See my comment above to see what I think about the thin line between bomb threats and real bombs. To quote myself: "It takes just one nutcase to decide to move from threats to actions. If you have a big enough anti-anything group, you are sure to find at least one such nutcase." Sorry for being redundant, but I really am worried about "pranks" like these.
Do you want the agencies in charge of these things to not go after people who make bomb threats? It takes just one nutcase to decide to move from threats to actions. If you have a big enough anti-anything group, you are sure to find at least one such nutcase. I would like to see said agencies going after people making bomb threats to make sure they don't start to make real bombs.
Why -1 Troll? Bomb threats are dangerous weapons and I consider them a form of violence. They are no more appropriate here than they are in the GP's example. Remember, there are many people in the office being "attacked", not just greedy lawyers. There are assistants, secretaries, paralegals and more. Do all of them need to suffer because of their boss(es)? They are just hones people trying to make a living. Would it be OK if someone made a bomb threat on the place you are working at because of your employer's business decisions?
Sorry, but I hate those "I'm not justifying, but..." comments. A DDoS is not so bad, but a bomb threat? There is no justifying it. Yes, they are trolls, but it doesn't mean that every thing is fair in the name of "retaliation". Or as the saying goes "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". The phrasing of the opening sentence does justify Operation Payback's action, if somehow indirectly. In my country there have been a few cases of violence against doctors by angered patients or their families. Whenever there is a news item about such a case you see the inevitable comment: "I am not justifying violence, but sometimes doctors can be such assholes/jerks/arrogant bastards/whatever and they just deserve a few blows to straighten them up". I would have worded the sentence differently: "If the US Copyright Group is going to act like a bully, they are going to experience some backlash in a variety of forms, however, this does not justify bomb threats." I will refrain from using the FTFY word:)
"250,000 street signs in New York City feature street names in capital letters only..."
And you said:
"The life of a typical sign is about a decade..."
According to your source, NYC replaces 8,000 signs a year. So after a decade, I assume that 80,000 signs are replaced (I am not a mathematician, but...). Something in the math doesn't add up:- either the "life of a typical sign" is more than a decade or more than 8,000 signs a replaced each year... Or maybe they were talking about half-life.
Yes, but cAMP has so many other functions that a drug affecting it would have many more side-effects - which is exactly why PDE5 was chosen as a drug target (for the original anti-pulmonary hypertension drug).
I just love it when you take an anecdotal case and use it to disprove a general statement. Midparental height can predict the range of a child's final height (with the height within that range governed by environmental variables). Of course, this range is X SD. I believe this is 2 SD, (but citation needed) and so it means that 5% of children will be outside of the predicted range - 2.5% above and 2.5% below. Congratulations, you are a statistical deviant; Welcome to Slashdot.
The really interesting thing is that if you take both parents' height, you can predict a child's final height within a narrow range (using midparental height). It is estimated that genes a responsible for about 60-80% of the human variation in height, and yet after all the research that has been done, and the hundreds of genes found, we can only account for 10% of the human variation. This means that in addition to those hundreds, there are hundreds, if not thousands, more who have a smaller role in determining about 50-70% of our final height. Talk about the long tail.
That would make sense as birds are typically the first species to be attacked by such viruses.
Where did you get that from? Yes, there's the Avian Influenza, but from there to go on and say that birds are typically the source of such viruses? Most human Influenza viruses are from a human-origin. From Wikipedia:
"All influenza A pandemics since [the Spanish flu pandemic], and indeed almost all cases of influenza A worldwide (excepting human infections from avian viruses such as H5N1 and H7N7), have been caused by descendants of the 1918 virus, including "drifted" H1N1 viruses and reassorted H2N2 and H3N2 viruses. The latter are composed of key genes from the 1918 virus, updated by subsequently incorporated avian influenza genes that code for novel surface proteins, making the 1918 virus indeed the "mother" of all pandemics"
Further searching did not reveal the the origin of the 1918 virus was birds.
And talking about "such viruses", the article was talking about the Hepatitis Virus B (HBV). I don't know of any evidence that the virus came from birds, So please clarify the meaning of your original statement.
No, you are going at it all wrong. What you propose is based on the premises of logic, whilst the rules are based on politics (AKA votes-whoring and popularity). Since anyone with any reasonable amount of logic is not trying to be involved in the cesspool called politics, then it is obvious that the two domains are mutually exclusive and thus your post has no bearing on the issue whatsoever.
