This is one of those stories where there's actually something useful you can do. If you haven't gotten a Tdap booster as an adult yet, do so when you get your next Td booster. (You do get a Td booster every ten years, right? You don't want tetanus, do you? You know they used to call it "lockjaw", right? You know the bacteria that cause tetanus survive in the environment outside of living hosts, right?)
Sexism and ignorance are wrong. They are wrong regardless of the sources, be they Democrats, Republicans, or Slashdot commenters who get called out, but then try to change the subject while neglecting to apologize.
Rush Limbaugh called a 30 year-old law student a slut because she wanted her insurance to pay for her birth control -- which she is probably on so she can fuck around and not get pregnant.
On no occasion in her testimony did Sandra Fluke use herself as an example for why she felt insurance should cover hormone pills. The examples she did use were of women with polycystic ovarian syndrome or endometriosis; in none of her examples was prevention of pregnancy the purpose of the pills. Rush Limbaugh appears to have been sexually attracted to her, which is fine; what is not clear is why he needed to express his fantasies about watching her have sex to the world at large.
Here is the specific question to ask private banks.
Is there any instance in which a person, as a newborn, had cord blood stored, and then used their own cord blood later in life?
When our kids were newborns, the answer was "no"; I would assume it is still "no". I believe there do exist cases in which kid #1 needed their parents to conceive and give birth to kid #2 so that kid #2's cord blood could be used for kid #1, but that's an entirely different matter.
I know that you may be thinking "I can afford the hundreds of dollars, and it's worth it for the infinitesimal chance that it could help our child"... but the logic breaks down when you consider other things you can use that money for that are much more likely to help your child.
So it is; heck, it's possible to play "benzoxycamphors" in Scrabble. But for nine-letter and longer root words, you turn to a source other than the OSPD.
He tried to find articles on the subject, but turned up nothing. “It is one of those situations that it is hard to believe that this hasn’t already been covered in the literature,” he said.
I'm not criticizing Kenneth W. Regan for the way in which his work was reported in the popular press, but Matej Guid and Ivan Bratko have had a couple of articles published in which they evaluate past world champion chess players with computer programs. Their ICGA Journal articles aren't free to read, but ChessBase.com has articles (which I haven't read) based on those journal articles here and here.
My work isn't closely enough related to that of Regan and Guid/Bratko that I know the politics involved: sworn enemies? friends? never heard of each other? But if it's "never heard of each other", they should talk.
From the publication: "Finally, and we cannot stress this enough, if you do receive a letter from a federal judge asking you to explain why you fired a juror, ignoring the letter may not be the best course of action."
I have not seen any investigative journalism exposing the campaign contributions that led to the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which extended DST. I fear that nobody cares that much, so if that's the level of detail you're looking for, you're likely to be disappointed.
But I can provide you with a link in which the author of a book opposing DST blames golf courses for the extension of DST, and you can find many more such links with a Google search on "daylight savings time golf courses" or the like. So to convince me that golf courses did not lobby for extended DST, I'm going to need more than just your say-so.
Your citation of "morning hours when it's cooler" suggests a very localized view of DST. Golfers prefer to golf when the weather is nice for golf, and whether tht's the morning or not depends quite a bit on local climate.
Anyway, here's the link. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/t/story?id=975472&page=1
Ah, sorry that I was making unstated USA-only assumptions in my post.
The broad trend I see driving up housing prices in the USA in the long term, even after accounting for inflation, is population growth. This is an extremely coarse measurement, but if you believe demographers' best projections that there will be roughly 30% more people living in the USA in 2050 than there were in 2010, you can roughly estimate that average housing prices in the USA in 2050, after accounting for inflation, should be 30% higher than they were in 2010.
There are a lot of ways in which this analysis could break down. Population growth in the USA could slow below expectations. The increase in demand could be less than proportional to the increase in population, possibly because of fundamental long-term economic changes. The increase in price could be less than proportional to the increase in demand. Short-term and medium-term trends could have pushed the price too high in 2010 or could push the price too low in 2050. This analysis only considers a nationwide average, which would clearly be subject to a lot of localized deviation. Unforeseen technological advances could completely change the demand for housing, or the supply of housing, or both. Broadly speaking, though, the long-term trend seems intuitively correct to me.
This is very much a USA-centric analysis, because population growth seems to be stagnating in most of Europe.
I had a funny thread going on here, the guy can't understand basic inflation and that his house price is falling in terms of real money and in terms of his purchasing power, he expects the value of his house to go up, believe it or not.
Real values of the houses cannot and should not go up, the Fed is trying to preserve the nominal values, so money supply is inflated, real prices are falling, while nominal prices are staying up pumped by inflation that the Fed creates.
I'm curious to know why you think that real values of houses cannot and should not go up (in a long-term general sense). My gut reaction is best summed up by a Will Rogers quote that's more often paraphrased than given verbatim: "...out here I had been putting what little money I had in Ocean Frontage, for the sole reason that there was only so much of it and no more, and that they wasent making any more..."
