The "no treatment" arm will take care of natural variation, but still suffers from potentially biased assessment and interpretation though, particularly for conditions that rely on subjective measurements, such as pain or anxiety. The placebo effect may well be real, but actually determining that for sure and determining the size of the effect is non-trivial.
You're wrong. The placebo effect has been documented many, many times to have real, objectively measurable effects in real, objectively measurable diseases. If it didn't you wouldn't need to have placebo arms in trials of treatments for cancer, heart attack, multiple sclerosis, etc.
Of course you would, it's called a control. The idea is to make it so that the only thing you're detecting is the drug effect - rather than any observer biases, natural disease progression, and so forth. That's why the assessing doctors don't know whether the patient got drug or placebo either. Even if there was no such thing as a placebo effect, all of that would still be important. Just because someone seems to improve after giving them a placebo doesn't mean the placebo helped them, any more than someone improving after giving them a drug means the drug helped them.
You can have private addresses with IPv6. You can also have multiple addresses per interface, so you could advertise/withdraw the appropriate route advertisements for public addresses as needed, in addition to the static, private one, with the public ones being used for external communications. So all your internal communications work with fixed addresses.
Whether the tools have been implemented to make the administration of that practical is another matter entirely, but is rather the key issue.
Except the cheapest ways of making hydrogen are from fossil fuels - natural gas, and perhaps coal. The gap's even bigger than the difference between fossil and alternative methods of making electricity.
Except the mechanism is actually quite well known, and CO2 was *not* what started the historical warming cycles. That was known to be Milankovitch cycles - but the problem was that, by itself, Milankovitch cycles didn't seem to have a large enough effect to cause that much warming - it was the right shape, but the wrong magnitude. The most reasonable explanation is some sort of feedback effect, which happens to involve CO2 being released from the oceans due to a temperature increase. All of this stuff has strong evidence - the initiator follows the right pattern, we know the effect of temperature changing on CO2 solubility, we know the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. It's not just a hand-wave. It also doesn't mean that CO2 couldn't act as an initiator, in fact it supports it.
If you have an explanation of how your water damage could lead to increased flooding (water damage leading to a breaking pipe, perhaps?) along with the confirmatory evidence, then yes it would be a reasonable hypothesis, providing you also identified the original cause.
Odd, I'm British and I haven't noticed any government cameras in my house. Or on the road outside it for that matter. Maybe they're just very well hidden.
The point is that torque is not, by itself, a relevant quantity for determining a car's performance. You can change torque as much as you like with gears. Power, on the other hand, is quite useful - a single power figure doesn't provide a complete picture but it's a lot closer.
But for the computer savvy home user or small developer, with a significant music collection, a ton of video, photos, and a couple major projects to work on, SSD is not going to cut it at today's prices when compared to spinning disks.
I never said they were appropriate for everyone. It *is* enough for your web/email/photo/bit of music users, and there's quite a lot of those. The corporate market you mention is pretty big too, and then there's devices like netbooks.
If they can keep improving SSD, it could take over for most purposes even if magnetic discs improve at the same rate.
If they only need a modest amount of storage, say 40 GB, it could be cheaper. There's a lower limit on the price that you can buy a magnetic drive for and that's stayed pretty constant.
With the advantage of having no ignition system to go wrong and lots of torque, horse power is a misleading gauge of power, torque is what turns the wheels.
I can produce more torque than a diesel engine with my hands and a long spanner, which suggests that maybe it isn't that useful a figure for determining a car's capability.
And your ignition system may not go wrong, but your turbocharger and much higher pressure injectors can, and do.
He had the right attitude, wrong implementation. In fact, 15 bits may be borrowed from the IPv4 checksum field for some sensible address extension scheme.
Wouldn't that break when the packet has to go through a non-v6 aware router that thinks the checksum is invalid?
Employees are also customers of corporations. Corporations make almost everything. If the cost of "almost everything" (from Heinz Ketchup to Chevy trucks) goes up 30%, you're going to have to increase the wages of your employees significantly to make up the cost of living difference.
My point was that it wouldn't go up 30%, becuase the tax applies to the profit, not the total cost. At least it does here in Britain, it would be a bit silly any other way. It would only drive up prices by 30% if the sale price was all profit.
I never said that tax increases competition. I said that healthy competition drives down profit margins, reducing the amount the tax costs as a percentage of the product price. If something has a massive profit margin, it likely means that there's a lack of effective competition - in which case they can't pass on the cost increase because they're already charging as much as the market will bear.
You say "assuming no costs", but costs are very important - labour costs in particular. A company can't just make a $100 widget for nothing. A more realistic artificial example might be $50 buying parts and other overheads, $30 paying workers, $20 profit. A competitive marketplace should drive down profit margins.
So realistically, the cost due to the tax is a lot smaller than you suggest even if it is all passed on to customers. Morally, I think it's more desirable for rewards to go to mostly to the workers who create the products, not company owners (though I know investment is an essential part of the economy, as I mentioned elsewhere).
