Well accurate direct temperature measurements or not, if you have some other explanation for retreating glaciers all over the globe that is still consistent with our thermodynamic understanding of the phase change of water, I would love to hear it. If you've got provable new ideas on the thermodynamic underpinnings of the phase change of water molecules, then I think the Nobel committee would like to hear it.
Because fundamentally, the real factor is in net heat gain of the Earth: radiation in - radiation out. Through a greenhouse effect, the atmospheric CO2 already keeps Earth warmer than it would be without it. More atmospheric CO2 (and CH4) means more IR reflected back in instead of let out to cool the Earth. The ocean currents affect heat redistribution around the Earth, how that heat is redistributed, where the resulting climate change will be focused (i.e. how fast will the artic ice cap melt) and how fast the whole process will happen. Ocean currents for instance travel latitudinally more than air (which primarily moves in Hadley cells) and transfers more heat due to water's high specific heat. So it has a pretty big effect on where that heat is going to go and how fast it will diffuse across the Earth. But that doesn't change that higher CO2 means more blackbody heat trapped under the atmosphere than before.
The damage is already done; the question is a) what's the real slow-mo rate of the catastrophe, and b) how aggressive do we have to be to prevent the worst of it? By starting now, we don't make the damage worse and we decrease how drastic we'll need to make reductions later when the models get more accurate and we find out just how much we really need to cut back.
Yep, that big hole at the front of the ship indicates the Titanic is sinkable. No, we can't tell you yet how long it will take to sink. However, I wouldn't risk going back to your cabin for your warm jacket and would head straight to the lifeboats if I were you.
So bankrupting the country is a far better choice than facing the unknown. Check.
20 years of that trickle down economic policy had already placed the US well on that path. The Republican combination of tax cuts and spending (dating back to 1980) leading to massive deficits, McCain's global embracing of Bush policy, and the continued Republican bleating for tax cuts as a solution for any ill says a McCain administration wouldn't have been significantly different on that score. Heck, let's not forget that it was Paulson (R) who started the whole bailout thing to try to paper over fundamental flaws in market deregulation (that even Greenspan admitted to), and it was Dick Cheney who said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter". Meanwhile, if you listened to the Republicans' advertisements and their media propaganda arm, Obama was the scary unknown and John "the fundamentals of the economy are sound" McCain was the known choice. What happened is that the financial crisis, by exposing the increased reliance on debt of the American populace, finally demonstrated that the Chicago and Austrian school economics, which Republicans had sold to the American public, were a steaming pile of dung.
If the USA had followed Keynesian theory, then they would have socked away money in the good times of the last 30 years, instead of running up the debt to give tax cut hand-outs. Now when you actually need the money, there's less than nothing in the kitty and you need to go further into debt.
That said, Gerthner's appointment and approach are probably the cause of my biggest disappointment in Obama. While I agree that the return to a Keynesian approach was the right one, the choice to re-capitalize the broken financial markets without correcting the causes of the failures and thus isolating the banks and their directors from their mistakes (or most likely in some cases, perfidy) was a huge mistake. The crisis is twofold, one of over-indebtedness and one of confidence (by consumers and investors). The indebtedness will take many years to correct, no matter what is done, and the confidence will not be restored by leaving the financial markets unchanged and open to the same failures. September 2008 wasn't the first time that major banks failed because of derivatives, and unless those markets and their rating agencies get better regulated, it won't be the last time either. The "stress tests" are more theatre and white-washing to try to change the public perception of the markets, and it looks like enough people are refusing to buy it because they realize that the structural problems haven't been addressed. For a little while longer at least, observation and logic is triumphing over will. Although I suppose that might be only until the business press think that they have regained the public trust they lost in this fiasco, and decide that they can start wildly cheerleading the markets again.
Then again, the devaluation of the dollar and the inflation that is sure to eventually occur from the capital injection (and the resulting public debt) will help the recovery by alleviating the real value of the private debts, in constant terms. However that will be of no consolation to those on fixed income such as current retirees, or those about to enter that state. Then again, the majority of them bought the snake-oil and helped force it down everybody else's gullet. Fundamentally, there is no escaping the hangover from years of partying, it's just a question how you pay for it. I would rather see the devaluation of the debt through inflation and the loss of personal worth of those who let this situation happen than the indentured servitude and forced repayment of that debt by those who had no hand in generating it. No chance of getting away from the latter really but at least the burden will be shared. BTW, if you have a large debt like a mortgage, now would be a good time to lock into a fixed rate if you can. It won't help you when you have to renew in 5 years, but you might as well do what you can now.
