death threats", then surely you have demonstrated that at least in that subculture no reasonable recipient would interpret them literally? Assuming the "threat" is made within the context of that subculture, that is. Reasonableness has to be context dependent, after all.
The total mass of the object doesn't matter given that it has finite thermal conductivity. If you intend to study it with instruments which also give off heat/are near to something that gives off heat, then what matters is how that heat will affect the area immediately around the lander.
If it's so hopeless to figure out how much energy you get from foods, how the hell are you going to figure out vastly more complicated things like how they affect your metabolism?
the US seems to be trailing the UK by a small margin.
Eh, only in some ways. The UK might have more surveillance cameras and official domestic spying, but the US has probably more unofficial domestic spying, and, from what I've heard, generally in the UK your hair don't stand on end when you're near a cop.
You're claiming everyone on a keto diet is hypoglycemic? I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed that by now... It happens when first starting such a diet, but within one or two days the body adjusts and starts producing its own sugars from fat and protein.
Yes, which is bad because it leads you to eat more, thus making the "calories in" part bigger. That was my point. What matters most is physiology -> psychology -> fat, not physiology -> fat, so you should optimize a diet for psychology subject to a fixed amount of calories. If you use information about physiology in order to do so then great, but you don't need to, and in fact it may at some point be counterproductive because the more mental energy you use thinking about physiology, the less you have left to enforce the calorie limit. I'm willing to bet many people who have had a long term struggle to lose weight have gone through cycles of "try to implement great idea that helps lose weight -> start slacking off on calorie restriction because there's already a dopamine release from eating/doing 'the right thing' -> don't lose weight -> get discouraged -> say fuck it and eat an entire pizza in one sitting". Not everyone, but many people.
Being 100lbs overweight is an even worse idea. Obesity is so bad for health in so many ways, that I think losing weight by any means necessary, as long as it works, is overall better for you, even if in the short term it means eating a less than ideal diet.
"Calories in, calories out" is given as a good first order approximation of reality for the purposes of weight loss (at least whenever I've seen it). This article isn't about weight loss, it's about health. It's obvious that being conducive to weight loss and being healthy are not synonymous. I could lose weight by eating nothing but cyanide.
Now, it's true that even for weight loss "calories in, calories out" is only an approximation, but based on the admittedly small amount of information I have it is basically the most practically useful one, and using more complex models is counterproductive. Ultimately for most people trying to lose weight the most limiting factor is psychology. If you have some really nice theory about how different nutrients (or even exercise) affect weight differently, chances are you will be tempted to slack off on the by far much more important "calories in, calories out" equation, because you have a limited amount of mental energy. All the physiological tricks mean jack shit if you're inputting too much energy into yourself. Now of course what you eat still matters a lot, but mainly because it affects your psychology differently -- for instance, I've heard many anecdotal reports that 1200 calories from carbs leaves people feeling much less satisfied than the same amount from fat and protein, which of course is going to make it harder for a person not to eat any more. In other words, a corollary to "calories in, calories out" is "find whichever source of calories makes it easiest for you to maintain the equation", but even then physiology matters only in the way that it affects psychology, and not directly because some sources of calories are metabolized differently than others.
How does the luminance of solar radiation compare to that of the lander near itself if it were to use an RTG? Or to the heat directly conducted from the lander? Also why would the lander "mostly" radiate off into space?
Good question. I wonder if there's something we could do to find out. But how.... OK, petty sarcasm aside, it's recreational but somewhat limited:
Washington, D.C.'s proposal, while scaled back compared to the Oregon proposal, allows for a person over 21 years old to posses up to two ounces of marijuana for personal use and grow up to six cannabis plants in their home. It also allows people to transfer up to one ounce of marijuana to another person, but not sell it.
Huh, who knew solving rape would be as easy as teaching women to say no when asked "may I rape you". I guess the "no means no" campaign completely missed the mark somewhere...
You say that men who are mean to women chase them off. Then you say men who are nice to women chase them off. And I'm pretty sure you would say that men ignoring women would chase them off. SO WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU SUGGEST?
How about treating women like you treat everyone else, so that they feel like people instead of walking tits?
That being said, R is also very slow. For one project, I used R and ended up having to use a supercomputer (I only needed a few hundred Opertons out of the 4096 available) to get all the work done in time. For a followup project, I rewrote it in C++ and reran all the same stuff in the same period on a Core 2 Duo. R is really that slow.
How experienced are you with R? I ask because, while of course C++ will always be faster than R, such an enormous difference sounds like it might be due to doing things very suboptimally in R. It's really easy to have orders of magnitude difference in performance in R depending on how you do things. Of course that's possible in C++ too, but the difference is that most people who understand algorithms and architecture abstractly can probably write fairly fast code in C++ without too much familiarity with the language, whereas R, by virtue of being so high level, gives you some seemingly equivalent ways of doing things that are under the hood worlds apart.
