Not sure why this is marked as Troll since there was/is some debate about that. The more accepted theory today is that the first humans evolved in Africa and then migrated throughout the world. Hominids that had migrated out of Africa prior to the advent of modern humans in Africa (like Neanderthals)were replaced by early modern humans. I believe this theory is strengthened by looking at the genetic makeup of humans from all over the world.
Another theory is that modern humans evolved separately all over the world. In that case caucasians would be evolved neanderthals.
Still another theory is that early modern humans interbred with neanderthals. In that case caucasians would still have neanderthal genes to this day.
None of the last two theories have been proven and the first theory is more accepted. If the first theory is correct then it is possible that since neanderthals and modern Europeans both had to live in the same climate it makes sense that their outward appearances might become similar after a while.
Personally I think that it is likely that neanderthals have been given a bad rap and were probably more advanced than we give them credit for. Maybe if they were still around they would be able to fit in quiet nicely in our modern world? Of course we have enough trouble with racism in a world where were all human and have surprisingly little genetic differences. Imagine how history would be different if there were more than one species of advanced hominids living to this day.
The rice might be white but is it polished with glucose like in the US? Do they add sugar and high fructose corn syrup to the rice or what they eat with the rice like we would in the US during our "obesity epidemic?" I am guessing that if this is their main staple and they aren't getting Beri-Beri then it probably isn't what we would call polished white rice. Also note that while Asians don't get heart disease as much as we do, they do get cancer.
Some of these tribes I mentioned before did get a lot of their calories from carbs. It was unprocessed carbs that also came with loads of fiber. This lead to the theory that fiber somehow protects you from fat and we should all eat so much fiber that we have to poop every ten minutes. Another theory is that the fiber does help because it lessens the impact of the carbs by lower the GI index. So I guess if the second theory is right then if you are eating lots of sugar then maybe you should eat enough fiber that your insides feel like they are glued together? Constipation is another "disease of civilization" that didn't show up in the tribal communities.
You guys all assume that none of people, not in developing countries, but in tribes living as they had for thousands of years, down't live very long at all. For some strange reason you also assume that Taubes and the doctors whose accounts he cited were too stupid to figure that one out on their own. The fact is that in these tribes there still were at least some people living long enough that you would expect them to start getting cancer and heart disease had they lived in the western world. And yet many of these doctors would work for years in these areas see plenty of elder tribes people and not see one case of cancer or heart disease or obesity or type 2 diabetes. Not one.
People in Japan do have lower rates of heart disease than people in the US and western world. However people in Japan DO have higher rates of colon cancer. While we have been spending all of our time trying to lower our cholesterol the Japanese at some point figured out that if they raise their cholesterol then their colon cancer rates will go down. Now the Japanese are trying to eat more fat than ever before. I understand that mayo is like a 5th food group over there now (note though that unlike what you have been told the link between eating fat and your cholesterol level isn't as strong as you have been told! In fact except for trans fats most fats will actually raise your good cholesterol and many will lower your bad -- even saturated fat will raise you good cholesterol even if it does raise your bad somewhat.) With this change of diet the Japanese have been able to lower their colon cancer risk without raising their heart disease risk.
Also note that we tend to eat Uncle Ben's converted heavily processed so it doesn't stick together rice. While people in Asia tend to eat less processed rice. More processing equals higher GI index which would make the carbs more potent.
Anyway this Asia versus the US thing is where the entire low fat idea got started, right? Japan low heart disease rates high carb diet while the US has a higher fat diet and higher heart disease. So it must be the fat that is causing the heart disease (and you guys are accusing ME of not knowing that correlation doesn't equal causality.) Of course if they looked at the US versus the French or the US versus the Eskimos they may have come to the opposite conclusion.