And on a serious note: Too bad you are 100% correct. Not only is there no proof to the dangers of cellphone radiation, but also if there was any danger, then the correct course of action would be to put as many low-power towers as possible, as per your post. Sadly enough, the ones passing the rules don't deem it important enough to consult anyone who actually understand something in this issue.
You are right, they are purposely avoiding using the same isotopes to avoid observing the phenomenon that caused them to perform this research. "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." Call me naive, but maybe they had better reasons not to use the same material. I am not a physicist, so I don't know if it's correct, but here are some reasons I thought of, of the top of my head: 1) Gold may have more neutrino activity, so there was a better chance to observe said phenomenon. 2) The scientists involved have more experience working with gold, so they preferred using a material they are experienced with. 3) Gold may be easier to work with and this it is easier to construct thin foils. 4) They had a pile of unused gold and didn't know what to do with it:)
Again, I don't know if these are valid/correct reasons, but I'm somehow convinced there is a better reason than the one you stated.
I think the proper phrasing should be "No evidence for inconsistency of nuclear decay found". It seems pedantic, but proper scientific methodology works this way. There can still be inconsistency in nuclear decay, just not in this test scenario. You cannot prove consistency, you con only be very, very sure this is how nuclear decay works because you performed many studies that have failed to show something else. (Not that I despute their findings).
That reminds me of a story I read about a woman who suffered from Rheumatoid Arthritis for 20 years with no relief, although she tried every medications possible. One day her doctor gave her one of the new biological drugs and she got better and was walking around without any pain. In the interview she thanked God for giving her the medication that freed her from the pain. I never did understand why she didn't blame God for the 20 years of suffering that preceeded the "miracle". People somehow react to God in a very asymmetrical manner.
Actually the first thing I noticed is that I misspelled "effectively". Other than that, you have a point, although what you said can be said about many, if not most, technological advances. Since one of the aims of technology is to make life easier, a necessary by product is that it takes less ingenuity to do things with more complicated technological products, some of them needing a power source, and they usually cost more money than whatever came before them. On the upside, since it is easier to send messages, the children pass more messages, which mean they write and read more, even if it mostly in the new Internet-era shorthand dialect.
And this is a surprise because...? Even without taking into account the fact that many children embrace technology much more than many adults, we can find many reasons for the "findings" of the study: 1) Children have more spare time. 2) Children spend much of their time communicating with their friends, and texting is an effective way to accomplish that. 3) Texting is probably the only safe way to communicate during classes, apart for the old time method of passing a note. Probably many more reasons, but I'm too tired to think about them.
And this is surprising because...? I don't understand why it amazes anyone that kids text more than adults. Even without taking into account that kids embrace technology more than (some) adults, we have many reasons for the "findings" of the study: 1) Kids have more spare time. 2) Kids spend their time communicating with their friends. 3) In classes, texting is the only possible way to communicate with others without the teacher catching on to you (electively replacing the secret notes of our generation) Probably many more reasons, but I don't feel like trying too hard thinking about them. I'll SMS you when I figured out some more.
Energy - burned into CO2 and H2O (as explained in a post above me)
don't you understand?
I was separating our intake into plain water and foods. Foods I divided into the water content of the food and the solids (proteins, carbohydrates, etc.). About the water (plain + water in the food) I said it is WIWO. Regarding the solids, I said some is used to build stuff (AKA cells... mostly) and some is used to make energy. Regarding energy, I agreed that the output is CO2 + H2O (AKA water). Here we have de novo creation of water, and thus this water is not WIWO. Agreed, in my original post I didn't mention water. Someone else mentioned it, and in my last post (the one your so nicely quoted me... selectively), I mentioned it and took it into my argument. The funny thing is, that even if there is no water at all or if 99% of what we eat is water, it doesn't change the basic fact that our metabolism makes CO2 and if we let plants trap CO2 and succeed in hindering their decomposition, then we can have a negative CO2 balance. Everyone is so bent on the water point, without seeing that it is totally irrelevant to the basic idea of TFA. It is meaningful when we want to try and calculate how much CO2 exactly we can trap in each kg of plants and how much CO2 a person makes.
Slashdot Mirror
+5 just for the Motie reference.
See my comment above to see what I think about the thin line between bomb threats and real bombs. To quote myself: "It takes just one nutcase to decide to move from threats to actions. If you have a big enough anti-anything group, you are sure to find at least one such nutcase."
Sorry for being redundant, but I really am worried about "pranks" like these.