Well, a lot of people knew Obama wasn't going to cure cancer or be able to deliver fully on most of his promises because a) for all the Republican accusations of extremism, he had a track record as a pragmatist and b) the financial crisis would severely limit the options available to him. Nevertheless, he is still a far better choice than Sarah Palin (in the event of...*shudder*) or John McCain (who thought he had everything to gain by that VP choice and nothing else to lose if that "event" happened).
And ironically enough, if that happens, then the US will have a lot less influence on the ethical decisions made to develop those processes, except for the heaviest hand of legislative government intervention.
Nah, Bush's restrictions were based on religious morals. While there may be (and often are) ethical considerations in religious morals, fundamentally they are based on an argument from authority (i.e. God's law/Bible/Koran/Torah/whatever). Ethics use arguments based on philosophical reasoning starting from axioms like the integrity of the individual and interaction in society. Ethical reasoning takes into account what is good for the individual and society in the current environment (and balancing their sometimes conflicting needs), as opposed to that of an agrarian culture from over 1000 years ago. There will be significant overlap of course between religious morality and ethics (or else a religion would eventually collapse despite social inertia), but their philosophical foundations are fundamentally different.
The basic theory behind global warming and the models is sound. While we might not be able to predict exactly which parts of the planet will be affected and how severely, there's already plenty of confirmation from melting eons-old glaciers that global warming and climate change are happening, and that it's primarily human caused. Sure the last 2 years have been a little cooler compared to 2007 and earlier, but we're also at a minimum in the "11-year" solar cycle and when you take that into account the overall trend is still climbing. So your comments are like someone arguing that there's no cause for alarm on the Titanic and we should just sit and listen to the band - the engineers can't tell exactly how many minutes before the ship sinks so there's no need to worry about the big hole in the bow. Teach the debate.
Go ahead and keep making excuses and rationalizations for your dangerous behaviour. If you hurt someone else or else you lose your licence and your insurance triples because of DUIs, your whining will get as much sympathy and attention as your rationalizations.
If you don't want people to drink and drive at all...why do you have public bars that serve alcohol to people?
Hmmm. Let's see:
You might be meeting people to watch sports or want social contact in a mutually convenient location without having to worry about stocking alcohol, prepping snacks, cleaning up glasses, etc.
"Meat markets"
Blind dates in a fun yet neutral space,
Back before the development of car culture, you used to have neighbourhood pubs as community rallying points to which you would either walk to, or ride your horse to. Horses had more sense than to ride hard into something just because the rider was drunk. It took a while for people to accept that the rules had changed when the car came along. Clearly some still don't.
You drive by and see all those cars parked outside a bar? You seriously think 99% of those people driving home aren't over the 'legal' limit?
Controlled alcohol intake to match metabolism (~1 drink/hour),
Designated drivers,
Taxis.
Some people are smart enough to stop if/when they need to or to stay out of their cars until it's safe. For the idiots who aren't, I have no sympathy. Decades ago, people didn't think that drunk driving was that serious. Then statistics were compiled that showed that it was a factor in a significant portion of driving-related injuries and fatalities, and attitudes changed. If you want to drink and drive, do it on a private back-road where you'll only kill yourself and passengers stupid enough to get into a car/on your bike with you.
Admittedly, if you're drunk at night on a motorbike (as opposed to in a car), then you're more likely to kill or injure yourself than run down a pedestrian. But I remember once seeing a guy in late afternoon/early evening who was so drunk he couldn't hold up his bike,... near a park and an ice cream shop where pedestrians are common. The fool almost got himself run down too, but it wouldn't have taken much difference for him to take out someone else instead.
Well, you're right, but what really matters is what blowing technique was used to calibrate the machine when in the conversion formula was developed. If the formula constants were calibrated based on the body of the breath, but the police officer gets you to blow out the last dregs, then the measurement will appear higher than it is.