But no, somehow we got convinced that it is the fat and not the sugar that is bad. So now we have to constantly come up with new ways of killing off the evidence that shows that we might be wrong about that. So we come up with new theories. Maybe the French don't get fat because they use garlic, maybe it is the wine, or that they don't cook their veggies as long. Could be the Eskimos are getting so much omega-3 from the fish that this is what is stopping them from getting heart disease as we think they should. Each time we try to protect our theory then our theory gets more and more complicated. Of course one simple answer may be that we have been wrong all along. Maybe fat isn't bad for you, maybe it is the sugar? There has always been a minority of scientists that have said that and now their ranks are growing. And if you are on the low fat side of the debate then you should be happy that there is this challenge coming. Show downs like these in the end strengthen the theory that eventually wins.
Well Taubes claims to have took into account all of the major (and many of the minor) studies that seem to agree or disagree with his thesis. His bibliography alone is over 60 pages long. In the text he discusses why he disagrees with studies that seem to show a link between cancer and fat. If you can point to studies that weren't in the bibliography it is likely because his publisher insisted that he cut the size of the book considerably (I think he cut it in half.)
Like I keep saying, agree or disagree the book is worth a read. I could come up with a long list of references that don't show any link between cancer and fat but I guess you could always argue that even though there might be no link between fat and cancers a-x there may be a link between fat and cancers y-z.
The fact is that over the last several decades we have been beaten over the head with the idea that fat is this big evil that is the cause of countless diseases. It just doesn't seem that this issue is as black and white as we have been told it is.
Maybe it is time we spent more time checking that tenuous relationship between sugar and cancer because we sure as hell spent and huge amount of time and money studying fat and cancer with surprising little results. Otto Warburg did win a Nobel prize for proving that cancer cells get their energy from sugar.
Taubes based his observation on the accounts of western trained doctors who set up hospitals to treat the members of these tribes. So according to his book the answer is: quiet frequently and quiet a lot of records.
However, many of those accounts were from doctors practicing in the late 1800's and early 1900's which explains why other people may ignore these accounts. It is likely though that even those old doctors would know some forms of cancer when they saw them and yet there are accounts of doctors spending years at hospitals servicing thousands of tribal members and yet the doctors would only see one or two cases of cancer (or in some cases none at all) during the entire time they were there, or until the tribes got more money and became westernized or switched to a more western diet. They would then go to a hospital in Philadelphia (as one example he mentioned) and see hundreds or thousands of cases of cancer from people of all races (discounting the idea that these tribes are genetically predisposed to not get cancer or that doctors at the time didn't know many forms of cancer when they saw it.)
All I can say is, even if you are skeptical you should read the book.
Gary Taubes sure thinks so. You should read his book "Good calories bad calories." He points out that cancer is one of a set of diseases that used to be called "diseases of civilization" (along with heart disease, obesity and a bunch of others) because they were extremely rare in tribal people from around the world until they became westernized.
One thing that always happens when people become westernized is that they eat more sugar and processed carbs. Gary claims that the sugar and cancer relationship has never been tested because it has been assumed that sugar is good while fat is bad. Yet if fat is the problem then why did Eskimos not get these diseases on their diet of largely whales and other animals until after they were westernized and started actually eating a lot less fat but tons of sugar and carbs?
And yet Maryland is THE wealthiest state in the union in terms of median household income and 4th richest in terms of personal per capita income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_locations_by_per_capita_income#_note-0 if it is on wikipedia then you know it is true.) I might have to pay more taxes to live here but when I look at my total paycheck then I literally laugh all the way to the bank. You can keep you lower taxes that go along with you much lower income!
Today I am proud to be a Marylander! I would break out singing a round of "Maryland My Maryland" (still Maryland's official song) if it weren't a song written at about the time of the civil war about what a jerk Lincoln is and how we should join the Confederacy.
Funny in 140 years or so Maryland has gone from that to being one of the more progressive states in the union. Seriously, don't let our past fool you Maryland is a great place to live -- and for the record we never did leave the union. Now let's not get into what the states official motto translates to.
What you are saying is that Edison is credited with inventing something just because he had the breakthrough of having something that actually worked? What were they thinking?