Do you want the agencies in charge of these things to not go after people who make bomb threats? It takes just one nutcase to decide to move from threats to actions. If you have a big enough anti-anything group, you are sure to find at least one such nutcase. I would like to see said agencies going after people making bomb threats to make sure they don't start to make real bombs.
Why -1 Troll? Bomb threats are dangerous weapons and I consider them a form of violence. They are no more appropriate here than they are in the GP's example. Remember, there are many people in the office being "attacked", not just greedy lawyers. There are assistants, secretaries, paralegals and more. Do all of them need to suffer because of their boss(es)? They are just hones people trying to make a living. Would it be OK if someone made a bomb threat on the place you are working at because of your employer's business decisions?
Sorry, but I hate those "I'm not justifying, but..." comments. A DDoS is not so bad, but a bomb threat? There is no justifying it. Yes, they are trolls, but it doesn't mean that every thing is fair in the name of "retaliation". Or as the saying goes "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". The phrasing of the opening sentence does justify Operation Payback's action, if somehow indirectly. :)
In my country there have been a few cases of violence against doctors by angered patients or their families. Whenever there is a news item about such a case you see the inevitable comment: "I am not justifying violence, but sometimes doctors can be such assholes/jerks/arrogant bastards/whatever and they just deserve a few blows to straighten them up".
I would have worded the sentence differently: "If the US Copyright Group is going to act like a bully, they are going to experience some backlash in a variety of forms, however, this does not justify bomb threats." I will refrain from using the FTFY word
I have a small math problem:
According to TFS:
"250,000 street signs in New York City feature street names in capital letters only..."
And you said:
"The life of a typical sign is about a decade..."
According to your source, NYC replaces 8,000 signs a year. So after a decade, I assume that 80,000 signs are replaced (I am not a mathematician, but...). Something in the math doesn't add up:- either the "life of a typical sign" is more than a decade or more than 8,000 signs a replaced each year... Or maybe they were talking about half-life.
Yes, but cAMP has so many other functions that a drug affecting it would have many more side-effects - which is exactly why PDE5 was chosen as a drug target (for the original anti-pulmonary hypertension drug).
And one more thing:
What test based on them would predict my height of 6'11"? (Or my two brothers at 6'5" and 6'8".)
The neighbor test? How tall is he? :)
I just love it when you take an anecdotal case and use it to disprove a general statement.
Midparental height can predict the range of a child's final height (with the height within that range governed by environmental variables). Of course, this range is X SD. I believe this is 2 SD, (but citation needed) and so it means that 5% of children will be outside of the predicted range - 2.5% above and 2.5% below.
Congratulations, you are a statistical deviant; Welcome to Slashdot.
The really interesting thing is that if you take both parents' height, you can predict a child's final height within a narrow range (using midparental height). It is estimated that genes a responsible for about 60-80% of the human variation in height, and yet after all the research that has been done, and the hundreds of genes found, we can only account for 10% of the human variation. This means that in addition to those hundreds, there are hundreds, if not thousands, more who have a smaller role in determining about 50-70% of our final height. Talk about the long tail.
+1 Informative, but one small correction, The drug works by inhibiting the degradation of cGMP, not cAMP. More on that here.
That would make sense as birds are typically the first species to be attacked by such viruses.
Where did you get that from? Yes, there's the Avian Influenza, but from there to go on and say that birds are typically the source of such viruses? Most human Influenza viruses are from a human-origin. From Wikipedia:
"All influenza A pandemics since [the Spanish flu pandemic], and indeed almost all cases of influenza A worldwide (excepting human infections from avian viruses such as H5N1 and H7N7), have been caused by descendants of the 1918 virus, including "drifted" H1N1 viruses and reassorted H2N2 and H3N2 viruses. The latter are composed of key genes from the 1918 virus, updated by subsequently incorporated avian influenza genes that code for novel surface proteins, making the 1918 virus indeed the "mother" of all pandemics"
Further searching did not reveal the the origin of the 1918 virus was birds.
And talking about "such viruses", the article was talking about the Hepatitis Virus B (HBV). I don't know of any evidence that the virus came from birds, So please clarify the meaning of your original statement.
No, you are going at it all wrong. What you propose is based on the premises of logic, whilst the rules are based on politics (AKA votes-whoring and popularity). Since anyone with any reasonable amount of logic is not trying to be involved in the cesspool called politics, then it is obvious that the two domains are mutually exclusive and thus your post has no bearing on the issue whatsoever.