That said, I think there's a good chance that the last dregs of breath would be more accurate and that that's how they would do the calibration. The longer the air has been in your lungs, the more likely you would get the partial pressure of whatever they're measuring equalizing across the alveolae. That would also explain why the machine would require that you need to blow a certain amount of air through a little straw before accepting readings. Not only will it force you to use the deep lung air, but it will also force you to keep the air in your lungs longer and give more time for the partial pressures to equalize across the membranes.
In that case it makes sense that they would want to weigh the later measurements more heavily. However what they should probably do is take ongoing measurements, keeping the last N, identifying when the measurements start to plateau (indicating deeper lung air) and average those remaining measurements. If there are insufficient deep lung air measurements, requiring re-testing.
Come to think of it, if you thought you were close to the limit, your best bet would be to do a full exhale first (without appearing to if you're directed not to), take a deep breath to freshen up the deep lung air, and then blow as fast as possible (possibly releasing some through the nose) to decrease the time for the new air to become contaminated. A singer/wind instrumentalist with good breath training might pull it off if they weren't too impaired to try.
That's close. Since you want to take the previous average, turn it back into a running total by multiplying it by the old item count, sum that with the new value, and finally dividing by the new item count, we get:
n++
new average = old average*((n-1)/n) + new_value/n
which, simplified into your format would actually make it:
average = (new_value-average)/n++ + average;
From a numerical analysis point of view though, you're probably better off getting separate totals and count and calculating the average at the end. There will be less accumulated error.
You can think that you're doing fine because you've gotten good at compensating. For instance, dancers and figure skaters can learn to compensate for inner ear/balance issues from spinning at speeds and duration that would have most people nauseous or throwing up, but the spinning doesn't affect their reflexes. However you don't have to have your cochlear sense of balance feel impaired for intoxication to be affecting your ability to drive. It doesn't take much alcohol for your reflexes and cognitive response to be impaired enough to cause an accident, even if it's not obviously apparent. While there is some variation, the acceptable BAC levels were based on correlation with average results from testing for significant reflex and attention deficits.
You might be one of the outliers, but the odds are much better that you might are one of the myriad of people who delude themselves into thinking that they are outliers because their judgement is impaired. Unless you've actually personally undergone reflex/response testing by a third party in conjunction with BAC testing to judge your personal susceptibility to alcohol, your judgement on the subject after alcohol consumption is unreliable. However your ability to compensate for impairment in normal driving conditions wouldn't save you from an accident in an unexpected situation the way unimpaired reflexes would.
The small restriction on the few outliers is not a high price to pay for the safety of innocents. Nobody says you can't drink or drive, just that you have to exercise some level of personal responsibility and not do both (or for that matter, drive and consume any other drug that impairs your ability to drive safely)
Well, personally I think it's because there was too much accidental confusion with enema. As in, "bla bla bla...concussion...bla bla bla, better give this guy an NMR".
Well, if you have a skin disorder, you probably don't have much choice. I seem to remember hearing that recent research indicated that there was really no safe levels of either UVA or UVB and that even the more benign and less energetic band still increases your chances of skin cancer significantly. Can't find a reference though.
Maybe I'm wrong, I don't think this will completely kill fuel-cell research, if car companies are still interested they'll keep going on it. However shifting funding to something showing more signs of progress sounds like a responsible use of our tax dollars. And I'm not an Obama-ite, I just happen to think this particular decision is correct.
Yep. Obama's Energy Secretary pick, Steven Chu, is a Nobel prizewinner. While I think picking Geithner was a mistake because he was too beholden to a failed financial system, Chu's strong scientific background is leading to energy decisions based on sound scientific principles as opposed to lobbying and politics. If Obama fired Geithner and replaced him with Paul Krugman, there might actually be hope for a proper housecleaning in the financial industry, too.
Well, part of the "summer driving season" prices are due to increased demand from more individuals and families taking long car trips on vacations (basic econ: fixed supply + increase in demand => higher prices). Another big difference in costs is that they tend to use different formulations and additives in the summer. Note that the change-over starts happening in May which just might explain the recent price increase you've been seeing. See if your location corresponds to the areas covered by the regulation. Note that even if you aren't you may still be obtaining gas from a refinery in a covered area, which only produces summer RFG for efficiency.