Hold on a minute. So is he saying that they put the "I'm feeling lucky" feature in just so we don't notice that google is really "16,000 people working on undermining your privacy?" So they make us think they are "just two kind of grad students hanging out and having a beer and having a grand old time" so we don't notice that the true purpose of google is to undermine our privacy?
Time to put on the tin foil hat -- I am on to you now google! You just made my list!
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
So a calorie is a calorie right? What's next? How about the second law of thermodynamics for one. No a calorie is not a calorie.
There is no reason to believe that the body would be as efficient at burning calories from fat as it would calories from carbs.
And you'd have to be insane to think a calorie from protein should equal a calorie of carbs because your body has no other use for carbs except energy while proteins are building blocks. Your body only converts protein to energy if there are no other sources.
I might also point out that without fat or protein you would die. Without carbs you... um... may not be able to go to the bathroom as easily. Ok with fat and protein and fiber but no other carbs you would live but your breath would stink from all of the ketones your body is producing so your brain and other parts of your body that can't burn fat straight up can still get energy. Just ask an Eskimo. They lived for thousands of years on yummy saturated fat from whales and seals (and very few carbs.) They also have a low rate of cancer and heart problems -- that is until they switch to a "healthy" modern diet. Funny how people who point out that people in asian countries must live longer because of their low fat diets forget to mention our native American friends living up north.
Expelling ketones wastes energy btw! Yet more proof that a calorie is not a calorie even if calories can't be created nor destroyed.
Something that has been known for hundreds of years is automatically correct if it has also been backed up with experimental evidence for hundreds of years. Taubes claims that the carb theory fits the experimental evidence better than the fat theory. He then challenges the medical community to prove him wrong.
If you can't prove the carb theory wrong and you can't prove the fat theory as being correct than eating a low fat diet is about as useful as breaking out your lancet to blood-let yourself.
Carter is blamed for it because he actually tried to do something about it instead of just ignoring it. Suggest I wear a sweater and switch to renewable energy? What are you crazy? Why in 20 years I am sure we will think of something else. If we ignore it then the problem goes away for a while and we can pretend it is someone else's problem (it will be someone else's problem -- our kids!)
Where has the time gone? Anyway as I recall that error only really affected the low megahertz pentiums and were fixed extremely early. I think that is probably because with millions of chips sooner or later someone is going to notice their code not executing correctly on brand X chip while working just fine on brand Y.
Let's say that this error does get out somehow though. Lets assume that the error only creeps in when a freakishly rare set of instructions is executed. It seems the companies upgrade their designs every couple of years. So I doubt that the problem would affect all intel super duo core whatever processors. Likely it would be all chips made between this date and that date and of this specific model.
So hackers would likely not know ahead of time which servers are affected so they would likely have to try to send the signal to as many servers as possible hoping that some would be affected.
Are you going to tell me that no one is going to notice that hackers are trying a specific exploit on so many machines?
And if there did exist such a problem in hardware how would it be that much worse or different than finding a big bug in software. In the end people would be forced to replace their chips or get a software patch. The company would get a big black eye and life would move on.
Yes there could be such exploits out there right now that we don't know about. But there are also many many more software exploits out there that we don't know about. How is the hardware problem worse or even much different?
I would be interested in knowing what wavelengths they are using since I am sure anything close to the midwave will be blocked by the car's windows and there won't be much blackbody radiation emitted in the near IR.
Although the FA says that they are measuring the reflectivity of the skin. So even heating a dummy would be useless -- all you would need is to find a material that has about the same reflectivity as human skin. I wonder how they measure the reflectivity? perhaps they emit two wavelengths and measure the relative return of both? Either way it would be an interesting problem.
Anyway there are laws against tinting your windows in the visible spectrum but how can they make a law against blocking invisible parts of the spectrum? When the camera says that no one is driving they can't exactly give a ticket and cops won't even know the windows are tinted for the near IR until they get the pictures back.