This is not to say that I don't expect a further short-term or medium-term reduction in house prices, nor to deny Will Rogers's ambivalence about real estate as an investment.
In the same universe where Obama was solely responsible for:
* Invading Iraq and Afghanistan (he voted for it as senator, but so did almost everyone else)
Actually, Obama wasn't a U.S. senator till 2005 -- and before that, he was one of the earliest opponents of invading Iraq.
They'll just fuck it up. In 2002, for example, the Richard Gere musical Chicago won best picture. It was the second year in a row that a musical won best picture.
There must have been a lot more singing in A Beautiful Mind than I remember.
The Littles always cite the Black Death and 1918 pandemic [wikipedia.org] as if that's what we could expect from a pandemic today--all without noting the MASSIVE improvements in sanitation, medical science, vaccine research, etc. that make this scale of pandemic highly unlikely in the modern era.
Black Death -- bacterial -- likely not a big deal in the age of antibiotics.
1918 pandemic -- viral -- the healthier you are, the more likely it is that your own cytokine storm will kill you -- might be even more of a big deal today, especially with jet airplanes helping to spread the disease.
Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that, based on too-simplistic assumptions, when just 10 percent of the population in their model holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society in their model. 'When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent [in our model], there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority [in our model],' said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski. 'Once that number grows above 10 percent [in our model], the idea spreads like flame.'
I try to be prescriptive in my use of language but descriptive in my acceptance of language, along the lines of the data processing principle of producing well-formatted output but accepting a wide variety of input formats. (Occasionally, though, I fall behind the progress of the language as it is used, such as the development that "electrocute" can apparently now mean just "injure with electricity", according to most dictionaries, with the apparent exception of the one I checked before criticizing that use of "electrocute".)
My advice for trying to be prescriptive is to say irrespective instead of "irregardless".
I tried the hand scanner a few times, but gave up the first time something went wrong and I had to re-scan everything in my cart. It would take a very, very low failure rate for the time saved on each occasion that the hand scanner works to be worth the time wasted on occasions that the hand scanner doesn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of those stories where there's actually something useful you can do. If you haven't gotten a Tdap booster as an adult yet, do so when you get your next Td booster. (You do get a Td booster every ten years, right? You don't want tetanus, do you? You know they used to call it "lockjaw", right? You know the bacteria that cause tetanus survive in the environment outside of living hosts, right?)
I'm curious. I know my basis for considering the term "bimbo" offensive, but what's yours?
Also, what criteria do you propose for the returning of a donation being a moral necessity?
Sexism and ignorance are wrong. They are wrong regardless of the sources, be they Democrats, Republicans, or Slashdot commenters who get called out, but then try to change the subject while neglecting to apologize.
Rush Limbaugh called a 30 year-old law student a slut because she wanted her insurance to pay for her birth control -- which she is probably on so she can fuck around and not get pregnant.
On no occasion in her testimony did Sandra Fluke use herself as an example for why she felt insurance should cover hormone pills. The examples she did use were of women with polycystic ovarian syndrome or endometriosis; in none of her examples was prevention of pregnancy the purpose of the pills. Rush Limbaugh appears to have been sexually attracted to her, which is fine; what is not clear is why he needed to express his fantasies about watching her have sex to the world at large.
Read the transcript of Sandra Fluke's testimony here: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf
Is there any instance in which a person, as a newborn, had cord blood stored, and then used their own cord blood later in life?
I see that it has since actually been done once. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/119/1/e296
Here is the specific question to ask private banks.
Is there any instance in which a person, as a newborn, had cord blood stored, and then used their own cord blood later in life?
When our kids were newborns, the answer was "no"; I would assume it is still "no". I believe there do exist cases in which kid #1 needed their parents to conceive and give birth to kid #2 so that kid #2's cord blood could be used for kid #1, but that's an entirely different matter.
I know that you may be thinking "I can afford the hundreds of dollars, and it's worth it for the infinitesimal chance that it could help our child"... but the logic breaks down when you consider other things you can use that money for that are much more likely to help your child.
Might need a new Fujita scale... forget F5, say hello to F4000!
It's easy to turn café or féte into cafeteria.
So it is; heck, it's possible to play "benzoxycamphors" in Scrabble. But for nine-letter and longer root words, you turn to a source other than the OSPD.
He tried to find articles on the subject, but turned up nothing. “It is one of those situations that it is hard to believe that this hasn’t already been covered in the literature,” he said.
I'm not criticizing Kenneth W. Regan for the way in which his work was reported in the popular press, but Matej Guid and Ivan Bratko have had a couple of articles published in which they evaluate past world champion chess players with computer programs. Their ICGA Journal articles aren't free to read, but ChessBase.com has articles (which I haven't read) based on those journal articles here and here.
My work isn't closely enough related to that of Regan and Guid/Bratko that I know the politics involved: sworn enemies? friends? never heard of each other? But if it's "never heard of each other", they should talk.
Only one of that list is not in there - and it will be as surprising to you which one is not in the dictionary as it was to me.
It should not surprise you; nine-letter root words are not supposed to be in the OSPD, though a few slipped in by mistake.