And on a serious note: Too bad you are 100% correct. Not only is there no proof to the dangers of cellphone radiation, but also if there was any danger, then the correct course of action would be to put as many low-power towers as possible, as per your post. Sadly enough, the ones passing the rules don't deem it important enough to consult anyone who actually understand something in this issue.
you may not be a physicist, but you nailed the scientific methodology exactly. Kudos.
You are right, they are purposely avoiding using the same isotopes to avoid observing the phenomenon that caused them to perform this research. "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." :)
Call me naive, but maybe they had better reasons not to use the same material. I am not a physicist, so I don't know if it's correct, but here are some reasons I thought of, of the top of my head:
1) Gold may have more neutrino activity, so there was a better chance to observe said phenomenon.
2) The scientists involved have more experience working with gold, so they preferred using a material they are experienced with.
3) Gold may be easier to work with and this it is easier to construct thin foils.
4) They had a pile of unused gold and didn't know what to do with it
Again, I don't know if these are valid/correct reasons, but I'm somehow convinced there is a better reason than the one you stated.
Well, but our nice editors have used the incorrect phrase "Scientists confirm nuclear decay rate consistancy". Just responding to that.
I think the proper phrasing should be "No evidence for inconsistency of nuclear decay found". It seems pedantic, but proper scientific methodology works this way. There
can still be inconsistency in nuclear decay, just not in this test scenario. You cannot prove consistency, you con only be very, very sure this is how nuclear decay works because you performed many studies that have failed to show something else. (Not that I despute their findings).
That reminds me of a story I read about a woman who suffered from Rheumatoid Arthritis for 20 years with no relief, although she tried every medications possible. One day her doctor gave her one of the new biological drugs and she got better and was walking around without any pain.
In the interview she thanked God for giving her the medication that freed her from the pain. I never did understand why she didn't blame God for the 20 years of suffering that preceeded the "miracle". People somehow react to God in a very asymmetrical manner.
Actually the first thing I noticed is that I misspelled "effectively". Other than that, you have a point, although what you said can be said about many, if not most, technological advances. Since one of the aims of technology is to make life easier, a necessary by product is that it takes less ingenuity to do things with more complicated technological products, some of them needing a power source, and they usually cost more money than whatever came before them.
On the upside, since it is easier to send messages, the children pass more messages, which mean they write and read more, even if it mostly in the new Internet-era shorthand dialect.
I only send 2 posts per week; I try to make them count :)
It was broken for about an hour, give or take. I accidentally posted the same comment twice because of this.
Sorry for double posting. Had some troubles on my side of the connection :(
And this is a surprise because...? Even without taking into account the fact that many children embrace technology much more than many adults, we can find many reasons for the "findings" of the study:
1) Children have more spare time.
2) Children spend much of their time communicating with their friends, and texting is an effective way to accomplish that.
3) Texting is probably the only safe way to communicate during classes, apart for the old time method of passing a note.
Probably many more reasons, but I'm too tired to think about them.
And this is surprising because...? I don't understand why it amazes anyone that kids text more than adults. Even without taking into account that kids embrace technology more than (some) adults, we have many reasons for the "findings" of the study:
1) Kids have more spare time.
2) Kids spend their time communicating with their friends.
3) In classes, texting is the only possible way to communicate with others without the teacher catching on to you (electively replacing the secret notes of our generation)
Probably many more reasons, but I don't feel like trying too hard thinking about them. I'll SMS you when I figured out some more.
What part of
Energy - burned into CO2 and H2O (as explained in a post above me)
don't you understand?
I was separating our intake into plain water and foods. Foods I divided into the water content of the food and the solids (proteins, carbohydrates, etc.). About the water (plain + water in the food) I said it is WIWO. Regarding the solids, I said some is used to build stuff (AKA cells... mostly) and some is used to make energy. Regarding energy, I agreed that the output is CO2 + H2O (AKA water). Here we have de novo creation of water, and thus this water is not WIWO.
Agreed, in my original post I didn't mention water. Someone else mentioned it, and in my last post (the one your so nicely quoted me... selectively), I mentioned it and took it into my argument.
The funny thing is, that even if there is no water at all or if 99% of what we eat is water, it doesn't change the basic fact that our metabolism makes CO2 and if we let plants trap CO2 and succeed in hindering their decomposition, then we can have a negative CO2 balance. Everyone is so bent on the water point, without seeing that it is totally irrelevant to the basic idea of TFA. It is meaningful when we want to try and calculate how much CO2 exactly we can trap in each kg of plants and how much CO2 a person makes.