Also there is no limit to how old the car poolers have to be. Is it not legal to drive in the HOV lane with two infants in rear facing car seats? They would fail this test but be perfectly legal. Also what if the passenger is wearing a heavy coat and has her long hair to the camera? Would that give a false result? Maybe this entire thing is just trying to scare people straight. "Oooh they got them laser and them infer things pointed at me better not drive in that there HOV lane! Stupid goberment!"
Well maybe if there were more on TV then endless reality shows featuring idiots eating bugs then I might think of switching. I mean digital TV has a way better picture and everything but it is still just a guy eating a bug!
Also having an analog TV is like driving with a dirty windshield: you really don't notice until you see how much better it is to have a clean windshield. It is much cheaper for me not to notice the dirty windshield (especially since I am not driving so there is not safety issue.)
If libertarians hate the government so much why don't they just move to: Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Zimbabwe or one of the other nations listed as failed states because they have no working central government. Taxes are pretty low in those countries (unless you are shaken down by some type of warlord.) Or maybe governments can be good for something and maybe we shouldn't completely dismantle ours just yet.
I say one of the things a government is good for is protecting the rights of the many even if it impedes somewhat on the rights of the few. So no, big companies do not have the right to make infinite amounts of money at the expense of the little guy. Or maybe I am just not ready to move to the Sudan just yet.
Don't most open source licenses have one thing in common: you can use the software and install it on as many computers as you want free of charge. The problem comes up when you modify the code and then want to redistribute it. My question is how many businesses are modifying tons of different programs so that they have to worry about tons of different licenses? And if your company is big enough that you are modifying tons of programs then don't you have legal department with an army of high priced lawyers who would love to do nothing else but make sure you dotted all your i's and crossed your t's when it comes to the licenses? Maybe I missed something.
Well I think we have found a better use for carbs: an energy source for walkmen. When I ate a lot of carbs I ended up being over 100 lbs overweight. Cut them out and the weight drops off.
My Mom used to rent rotary phones for probably about $6 a month into the 1990's. When we suggested we switch to phones we bought she said that she didn't want to switch because if the phone broke ma bell would fix it. Of course after we pointed out that for $6 a month you could buy over 4 new phones every year we finally got touch tone phones. I think a lot of elderly people still rent out of the same fear.
After a while it becomes a job
on
Explosives Camp
·
· Score: 1
After working at Aberdeen Proving Ground for a couple of years I realized that blowing stuff up quickly becomes just a job. After getting over the "they are paying me to blow stuff up" thrill you realize how bogged down you have to be in safety procedures. It quickly becomes just another job. It is amazing how quickly you get used to hearing big booms in the background and the smell of burning brush and the sound of water carrying helicopters overhead putting out range fires. Soon you don't even notice it anymore.
If you are a generation X'er whose parents were in the middle class then your father probably wore a suit and a tie to work every day (my father and my wife's father did and he worked in IT since the 70's.) I have been in the job force as an electrical engineer for 9 years now and I have never had a job where I couldn't wear jeans and a t-shirt -- and I mostly work for companies related to the defense industry. I have even had jobs where I could wear shorts (and that was while I was working as a civilian for the Army.) The days where you were expected to wear a suit to work everyday are long over. Even if you are in sales you can probably go business casual (whatever that means.) I thank the 90's for that change! It has been years since my father in law has had to wear a suit to work!
What I want to know is why do front wheel drive cars today need such a big console in between the font seats. I know all cars today need a gazillion cup holders (that is more important than air bags) but I think they have taken it too far. One of the advantages of a front wheel drive car is that they are supposed to have more interior space than a rear wheel drive car because you don't have the transmission and drive train under the passenger compartment. But if you are going to put a huge console then really what is the point? Almost makes me want to buy a used Buick with the shifter on the column so I can spread my legs a little in a somewhat safe car. Plus I could leave my blinkers on for 10 miles and no one would care. Or I may go the other way and get a Scion XB. That box on wheels is the only 35mpg+ compact car that I have gotten into that I don't feel cramped.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure why this is marked as Troll since there was/is some debate about that. The more accepted theory today is that the first humans evolved in Africa and then migrated throughout the world. Hominids that had migrated out of Africa prior to the advent of modern humans in Africa (like Neanderthals)were replaced by early modern humans. I believe this theory is strengthened by looking at the genetic makeup of humans from all over the world.