1) Animals already have something resembling rights, in the form of animal cruelty laws; the question here is whether those rights should be expanded to include some of the things guaranteed to humans. 2) Plenty of humans (children, or, as someone else pointed out, the handicapped) can't hold down jobs or feed themselves. Chimps and dolphins, on the other hand, typically are able to feed themselves. So what you're saying is, chimps and dolphins should have more rights than children and the disabled?
Over the past couple of decades, as cell phone usage grew from essentially nobody having one to roughly everyone having one, the number of accidents per mile has been steadily decreasing. This suggests that in the grand scheme of things, either cell phones have no appreciable effect on accident rates, or that any effect that they have is more than negated by other factors, ranging from better braking and traction control to the extra cognitive ability resulting from people doing more multitasking in their daily lives.
Which, if true, would mean that if people didn't use cell phones while driving, the accident rate could be an unknown amount lower than it is.
In other words, the numbers agree with me and disagree with you. The cell phone distraction myth is just that: a myth.
Your numbers provided zero evidence to support that claim. At best, the numbers suggest that current strategies for reducing cell phone usage don't reduce accidents. This might just mean that instead of lowering the number of cell phone users, the laws make it more likely for people to hide their phones on their laps while driving, making them even more distracted.
What you're fundamentally missing is that the increased risk associated with skimming a text is over a very short period of time.
I wasn't "fundamentally missing" anything, I was making an assumption - not intended to be realistic - to illustrate why your original argument, being devoid of any evidence, was meaningless.
That means that if reading the text saves at least ten miles of driving, you're still better off reading the text than not reading it. That's not a particularly high bar. The average American has a 25.5 minute commute each way, so assuming you're equally likely to be asked to stop at any point along that route, using your numbers, on average, you're still better off reading the text message than not reading it, assuming you get it near the beginning of your trip.
Assuming every text people get is saving them ten miles of driving on average!? There is no way in hell that is anywhere close to realistic. The vast majority of calls or texts people get have absolutely nothing to do with driving. Now, if you have an agreement with, say, your spouse to only call you during your errand if something has changed, and you only take calls/texts from them and nobody else, then there is a possibility that overall you are reducing risk. But that's a fairly niche scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a complete myth invented by proponents of some surrealistic, twisted form of feminism. It has no basis in verifiable facts.
Nah, won't happen. Why do you think they excluded boys from the project?
if threats are judged from the perspective of a reasonable recipient, rather than the intent of the sender, then the "oh, everyone makes death threats online, they'd never follow through" defense fizzles away.
Uh, you mean the opposite? If you can demonstrate that there really is an internet subculture where "everyone makes death threats", then surely you have demonstrated that at least in that subculture no reasonable recipient would interpret them literally? Assuming the "threat" is made within the context of that subculture, that is. Reasonableness has to be context dependent, after all.
Cool, when I get an assassin to kill your mother, I'll call on you to defend me in court.
Interpreting "non-trivial" as anything but "hopeless" in your post voids your argument, so I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry.
The total mass of the object doesn't matter given that it has finite thermal conductivity. If you intend to study it with instruments which also give off heat/are near to something that gives off heat, then what matters is how that heat will affect the area immediately around the lander.
If it's so hopeless to figure out how much energy you get from foods, how the hell are you going to figure out vastly more complicated things like how they affect your metabolism?
the US seems to be trailing the UK by a small margin.
Eh, only in some ways. The UK might have more surveillance cameras and official domestic spying, but the US has probably more unofficial domestic spying, and, from what I've heard, generally in the UK your hair don't stand on end when you're near a cop.
You're claiming everyone on a keto diet is hypoglycemic? I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed that by now... It happens when first starting such a diet, but within one or two days the body adjusts and starts producing its own sugars from fat and protein.
Yes, which is bad because it leads you to eat more, thus making the "calories in" part bigger. That was my point. What matters most is physiology -> psychology -> fat, not physiology -> fat, so you should optimize a diet for psychology subject to a fixed amount of calories. If you use information about physiology in order to do so then great, but you don't need to, and in fact it may at some point be counterproductive because the more mental energy you use thinking about physiology, the less you have left to enforce the calorie limit. I'm willing to bet many people who have had a long term struggle to lose weight have gone through cycles of "try to implement great idea that helps lose weight -> start slacking off on calorie restriction because there's already a dopamine release from eating/doing 'the right thing' -> don't lose weight -> get discouraged -> say fuck it and eat an entire pizza in one sitting". Not everyone, but many people.
Being 100lbs overweight is an even worse idea. Obesity is so bad for health in so many ways, that I think losing weight by any means necessary, as long as it works, is overall better for you, even if in the short term it means eating a less than ideal diet.
"Calories in, calories out" is given as a good first order approximation of reality for the purposes of weight loss (at least whenever I've seen it). This article isn't about weight loss, it's about health. It's obvious that being conducive to weight loss and being healthy are not synonymous. I could lose weight by eating nothing but cyanide.