On the other hand, if you'd tried to argue that the gasoline refiners are deliberately shutting down refineries to decrease supplies and increase prices, you might be able to find some supporting evidence.
The real problems are your main options for power generation:
River hydro-electric
Tidal hydro-electric
Solar
Geothermal
Wind
Nuclear
Fossil fuel combustion (coal/natural gas)
Nuclear fission
The first option requires large capital investment and expropriation of flooded territories, usually limiting it to government and large corporations. The next three are also limited geographically and in scale, and can require substantial capital investment (although solar can also be small scale at a cost of lower efficiency). The last two have significant pollution/long term risk issues and lead to strong NIMBY opposition to new projects. The fission fuels and products also lead to substantial government oversight due to its potential for abuse/weaponization.
Fusion would also require substantial capital investments but, with enough popular education and evangelism, should not face the same opposition that fission or fossil fuels would. So there's at least some possibility that you might be able to privatize power generation with it and reap the benefits of competition, unlike current power generation approaches (as California quickly found out). Then again, marketers had to rename NMR to MRI because idiots freaked out that the N stood for "Nukular", so Luddites manipulating the more clueless NIMBYs can't be counted out.
Plus Vitamin D is naturally synthesized by the human body when exposed to UV radiation.
Sure, and it's very useful in combating a number of illnesses and cancer. Indeed, it's quite likely that the reason why your skin makes Vitamin D given UV exposure is as an immune trigger for a proactive anti-skin cancer response. In which case giving yourself a UV exposure may be a cure that's not much better than the disease. There's also more and more indication that there really is no safe levels of UV skin exposure and that you're better off being pale and taking supplements.
Melanoma really doesn't appeal to me, so I would stick to the shrooms unless you've got nanobots that can take care of the cancer. Of course, if you've got that level of nanotech, you can probably just synthethize the vitamin D.
Perhaps if police weren't allowed to have an IQ cap and instead hired the brightest applicants instead of deliberately weeding them out, then they would have more success catching the 10 criminals on your block and could do it without breaking the law themselves.
Missile defenses don't have to be viable vs a Russian saturation attack with modern countermeasures to be useful this century. Providing solid protection against a low-tech threat with just a few misiles is entirely worthwhile (especially if you live in the major US city closest to N Korea!).
From what I heard during the last election, it would appear that major city is Wasilla, AK
Or more likely, he's suppressing some cookie. The bank looks for the cookie, can't find it and thinks "Aha! New computer!". It then proceeds (after failing to create the cookie for the next time) to associate the data/state it needs with the HTTPS connection on the server side.
Slashdot Mirror
Well accurate direct temperature measurements or not, if you have some other explanation for retreating glaciers all over the globe that is still consistent with our thermodynamic understanding of the phase change of water, I would love to hear it. If you've got provable new ideas on the thermodynamic underpinnings of the phase change of water molecules, then I think the Nobel committee would like to hear it.
Because fundamentally, the real factor is in net heat gain of the Earth: radiation in - radiation out. Through a greenhouse effect, the atmospheric CO2 already keeps Earth warmer than it would be without it. More atmospheric CO2 (and CH4) means more IR reflected back in instead of let out to cool the Earth. The ocean currents affect heat redistribution around the Earth, how that heat is redistributed, where the resulting climate change will be focused (i.e. how fast will the artic ice cap melt) and how fast the whole process will happen. Ocean currents for instance travel latitudinally more than air (which primarily moves in Hadley cells) and transfers more heat due to water's high specific heat. So it has a pretty big effect on where that heat is going to go and how fast it will diffuse across the Earth. But that doesn't change that higher CO2 means more blackbody heat trapped under the atmosphere than before.
The damage is already done; the question is a) what's the real slow-mo rate of the catastrophe, and b) how aggressive do we have to be to prevent the worst of it? By starting now, we don't make the damage worse and we decrease how drastic we'll need to make reductions later when the models get more accurate and we find out just how much we really need to cut back.