Another theory is that modern humans evolved separately all over the world. In that case caucasians would be evolved neanderthals.
Still another theory is that early modern humans interbred with neanderthals. In that case caucasians would still have neanderthal genes to this day.
None of the last two theories have been proven and the first theory is more accepted. If the first theory is correct then it is possible that since neanderthals and modern Europeans both had to live in the same climate it makes sense that their outward appearances might become similar after a while.
Personally I think that it is likely that neanderthals have been given a bad rap and were probably more advanced than we give them credit for. Maybe if they were still around they would be able to fit in quiet nicely in our modern world? Of course we have enough trouble with racism in a world where were all human and have surprisingly little genetic differences. Imagine how history would be different if there were more than one species of advanced hominids living to this day.
The rice might be white but is it polished with glucose like in the US? Do they add sugar and high fructose corn syrup to the rice or what they eat with the rice like we would in the US during our "obesity epidemic?" I am guessing that if this is their main staple and they aren't getting Beri-Beri then it probably isn't what we would call polished white rice. Also note that while Asians don't get heart disease as much as we do, they do get cancer.
Some of these tribes I mentioned before did get a lot of their calories from carbs. It was unprocessed carbs that also came with loads of fiber. This lead to the theory that fiber somehow protects you from fat and we should all eat so much fiber that we have to poop every ten minutes. Another theory is that the fiber does help because it lessens the impact of the carbs by lower the GI index. So I guess if the second theory is right then if you are eating lots of sugar then maybe you should eat enough fiber that your insides feel like they are glued together? Constipation is another "disease of civilization" that didn't show up in the tribal communities.
You guys all assume that none of people, not in developing countries, but in tribes living as they had for thousands of years, down't live very long at all. For some strange reason you also assume that Taubes and the doctors whose accounts he cited were too stupid to figure that one out on their own. The fact is that in these tribes there still were at least some people living long enough that you would expect them to start getting cancer and heart disease had they lived in the western world. And yet many of these doctors would work for years in these areas see plenty of elder tribes people and not see one case of cancer or heart disease or obesity or type 2 diabetes. Not one.
People in Japan do have lower rates of heart disease than people in the US and western world. However people in Japan DO have higher rates of colon cancer. While we have been spending all of our time trying to lower our cholesterol the Japanese at some point figured out that if they raise their cholesterol then their colon cancer rates will go down. Now the Japanese are trying to eat more fat than ever before. I understand that mayo is like a 5th food group over there now (note though that unlike what you have been told the link between eating fat and your cholesterol level isn't as strong as you have been told! In fact except for trans fats most fats will actually raise your good cholesterol and many will lower your bad -- even saturated fat will raise you good cholesterol even if it does raise your bad somewhat.) With this change of diet the Japanese have been able to lower their colon cancer risk without raising their heart disease risk.
Also note that we tend to eat Uncle Ben's converted heavily processed so it doesn't stick together rice. While people in Asia tend to eat less processed rice. More processing equals higher GI index which would make the carbs more potent.
Anyway this Asia versus the US thing is where the entire low fat idea got started, right? Japan low heart disease rates high carb diet while the US has a higher fat diet and higher heart disease. So it must be the fat that is causing the heart disease (and you guys are accusing ME of not knowing that correlation doesn't equal causality.) Of course if they looked at the US versus the French or the US versus the Eskimos they may have come to the opposite conclusion.