Now, it's true that even for weight loss "calories in, calories out" is only an approximation, but based on the admittedly small amount of information I have it is basically the most practically useful one, and using more complex models is counterproductive. Ultimately for most people trying to lose weight the most limiting factor is psychology. If you have some really nice theory about how different nutrients (or even exercise) affect weight differently, chances are you will be tempted to slack off on the by far much more important "calories in, calories out" equation, because you have a limited amount of mental energy. All the physiological tricks mean jack shit if you're inputting too much energy into yourself. Now of course what you eat still matters a lot, but mainly because it affects your psychology differently -- for instance, I've heard many anecdotal reports that 1200 calories from carbs leaves people feeling much less satisfied than the same amount from fat and protein, which of course is going to make it harder for a person not to eat any more. In other words, a corollary to "calories in, calories out" is "find whichever source of calories makes it easiest for you to maintain the equation", but even then physiology matters only in the way that it affects psychology, and not directly because some sources of calories are metabolized differently than others.
How does the luminance of solar radiation compare to that of the lander near itself if it were to use an RTG? Or to the heat directly conducted from the lander? Also why would the lander "mostly" radiate off into space?
What is thermal conductivity?
Washington, D.C.'s proposal, while scaled back compared to the Oregon proposal, allows for a person over 21 years old to posses up to two ounces of marijuana for personal use and grow up to six cannabis plants in their home. It also allows people to transfer up to one ounce of marijuana to another person, but not sell it.
(from cnn.com)
Who cares? Let the morons starve.
Ignoring the sexist nature of your comment for a moment
Wait, pointing out male privilege is sexist now? When did that happen?
Huh, who knew solving rape would be as easy as teaching women to say no when asked "may I rape you". I guess the "no means no" campaign completely missed the mark somewhere...
You say that men who are mean to women chase them off. Then you say men who are nice to women chase them off. And I'm pretty sure you would say that men ignoring women would chase them off. SO WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU SUGGEST?
How about treating women like you treat everyone else, so that they feel like people instead of walking tits?
(And no, I'm not an SJW, I'm a fat hairy nerd.)
You just said "Sugar hasn't been used in most sodas for years. Sugar on the other hand.".
That being said, R is also very slow. For one project, I used R and ended up having to use a supercomputer (I only needed a few hundred Opertons out of the 4096 available) to get all the work done in time. For a followup project, I rewrote it in C++ and reran all the same stuff in the same period on a Core 2 Duo. R is really that slow.
How experienced are you with R? I ask because, while of course C++ will always be faster than R, such an enormous difference sounds like it might be due to doing things very suboptimally in R. It's really easy to have orders of magnitude difference in performance in R depending on how you do things. Of course that's possible in C++ too, but the difference is that most people who understand algorithms and architecture abstractly can probably write fairly fast code in C++ without too much familiarity with the language, whereas R, by virtue of being so high level, gives you some seemingly equivalent ways of doing things that are under the hood worlds apart.
I'm not sure whether or not you think you're disagreeing with me... What I wrote was meant to be a rebuttal for GP.
Heh, well, what if the plaintiff acquired one of the animals formerly kept in captivity by someone else? Would they then be a legal guardian?
1) Animals already have something resembling rights, in the form of animal cruelty laws; the question here is whether those rights should be expanded to include some of the things guaranteed to humans. 2) Plenty of humans (children, or, as someone else pointed out, the handicapped) can't hold down jobs or feed themselves. Chimps and dolphins, on the other hand, typically are able to feed themselves. So what you're saying is, chimps and dolphins should have more rights than children and the disabled?
Over the past couple of decades, as cell phone usage grew from essentially nobody having one to roughly everyone having one, the number of accidents per mile has been steadily decreasing. This suggests that in the grand scheme of things, either cell phones have no appreciable effect on accident rates, or that any effect that they have is more than negated by other factors, ranging from better braking and traction control to the extra cognitive ability resulting from people doing more multitasking in their daily lives.
Which, if true, would mean that if people didn't use cell phones while driving, the accident rate could be an unknown amount lower than it is.
In other words, the numbers agree with me and disagree with you. The cell phone distraction myth is just that: a myth.
Your numbers provided zero evidence to support that claim. At best, the numbers suggest that current strategies for reducing cell phone usage don't reduce accidents. This might just mean that instead of lowering the number of cell phone users, the laws make it more likely for people to hide their phones on their laps while driving, making them even more distracted.
What you're fundamentally missing is that the increased risk associated with skimming a text is over a very short period of time.
I wasn't "fundamentally missing" anything, I was making an assumption - not intended to be realistic - to illustrate why your original argument, being devoid of any evidence, was meaningless.
That means that if reading the text saves at least ten miles of driving, you're still better off reading the text than not reading it. That's not a particularly high bar. The average American has a 25.5 minute commute each way, so assuming you're equally likely to be asked to stop at any point along that route, using your numbers, on average, you're still better off reading the text message than not reading it, assuming you get it near the beginning of your trip.
Assuming every text people get is saving them ten miles of driving on average!? There is no way in hell that is anywhere close to realistic. The vast majority of calls or texts people get have absolutely nothing to do with driving. Now, if you have an agreement with, say, your spouse to only call you during your errand if something has changed, and you only take calls/texts from them and nobody else, then there is a possibility that overall you are reducing risk. But that's a fairly niche scenario.