Yep, that big hole at the front of the ship indicates the Titanic is sinkable. No, we can't tell you yet how long it will take to sink. However, I wouldn't risk going back to your cabin for your warm jacket and would head straight to the lifeboats if I were you.
20 years of that trickle down economic policy had already placed the US well on that path. The Republican combination of tax cuts and spending (dating back to 1980) leading to massive deficits, McCain's global embracing of Bush policy, and the continued Republican bleating for tax cuts as a solution for any ill says a McCain administration wouldn't have been significantly different on that score. Heck, let's not forget that it was Paulson (R) who started the whole bailout thing to try to paper over fundamental flaws in market deregulation (that even Greenspan admitted to), and it was Dick Cheney who said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter". Meanwhile, if you listened to the Republicans' advertisements and their media propaganda arm, Obama was the scary unknown and John "the fundamentals of the economy are sound" McCain was the known choice. What happened is that the financial crisis, by exposing the increased reliance on debt of the American populace, finally demonstrated that the Chicago and Austrian school economics, which Republicans had sold to the American public, were a steaming pile of dung.
If the USA had followed Keynesian theory, then they would have socked away money in the good times of the last 30 years, instead of running up the debt to give tax cut hand-outs. Now when you actually need the money, there's less than nothing in the kitty and you need to go further into debt.
That said, Gerthner's appointment and approach are probably the cause of my biggest disappointment in Obama. While I agree that the return to a Keynesian approach was the right one, the choice to re-capitalize the broken financial markets without correcting the causes of the failures and thus isolating the banks and their directors from their mistakes (or most likely in some cases, perfidy) was a huge mistake. The crisis is twofold, one of over-indebtedness and one of confidence (by consumers and investors). The indebtedness will take many years to correct, no matter what is done, and the confidence will not be restored by leaving the financial markets unchanged and open to the same failures. September 2008 wasn't the first time that major banks failed because of derivatives, and unless those markets and their rating agencies get better regulated, it won't be the last time either. The "stress tests" are more theatre and white-washing to try to change the public perception of the markets, and it looks like enough people are refusing to buy it because they realize that the structural problems haven't been addressed. For a little while longer at least, observation and logic is triumphing over will. Although I suppose that might be only until the business press think that they have regained the public trust they lost in this fiasco, and decide that they can start wildly cheerleading the markets again.
Then again, the devaluation of the dollar and the inflation that is sure to eventually occur from the capital injection (and the resulting public debt) will help the recovery by alleviating the real value of the private debts, in constant terms. However that will be of no consolation to those on fixed income such as current retirees, or those about to enter that state. Then again, the majority of them bought the snake-oil and helped force it down everybody else's gullet. Fundamentally, there is no escaping the hangover from years of partying, it's just a question how you pay for it. I would rather see the devaluation of the debt through inflation and the loss of personal worth of those who let this situation happen than the indentured servitude and forced repayment of that debt by those who had no hand in generating it. No chance of getting away from the latter really but at least the burden will be shared. BTW, if you have a large debt like a mortgage, now would be a good time to lock into a fixed rate if you can. It won't help you when you have to renew in 5 years, but you might as well do what you can now.
Well, a lot of people knew Obama wasn't going to cure cancer or be able to deliver fully on most of his promises because a) for all the Republican accusations of extremism, he had a track record as a pragmatist and b) the financial crisis would severely limit the options available to him. Nevertheless, he is still a far better choice than Sarah Palin (in the event of...*shudder*) or John McCain (who thought he had everything to gain by that VP choice and nothing else to lose if that "event" happened).
And ironically enough, if that happens, then the US will have a lot less influence on the ethical decisions made to develop those processes, except for the heaviest hand of legislative government intervention.
Nah, Bush's restrictions were based on religious morals. While there may be (and often are) ethical considerations in religious morals, fundamentally they are based on an argument from authority (i.e. God's law/Bible/Koran/Torah/whatever). Ethics use arguments based on philosophical reasoning starting from axioms like the integrity of the individual and interaction in society. Ethical reasoning takes into account what is good for the individual and society in the current environment (and balancing their sometimes conflicting needs), as opposed to that of an agrarian culture from over 1000 years ago. There will be significant overlap of course between religious morality and ethics (or else a religion would eventually collapse despite social inertia), but their philosophical foundations are fundamentally different.