But no, somehow we got convinced that it is the fat and not the sugar that is bad. So now we have to constantly come up with new ways of killing off the evidence that shows that we might be wrong about that. So we come up with new theories. Maybe the French don't get fat because they use garlic, maybe it is the wine, or that they don't cook their veggies as long. Could be the Eskimos are getting so much omega-3 from the fish that this is what is stopping them from getting heart disease as we think they should. Each time we try to protect our theory then our theory gets more and more complicated. Of course one simple answer may be that we have been wrong all along. Maybe fat isn't bad for you, maybe it is the sugar? There has always been a minority of scientists that have said that and now their ranks are growing. And if you are on the low fat side of the debate then you should be happy that there is this challenge coming. Show downs like these in the end strengthen the theory that eventually wins.
Well Taubes claims to have took into account all of the major (and many of the minor) studies that seem to agree or disagree with his thesis. His bibliography alone is over 60 pages long. In the text he discusses why he disagrees with studies that seem to show a link between cancer and fat. If you can point to studies that weren't in the bibliography it is likely because his publisher insisted that he cut the size of the book considerably (I think he cut it in half.)
Like I keep saying, agree or disagree the book is worth a read. I could come up with a long list of references that don't show any link between cancer and fat but I guess you could always argue that even though there might be no link between fat and cancers a-x there may be a link between fat and cancers y-z.
The fact is that over the last several decades we have been beaten over the head with the idea that fat is this big evil that is the cause of countless diseases. It just doesn't seem that this issue is as black and white as we have been told it is.
Maybe it is time we spent more time checking that tenuous relationship between sugar and cancer because we sure as hell spent and huge amount of time and money studying fat and cancer with surprising little results. Otto Warburg did win a Nobel prize for proving that cancer cells get their energy from sugar.
Taubes based his observation on the accounts of western trained doctors who set up hospitals to treat the members of these tribes. So according to his book the answer is: quiet frequently and quiet a lot of records.
However, many of those accounts were from doctors practicing in the late 1800's and early 1900's which explains why other people may ignore these accounts. It is likely though that even those old doctors would know some forms of cancer when they saw them and yet there are accounts of doctors spending years at hospitals servicing thousands of tribal members and yet the doctors would only see one or two cases of cancer (or in some cases none at all) during the entire time they were there, or until the tribes got more money and became westernized or switched to a more western diet. They would then go to a hospital in Philadelphia (as one example he mentioned) and see hundreds or thousands of cases of cancer from people of all races (discounting the idea that these tribes are genetically predisposed to not get cancer or that doctors at the time didn't know many forms of cancer when they saw it.)
All I can say is, even if you are skeptical you should read the book.
Gary Taubes sure thinks so. You should read his book "Good calories bad calories." He points out that cancer is one of a set of diseases that used to be called "diseases of civilization" (along with heart disease, obesity and a bunch of others) because they were extremely rare in tribal people from around the world until they became westernized.
One thing that always happens when people become westernized is that they eat more sugar and processed carbs. Gary claims that the sugar and cancer relationship has never been tested because it has been assumed that sugar is good while fat is bad. Yet if fat is the problem then why did Eskimos not get these diseases on their diet of largely whales and other animals until after they were westernized and started actually eating a lot less fat but tons of sugar and carbs?
And yet Maryland is THE wealthiest state in the union in terms of median household income and 4th richest in terms of personal per capita income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_locations_by_per_capita_income#_note-0 if it is on wikipedia then you know it is true.) I might have to pay more taxes to live here but when I look at my total paycheck then I literally laugh all the way to the bank. You can keep you lower taxes that go along with you much lower income!
Today I am proud to be a Marylander! I would break out singing a round of "Maryland My Maryland" (still Maryland's official song) if it weren't a song written at about the time of the civil war about what a jerk Lincoln is and how we should join the Confederacy.
Funny in 140 years or so Maryland has gone from that to being one of the more progressive states in the union. Seriously, don't let our past fool you Maryland is a great place to live -- and for the record we never did leave the union. Now let's not get into what the states official motto translates to.
What you are saying is that Edison is credited with inventing something just because he had the breakthrough of having something that actually worked? What were they thinking?