Corporations are simply collections of people. As long as the people that make up that corporation are taxed, then there is no injustice.
The people who get the profits and the people who comprise the company (in the sense of doing the work that makes it the profit) are usually quite different.
So who or what would you tax to make up the difference? Taxing profits from investments seems fairer than taxing income from selling your labour, as the former is is money obtained by exploiting your wealth, not by working - though I'm aware that it may have practical issues as investment is pretty fundamental to our economic system.
If X tax revenue needs to be raised, and Y pays less, then Z must pay more. And having one of the richest companies in the world pay 2.4% when most of us are paying an order of magnitude more lacks justice.
This is true for any plausible value of X, so simply saying "there shouldn't be as much tax" is irrelevant.
This isn't new, BSB here in the UK had a flat satellite receiver which they called the "Squarial". It was a phased array, like other people have said.
Now, if it could be electronically adjusted to pick up different satellites without having to physically move it, that would be interesting. I believe some military radars do this.
It's not really a measurement of collision events, though it is proportional to it. Think about it classically, for a beam of billiard balls, say. The number of collisions you get will be proportional to to the area of beam, the number of particles per unit area for beam 1, the same for beam 2 and the cross-sectional area of the balls. All the factors apart from the last are shoved together in the luminosity figure - which has dimensions of inverse area and the barn is a unit of area.
So the integrated luminosity (in inv. barns) * the cross-section of the process you're interested in (in barns) gives you a number.
In reality, the cross-sections don't correspond directly to physical areas (it's all quantum after all) but the principle is the same.
But only a small part of the system was proven, that's my point - not the steam generators, not the reprocessing technology, not the safety issues for a large plant. The first sodium cooled reactors worked very nicely, but scaling them up revealed a lot of problems.
The original comment was "superior in every way", when we don't have remotely enough experience to make such a confident statement. There's nowhere near enough data to licence such a plant.
One very small scale device that wasn't connected to any generation equipment and ran for only 5 years? That counts as "almost completely unproven" to me.
If that's your only criterion, the sodium fast breeder and RBMK reactors would have been declared complete successes decades ago.
Slashdot Mirror
The "no treatment" arm will take care of natural variation, but still suffers from potentially biased assessment and interpretation though, particularly for conditions that rely on subjective measurements, such as pain or anxiety. The placebo effect may well be real, but actually determining that for sure and determining the size of the effect is non-trivial.
You're wrong. The placebo effect has been documented many, many times to have real, objectively measurable effects in real, objectively measurable diseases. If it didn't you wouldn't need to have placebo arms in trials of treatments for cancer, heart attack, multiple sclerosis, etc.
Of course you would, it's called a control. The idea is to make it so that the only thing you're detecting is the drug effect - rather than any observer biases, natural disease progression, and so forth. That's why the assessing doctors don't know whether the patient got drug or placebo either. Even if there was no such thing as a placebo effect, all of that would still be important. Just because someone seems to improve after giving them a placebo doesn't mean the placebo helped them, any more than someone improving after giving them a drug means the drug helped them.
You can have private addresses with IPv6. You can also have multiple addresses per interface, so you could advertise/withdraw the appropriate route advertisements for public addresses as needed, in addition to the static, private one, with the public ones being used for external communications. So all your internal communications work with fixed addresses.
Whether the tools have been implemented to make the administration of that practical is another matter entirely, but is rather the key issue.
Except the cheapest ways of making hydrogen are from fossil fuels - natural gas, and perhaps coal. The gap's even bigger than the difference between fossil and alternative methods of making electricity.
Except the mechanism is actually quite well known, and CO2 was *not* what started the historical warming cycles. That was known to be Milankovitch cycles - but the problem was that, by itself, Milankovitch cycles didn't seem to have a large enough effect to cause that much warming - it was the right shape, but the wrong magnitude. The most reasonable explanation is some sort of feedback effect, which happens to involve CO2 being released from the oceans due to a temperature increase. All of this stuff has strong evidence - the initiator follows the right pattern, we know the effect of temperature changing on CO2 solubility, we know the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. It's not just a hand-wave. It also doesn't mean that CO2 couldn't act as an initiator, in fact it supports it.
If you have an explanation of how your water damage could lead to increased flooding (water damage leading to a breaking pipe, perhaps?) along with the confirmatory evidence, then yes it would be a reasonable hypothesis, providing you also identified the original cause.
None of which are in houses, which was the original comment. Almost all the cameras are in already very public places, such as town centres.
Very nicely thank you, I enjoy my vastly lower probability of being shot to death.
Odd, I'm British and I haven't noticed any government cameras in my house. Or on the road outside it for that matter. Maybe they're just very well hidden.
The point is that torque is not, by itself, a relevant quantity for determining a car's performance. You can change torque as much as you like with gears. Power, on the other hand, is quite useful - a single power figure doesn't provide a complete picture but it's a lot closer.