The basic theory behind global warming and the models is sound. While we might not be able to predict exactly which parts of the planet will be affected and how severely, there's already plenty of confirmation from melting eons-old glaciers that global warming and climate change are happening, and that it's primarily human caused. Sure the last 2 years have been a little cooler compared to 2007 and earlier, but we're also at a minimum in the "11-year" solar cycle and when you take that into account the overall trend is still climbing. So your comments are like someone arguing that there's no cause for alarm on the Titanic and we should just sit and listen to the band - the engineers can't tell exactly how many minutes before the ship sinks so there's no need to worry about the big hole in the bow. Teach the debate.
Go ahead and keep making excuses and rationalizations for your dangerous behaviour. If you hurt someone else or else you lose your licence and your insurance triples because of DUIs, your whining will get as much sympathy and attention as your rationalizations.
Hmmm. Let's see:
Back before the development of car culture, you used to have neighbourhood pubs as community rallying points to which you would either walk to, or ride your horse to. Horses had more sense than to ride hard into something just because the rider was drunk. It took a while for people to accept that the rules had changed when the car came along. Clearly some still don't.
Some people are smart enough to stop if/when they need to or to stay out of their cars until it's safe. For the idiots who aren't, I have no sympathy. Decades ago, people didn't think that drunk driving was that serious. Then statistics were compiled that showed that it was a factor in a significant portion of driving-related injuries and fatalities, and attitudes changed. If you want to drink and drive, do it on a private back-road where you'll only kill yourself and passengers stupid enough to get into a car/on your bike with you.
Admittedly, if you're drunk at night on a motorbike (as opposed to in a car), then you're more likely to kill or injure yourself than run down a pedestrian. But I remember once seeing a guy in late afternoon/early evening who was so drunk he couldn't hold up his bike,... near a park and an ice cream shop where pedestrians are common. The fool almost got himself run down too, but it wouldn't have taken much difference for him to take out someone else instead.
Well, you're right, but what really matters is what blowing technique was used to calibrate the machine when in the conversion formula was developed. If the formula constants were calibrated based on the body of the breath, but the police officer gets you to blow out the last dregs, then the measurement will appear higher than it is.
That said, I think there's a good chance that the last dregs of breath would be more accurate and that that's how they would do the calibration. The longer the air has been in your lungs, the more likely you would get the partial pressure of whatever they're measuring equalizing across the alveolae. That would also explain why the machine would require that you need to blow a certain amount of air through a little straw before accepting readings. Not only will it force you to use the deep lung air, but it will also force you to keep the air in your lungs longer and give more time for the partial pressures to equalize across the membranes.
In that case it makes sense that they would want to weigh the later measurements more heavily. However what they should probably do is take ongoing measurements, keeping the last N, identifying when the measurements start to plateau (indicating deeper lung air) and average those remaining measurements. If there are insufficient deep lung air measurements, requiring re-testing.
Come to think of it, if you thought you were close to the limit, your best bet would be to do a full exhale first (without appearing to if you're directed not to), take a deep breath to freshen up the deep lung air, and then blow as fast as possible (possibly releasing some through the nose) to decrease the time for the new air to become contaminated. A singer/wind instrumentalist with good breath training might pull it off if they weren't too impaired to try.
That's close. Since you want to take the previous average, turn it back into a running total by multiplying it by the old item count, sum that with the new value, and finally dividing by the new item count, we get:
n++
new average = old average*((n-1)/n) + new_value/n
which, simplified into your format would actually make it:
average = (new_value-average)/n++ + average;
From a numerical analysis point of view though, you're probably better off getting separate totals and count and calculating the average at the end. There will be less accumulated error.
You can think that you're doing fine because you've gotten good at compensating. For instance, dancers and figure skaters can learn to compensate for inner ear/balance issues from spinning at speeds and duration that would have most people nauseous or throwing up, but the spinning doesn't affect their reflexes. However you don't have to have your cochlear sense of balance feel impaired for intoxication to be affecting your ability to drive. It doesn't take much alcohol for your reflexes and cognitive response to be impaired enough to cause an accident, even if it's not obviously apparent. While there is some variation, the acceptable BAC levels were based on correlation with average results from testing for significant reflex and attention deficits.