Hold on a minute. So is he saying that they put the "I'm feeling lucky" feature in just so we don't notice that google is really "16,000 people working on undermining your privacy?" So they make us think they are "just two kind of grad students hanging out and having a beer and having a grand old time" so we don't notice that the true purpose of google is to undermine our privacy?
Time to put on the tin foil hat -- I am on to you now google! You just made my list!
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
... um ... may not be able to go to the bathroom as easily. Ok with fat and protein and fiber but no other carbs you would live but your breath would stink from all of the ketones your body is producing so your brain and other parts of your body that can't burn fat straight up can still get energy. Just ask an Eskimo. They lived for thousands of years on yummy saturated fat from whales and seals (and very few carbs.) They also have a low rate of cancer and heart problems -- that is until they switch to a "healthy" modern diet. Funny how people who point out that people in asian countries must live longer because of their low fat diets forget to mention our native American friends living up north.
So a calorie is a calorie right? What's next? How about the second law of thermodynamics for one. No a calorie is not a calorie.
There is no reason to believe that the body would be as efficient at burning calories from fat as it would calories from carbs.
And you'd have to be insane to think a calorie from protein should equal a calorie of carbs because your body has no other use for carbs except energy while proteins are building blocks. Your body only converts protein to energy if there are no other sources.
I might also point out that without fat or protein you would die. Without carbs you
Expelling ketones wastes energy btw! Yet more proof that a calorie is not a calorie even if calories can't be created nor destroyed.
Something that has been known for hundreds of years is automatically correct if it has also been backed up with experimental evidence for hundreds of years. Taubes claims that the carb theory fits the experimental evidence better than the fat theory. He then challenges the medical community to prove him wrong.
If you can't prove the carb theory wrong and you can't prove the fat theory as being correct than eating a low fat diet is about as useful as breaking out your lancet to blood-let yourself.
Carter is blamed for it because he actually tried to do something about it instead of just ignoring it. Suggest I wear a sweater and switch to renewable energy? What are you crazy? Why in 20 years I am sure we will think of something else. If we ignore it then the problem goes away for a while and we can pretend it is someone else's problem (it will be someone else's problem -- our kids!)
Where has the time gone? Anyway as I recall that error only really affected the low megahertz pentiums and were fixed extremely early. I think that is probably because with millions of chips sooner or later someone is going to notice their code not executing correctly on brand X chip while working just fine on brand Y.
Let's say that this error does get out somehow though. Lets assume that the error only creeps in when a freakishly rare set of instructions is executed. It seems the companies upgrade their designs every couple of years. So I doubt that the problem would affect all intel super duo core whatever processors. Likely it would be all chips made between this date and that date and of this specific model.
So hackers would likely not know ahead of time which servers are affected so they would likely have to try to send the signal to as many servers as possible hoping that some would be affected.
Are you going to tell me that no one is going to notice that hackers are trying a specific exploit on so many machines?
And if there did exist such a problem in hardware how would it be that much worse or different than finding a big bug in software. In the end people would be forced to replace their chips or get a software patch. The company would get a big black eye and life would move on.
Yes there could be such exploits out there right now that we don't know about. But there are also many many more software exploits out there that we don't know about. How is the hardware problem worse or even much different?
Just wondering?
I would be interested in knowing what wavelengths they are using since I am sure anything close to the midwave will be blocked by the car's windows and there won't be much blackbody radiation emitted in the near IR.
Although the FA says that they are measuring the reflectivity of the skin. So even heating a dummy would be useless -- all you would need is to find a material that has about the same reflectivity as human skin. I wonder how they measure the reflectivity? perhaps they emit two wavelengths and measure the relative return of both? Either way it would be an interesting problem.
Anyway there are laws against tinting your windows in the visible spectrum but how can they make a law against blocking invisible parts of the spectrum? When the camera says that no one is driving they can't exactly give a ticket and cops won't even know the windows are tinted for the near IR until they get the pictures back.