From the publication: "Finally, and we cannot stress this enough, if you do receive a letter from a federal judge asking you to explain why you fired a juror, ignoring the letter may not be the best course of action."
But I can provide you with a link in which the author of a book opposing DST blames golf courses for the extension of DST, and you can find many more such links with a Google search on "daylight savings time golf courses" or the like. So to convince me that golf courses did not lobby for extended DST, I'm going to need more than just your say-so.
Your citation of "morning hours when it's cooler" suggests a very localized view of DST. Golfers prefer to golf when the weather is nice for golf, and whether tht's the morning or not depends quite a bit on local climate. Anyway, here's the link. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/t/story?id=975472&page=1
Can I step in for your member of Congress here?
"I support it because DST helps golf courses make more money, and golf course owners make very nice campaign contributions."
Yeah, but that was Australia. A little bit of obnoxiousness is part and parcel of regular social interaction there.
Ah, sorry that I was making unstated USA-only assumptions in my post.
The broad trend I see driving up housing prices in the USA in the long term, even after accounting for inflation, is population growth. This is an extremely coarse measurement, but if you believe demographers' best projections that there will be roughly 30% more people living in the USA in 2050 than there were in 2010, you can roughly estimate that average housing prices in the USA in 2050, after accounting for inflation, should be 30% higher than they were in 2010.
There are a lot of ways in which this analysis could break down. Population growth in the USA could slow below expectations. The increase in demand could be less than proportional to the increase in population, possibly because of fundamental long-term economic changes. The increase in price could be less than proportional to the increase in demand. Short-term and medium-term trends could have pushed the price too high in 2010 or could push the price too low in 2050. This analysis only considers a nationwide average, which would clearly be subject to a lot of localized deviation. Unforeseen technological advances could completely change the demand for housing, or the supply of housing, or both. Broadly speaking, though, the long-term trend seems intuitively correct to me.
This is very much a USA-centric analysis, because population growth seems to be stagnating in most of Europe.
I had a funny thread going on here, the guy can't understand basic inflation and that his house price is falling in terms of real money and in terms of his purchasing power, he expects the value of his house to go up, believe it or not.
Real values of the houses cannot and should not go up, the Fed is trying to preserve the nominal values, so money supply is inflated, real prices are falling, while nominal prices are staying up pumped by inflation that the Fed creates.
I'm curious to know why you think that real values of houses cannot and should not go up (in a long-term general sense). My gut reaction is best summed up by a Will Rogers quote that's more often paraphrased than given verbatim: "...out here I had been putting what little money I had in Ocean Frontage, for the sole reason that there was only so much of it and no more, and that they wasent making any more..."
This is not to say that I don't expect a further short-term or medium-term reduction in house prices, nor to deny Will Rogers's ambivalence about real estate as an investment.
In the same universe where Obama was solely responsible for: * Invading Iraq and Afghanistan (he voted for it as senator, but so did almost everyone else)
Actually, Obama wasn't a U.S. senator till 2005 -- and before that, he was one of the earliest opponents of invading Iraq.
They'll just fuck it up. In 2002, for example, the Richard Gere musical Chicago won best picture. It was the second year in a row that a musical won best picture.
There must have been a lot more singing in A Beautiful Mind than I remember.
Quick, name these characters:
- Any character in a Jules Verne story
Unfair to Verne. Captain Nemo and Phineas Fogg leap immediately to mind, and I haven't read any Verne since I was a child.
Your larger point is not without merit, though.
There is at least one other major presidential candidate who is against SOPA: Barack Obama.
So Kivrin Engle would indeed survive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Book_(novel)
The Littles always cite the Black Death and 1918 pandemic [wikipedia.org] as if that's what we could expect from a pandemic today--all without noting the MASSIVE improvements in sanitation, medical science, vaccine research, etc. that make this scale of pandemic highly unlikely in the modern era. Black Death -- bacterial -- likely not a big deal in the age of antibiotics. 1918 pandemic -- viral -- the healthier you are, the more likely it is that your own cytokine storm will kill you -- might be even more of a big deal today, especially with jet airplanes helping to spread the disease.
Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that, based on too-simplistic assumptions, when just 10 percent of the population in their model holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society in their model. 'When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent [in our model], there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority [in our model],' said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski. 'Once that number grows above 10 percent [in our model], the idea spreads like flame.'
I try to be prescriptive in my use of language but descriptive in my acceptance of language, along the lines of the data processing principle of producing well-formatted output but accepting a wide variety of input formats. (Occasionally, though, I fall behind the progress of the language as it is used, such as the development that "electrocute" can apparently now mean just "injure with electricity", according to most dictionaries, with the apparent exception of the one I checked before criticizing that use of "electrocute".) My advice for trying to be prescriptive is to say irrespective instead of "irregardless".
I tried the hand scanner a few times, but gave up the first time something went wrong and I had to re-scan everything in my cart. It would take a very, very low failure rate for the time saved on each occasion that the hand scanner works to be worth the time wasted on occasions that the hand scanner doesn't work.