But for the computer savvy home user or small developer, with a significant music collection, a ton of video, photos, and a couple major projects to work on, SSD is not going to cut it at today's prices when compared to spinning disks.
I never said they were appropriate for everyone. It *is* enough for your web/email/photo/bit of music users, and there's quite a lot of those. The corporate market you mention is pretty big too, and then there's devices like netbooks.
If they can keep improving SSD, it could take over for most purposes even if magnetic discs improve at the same rate.
If they only need a modest amount of storage, say 40 GB, it could be cheaper. There's a lower limit on the price that you can buy a magnetic drive for and that's stayed pretty constant.
I've had no trouble in cars much slower than that (16 seconds). Frustrating at times, but perfectly manageable.
Even if you don't get up to the exact right speed, people simply move out to let you on.
With the advantage of having no ignition system to go wrong and lots of torque, horse power is a misleading gauge of power, torque is what turns the wheels.
I can produce more torque than a diesel engine with my hands and a long spanner, which suggests that maybe it isn't that useful a figure for determining a car's capability.
And your ignition system may not go wrong, but your turbocharger and much higher pressure injectors can, and do.
He had the right attitude, wrong implementation. In fact, 15 bits may be borrowed from the IPv4 checksum field for some sensible address extension scheme.
Wouldn't that break when the packet has to go through a non-v6 aware router that thinks the checksum is invalid?
Employees are also customers of corporations. Corporations make almost everything. If the cost of "almost everything" (from Heinz Ketchup to Chevy trucks) goes up 30%, you're going to have to increase the wages of your employees significantly to make up the cost of living difference.
My point was that it wouldn't go up 30%, becuase the tax applies to the profit, not the total cost. At least it does here in Britain, it would be a bit silly any other way. It would only drive up prices by 30% if the sale price was all profit.
I never said that tax increases competition. I said that healthy competition drives down profit margins, reducing the amount the tax costs as a percentage of the product price. If something has a massive profit margin, it likely means that there's a lack of effective competition - in which case they can't pass on the cost increase because they're already charging as much as the market will bear.
A valid point. I'm getting more impatient as I get older, I always used to read the articles carefully...
Neverless, I think the point is still valid.
You say "assuming no costs", but costs are very important - labour costs in particular. A company can't just make a $100 widget for nothing. A more realistic artificial example might be $50 buying parts and other overheads, $30 paying workers, $20 profit. A competitive marketplace should drive down profit margins.
So realistically, the cost due to the tax is a lot smaller than you suggest even if it is all passed on to customers. Morally, I think it's more desirable for rewards to go to mostly to the workers who create the products, not company owners (though I know investment is an essential part of the economy, as I mentioned elsewhere).
Corporations are simply collections of people. As long as the people that make up that corporation are taxed, then there is no injustice.
The people who get the profits and the people who comprise the company (in the sense of doing the work that makes it the profit) are usually quite different.
So who or what would you tax to make up the difference? Taxing profits from investments seems fairer than taxing income from selling your labour, as the former is is money obtained by exploiting your wealth, not by working - though I'm aware that it may have practical issues as investment is pretty fundamental to our economic system.
If X tax revenue needs to be raised, and Y pays less, then Z must pay more. And having one of the richest companies in the world pay 2.4% when most of us are paying an order of magnitude more lacks justice.
This is true for any plausible value of X, so simply saying "there shouldn't be as much tax" is irrelevant.
OK, that'll teach me to not RTFA properly. Apparently it *can* be electronically adjusted.
This isn't new, BSB here in the UK had a flat satellite receiver which they called the "Squarial". It was a phased array, like other people have said.
Now, if it could be electronically adjusted to pick up different satellites without having to physically move it, that would be interesting. I believe some military radars do this.
It's not really a measurement of collision events, though it is proportional to it. Think about it classically, for a beam of billiard balls, say. The number of collisions you get will be proportional to to the area of beam, the number of particles per unit area for beam 1, the same for beam 2 and the cross-sectional area of the balls. All the factors apart from the last are shoved together in the luminosity figure - which has dimensions of inverse area and the barn is a unit of area.
So the integrated luminosity (in inv. barns) * the cross-section of the process you're interested in (in barns) gives you a number.
In reality, the cross-sections don't correspond directly to physical areas (it's all quantum after all) but the principle is the same.
Policeman per unit population is a more sensible measure than per square mile anyway. Land doesn't commit crimes.
The UK is much more densely populated than the USA, don't forget.
But only a small part of the system was proven, that's my point - not the steam generators, not the reprocessing technology, not the safety issues for a large plant. The first sodium cooled reactors worked very nicely, but scaling them up revealed a lot of problems.
The original comment was "superior in every way", when we don't have remotely enough experience to make such a confident statement. There's nowhere near enough data to licence such a plant.
One very small scale device that wasn't connected to any generation equipment and ran for only 5 years? That counts as "almost completely unproven" to me.
If that's your only criterion, the sodium fast breeder and RBMK reactors would have been declared complete successes decades ago.