Also there is no limit to how old the car poolers have to be. Is it not legal to drive in the HOV lane with two infants in rear facing car seats? They would fail this test but be perfectly legal. Also what if the passenger is wearing a heavy coat and has her long hair to the camera? Would that give a false result? Maybe this entire thing is just trying to scare people straight. "Oooh they got them laser and them infer things pointed at me better not drive in that there HOV lane! Stupid goberment!"
Well maybe if there were more on TV then endless reality shows featuring idiots eating bugs then I might think of switching. I mean digital TV has a way better picture and everything but it is still just a guy eating a bug!
Also having an analog TV is like driving with a dirty windshield: you really don't notice until you see how much better it is to have a clean windshield. It is much cheaper for me not to notice the dirty windshield (especially since I am not driving so there is not safety issue.)
If libertarians hate the government so much why don't they just move to: Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Zimbabwe or one of the other nations listed as failed states because they have no working central government. Taxes are pretty low in those countries (unless you are shaken down by some type of warlord.) Or maybe governments can be good for something and maybe we shouldn't completely dismantle ours just yet.
I say one of the things a government is good for is protecting the rights of the many even if it impedes somewhat on the rights of the few. So no, big companies do not have the right to make infinite amounts of money at the expense of the little guy. Or maybe I am just not ready to move to the Sudan just yet.
They don't tell us that the animal house frat is actually on a double secret probational bandwidth limit from comcast.
Don't most open source licenses have one thing in common: you can use the software and install it on as many computers as you want free of charge. The problem comes up when you modify the code and then want to redistribute it. My question is how many businesses are modifying tons of different programs so that they have to worry about tons of different licenses? And if your company is big enough that you are modifying tons of programs then don't you have legal department with an army of high priced lawyers who would love to do nothing else but make sure you dotted all your i's and crossed your t's when it comes to the licenses? Maybe I missed something.
Raise your hand if you typed "ls -h" on your box just to make sure it still works right.
Well I think we have found a better use for carbs: an energy source for walkmen. When I ate a lot of carbs I ended up being over 100 lbs overweight. Cut them out and the weight drops off.
My Mom used to rent rotary phones for probably about $6 a month into the 1990's. When we suggested we switch to phones we bought she said that she didn't want to switch because if the phone broke ma bell would fix it. Of course after we pointed out that for $6 a month you could buy over 4 new phones every year we finally got touch tone phones. I think a lot of elderly people still rent out of the same fear.
After working at Aberdeen Proving Ground for a couple of years I realized that blowing stuff up quickly becomes just a job. After getting over the "they are paying me to blow stuff up" thrill you realize how bogged down you have to be in safety procedures. It quickly becomes just another job. It is amazing how quickly you get used to hearing big booms in the background and the smell of burning brush and the sound of water carrying helicopters overhead putting out range fires. Soon you don't even notice it anymore.
If you are a generation X'er whose parents were in the middle class then your father probably wore a suit and a tie to work every day (my father and my wife's father did and he worked in IT since the 70's.) I have been in the job force as an electrical engineer for 9 years now and I have never had a job where I couldn't wear jeans and a t-shirt -- and I mostly work for companies related to the defense industry. I have even had jobs where I could wear shorts (and that was while I was working as a civilian for the Army.) The days where you were expected to wear a suit to work everyday are long over. Even if you are in sales you can probably go business casual (whatever that means.) I thank the 90's for that change! It has been years since my father in law has had to wear a suit to work!
What I want to know is why do front wheel drive cars today need such a big console in between the font seats. I know all cars today need a gazillion cup holders (that is more important than air bags) but I think they have taken it too far. One of the advantages of a front wheel drive car is that they are supposed to have more interior space than a rear wheel drive car because you don't have the transmission and drive train under the passenger compartment. But if you are going to put a huge console then really what is the point? Almost makes me want to buy a used Buick with the shifter on the column so I can spread my legs a little in a somewhat safe car. Plus I could leave my blinkers on for 10 miles and no one would care. Or I may go the other way and get a Scion XB. That box on wheels is the only 35mpg+ compact car that I have gotten into that I don't feel cramped.