You might be one of the outliers, but the odds are much better that you might are one of the myriad of people who delude themselves into thinking that they are outliers because their judgement is impaired. Unless you've actually personally undergone reflex/response testing by a third party in conjunction with BAC testing to judge your personal susceptibility to alcohol, your judgement on the subject after alcohol consumption is unreliable. However your ability to compensate for impairment in normal driving conditions wouldn't save you from an accident in an unexpected situation the way unimpaired reflexes would.
The small restriction on the few outliers is not a high price to pay for the safety of innocents. Nobody says you can't drink or drive, just that you have to exercise some level of personal responsibility and not do both (or for that matter, drive and consume any other drug that impairs your ability to drive safely)
Well, personally I think it's because there was too much accidental confusion with enema. As in, "bla bla bla...concussion...bla bla bla, better give this guy an NMR".
Ah, found a reference to the report I was thinking of.
Well, if you have a skin disorder, you probably don't have much choice. I seem to remember hearing that recent research indicated that there was really no safe levels of either UVA or UVB and that even the more benign and less energetic band still increases your chances of skin cancer significantly. Can't find a reference though.
read thisor the full document's google cache.
Yep. Obama's Energy Secretary pick, Steven Chu, is a Nobel prizewinner. While I think picking Geithner was a mistake because he was too beholden to a failed financial system, Chu's strong scientific background is leading to energy decisions based on sound scientific principles as opposed to lobbying and politics. If Obama fired Geithner and replaced him with Paul Krugman, there might actually be hope for a proper housecleaning in the financial industry, too.
It was a hydrogen-cracked pipe-dream.
Well, part of the "summer driving season" prices are due to increased demand from more individuals and families taking long car trips on vacations (basic econ: fixed supply + increase in demand => higher prices). Another big difference in costs is that they tend to use different formulations and additives in the summer. Note that the change-over starts happening in May which just might explain the recent price increase you've been seeing. See if your location corresponds to the areas covered by the regulation. Note that even if you aren't you may still be obtaining gas from a refinery in a covered area, which only produces summer RFG for efficiency.
On the other hand, if you'd tried to argue that the gasoline refiners are deliberately shutting down refineries to decrease supplies and increase prices, you might be able to find some supporting evidence.
The first option requires large capital investment and expropriation of flooded territories, usually limiting it to government and large corporations. The next three are also limited geographically and in scale, and can require substantial capital investment (although solar can also be small scale at a cost of lower efficiency). The last two have significant pollution/long term risk issues and lead to strong NIMBY opposition to new projects. The fission fuels and products also lead to substantial government oversight due to its potential for abuse/weaponization.
Fusion would also require substantial capital investments but, with enough popular education and evangelism, should not face the same opposition that fission or fossil fuels would. So there's at least some possibility that you might be able to privatize power generation with it and reap the benefits of competition, unlike current power generation approaches (as California quickly found out). Then again, marketers had to rename NMR to MRI because idiots freaked out that the N stood for "Nukular", so Luddites manipulating the more clueless NIMBYs can't be counted out.
Sure, and it's very useful in combating a number of illnesses and cancer. Indeed, it's quite likely that the reason why your skin makes Vitamin D given UV exposure is as an immune trigger for a proactive anti-skin cancer response. In which case giving yourself a UV exposure may be a cure that's not much better than the disease. There's also more and more indication that there really is no safe levels of UV skin exposure and that you're better off being pale and taking supplements.
Melanoma really doesn't appeal to me, so I would stick to the shrooms unless you've got nanobots that can take care of the cancer. Of course, if you've got that level of nanotech, you can probably just synthethize the vitamin D.
Perhaps if police weren't allowed to have an IQ cap and instead hired the brightest applicants instead of deliberately weeding them out, then they would have more success catching the 10 criminals on your block and could do it without breaking the law themselves.
From what I heard during the last election, it would appear that major city is Wasilla, AK
Or more likely, he's suppressing some cookie. The bank looks for the cookie, can't find it and thinks "Aha! New computer!". It then proceeds (after failing to create the cookie for the next time) to associate the data/state it needs with the HTTPS connection on the server side.