I'm sure they'll be delighted to know that last year was not only one of the coolest on record, but that the trend was so pronounced as "to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down."[dailytech.com] So, we're supposed to reject the nigh-universal consensus of climate scientists because a blogger tells us to?
How are you going to ensure that everything on your net is "G" rated? Do these people have any idea how much labor would be involved in the constant policing?
As one of the comments to TFA notes, one problem with the studies reviewed is that the trials may not have been long enough to detect differences. They were mostly 6 week trials, with a few shorter and a few longer. That may not be long enough to pick up a significant difference. The effects for some can peak between 6-8 weeks. Disclaimer: I am a psychologist. Also, you may have to try several different classes of antidepressant, and several dosage levels of each. (The doctors usually start you at the low end of the recommended dosages and work up from there.)
I have a close friend who took 15 months to get it right. Now he's a changed person.
The moral for people starting treatment: be patient! Don't despair if the first few combinations don't work. AIUI there are cases where nothing at all works, but don't conclude that until your doctor has literally tried everything.
Why are they unpublished? Sure the first thought may be to "because they didn't have the outcome the sponsor wanted" In that case, I would hardly expect them to become available now either.
I'm moving to another country where crazy isn't an approved religion. Forgive my cynicism, but is there *any* religion that isn't f'ing crazy when you get right down to it? After all, they all ask you to make some of the most important decisions about the way you live your life on the basis of hearsay evidence -- which in my experience *never* stands up to even the most casual scrutiny.
For that matter, every religious person on the planet can clearly see the folly of everyone else's religion. Isn't there something a rational person would conclude from that fact?
Does the GPL also create an imbalance between the rights of the distributer and the rights of the consumer? Don't know, but what's important is that we play by the same legal rules regardless of the license. Can't say shrinkwrap is enforcable but GPL is not, nor vice versa.
I used to be conscientious about reading them, but I came to the same conclusion as a report: IANAL, and I don't have a clue what all the legalbabble actually means. In the unlikely event I ever end up in court over one of them, that's exactly what I'll tell the judge.
Just seeing that the name of this new command is the "cyber command" makes me want to run right out and hack a Gibson. It makes me want to ask them WTF they think "cyber" means.
I take it you graduated from Berkeley. Our soldiers, not counting the rare psycho who slips in, do not target civilians. You must be thinking of Hamas and Al Quada who consider babies a perfectly legitimate target. Whereas out people consider them perfectly legitimate collateral casualties?
Are you aware that last year's drop in US casualties in Iraq was the result of switching from ground engagements to air raids, which are up by a factor of five since a year ago? Our leaders are happily trading Iraqi babies for a reduced anti-war sentiment back home.
Every single soldier I know would be appalled at the very idea of attacking civilians. Every single one of them would refuse an order to do so. Yeah, you can tell by what has been going on in Iraq, and how determinedly the top brass go about investigating an incident when the public finds out.
Not every soldier is a monster, but you have to drink some powerful kool-aid to think wars don't bring out the monster in a lot of otherwise decent people.
War is never necessary except for those who's purpose it serves. For the rest of us - the other %99.9999... war is not necessary. To keep people such as Bush, Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, etc... in power they need wars. War is the best thing that drives their mission. It defines them. It drives them forward. It gives them power. It sucks the life out of everyone though. It is futile.
You obviously have bought the mainstream propaganda about war. War is all about death and power. Killing others so that you have power. That is evil no matter what side you are on. So if the Mongols come around burning your people's villages and raping their donkeys, you shouldn't take up arms against it?
Those that provide technical support to those that kill are also responsible for the deaths that they cause. As are those who benefit from it?
I suspect we're all a little bit guilty of a lot of bad stuff, if you're willing to peel back enough layers.
(I wonder who owned "my" land 500 years ago, and how many people got killed in the sequence of changes in ownership that ultimately put it in my hands.)
Deadbeat != security expert. Get a job and cut your hair, dude.
Pothead |= deadbeat. Judge results, not style, shitsuck. Your rebuttal is somewhat weakened by your unfortunate choice of the logical symbol for "entails" to indicate the inequality!
I sort of figure his example of the Basset Hound is, prima facie, proof that you're a fucking idiot. It obviously works. I mean, the hound is no wolf. I think there's a good point there. And what does that point have to do with the Intelligent Design movement, which consists of nothing but bogus proofs that evolution couldn't have done this or that, followed by equally bogus conclusions that "somebody" must have done it instead?
Did you learn where basset hounds came from by doing a CSI calculation?
I'm getting pretty sick of all the fucking idiots like you here on Slashdot. It's pretty fucking basic: just because a class of Creationists have decided to call their flavor of belief Intelligent Design does not mean that the class of people who recognize Intelligent Design as a functioning and present method of speciation and evolution are actually Creationists. Intelligent Design is prima facie nonsense. It doesn't offer any functioning method for anything, let alone one that actually works.
And it's creationism, pure and simple. Scratch an IDiot and you get an evangelical. Or a Republican who wants the evangelical vote.
Example of fuzziness on the term "evolution:" does that mean pure atheistic evolution, including a theory like the Big Bang? Christ on a Crutch! You could be the poster child for why people laugh at creationists as willful imbiciles.
And while we're at it, what makes you think big bang cosmology is any more "atheistic" than any other branch of science, mathematics, or engineering? Others of your cult argue that it's *proof* that Genesis I is correct! No science invokes God as an explanation, but theists can add "and God had something to do with it" to *any* scientific theory -- except the ones for which they've somehow decided they don't want to. You and others of your cult have obviously made different decisions about whether to add "goddidit" to big bang cosmology or to deny it altogether.
so. The word "evolution" is extremely specific? I really don't think so. It's Latin for "unrolling", used as a metaphor exactly as we use "unfolding" in Modern English. And as with lots of other fancy Latin words, it has been adopted for various specific scientific usages, including biological evolution, stellar evolution, etc. Context is usually sufficient to identify which one is under discussion; only an ideogogue would confuse the issue in general. (E.g, the nutwingfucktards who think big bang cosmology is "Darwinism".)
This post will be a test: will this post be modded based on my religion or on the post's logical and argumentative quality/content! Hard to say why a post gets moderated. But it's pretty obvious that 1. He is probably a religious idiot. explains the content. (Unless you were parodying, which is trivially easy given the predictability of what evolution deniers say.)
They do NOT refer to "macro" and "micro" evolution; those terms were invented by anti-science religious types, and have zero scientific credibility or applicability. Biologists tell me that those terms (and others such as "irreducible complexity") were actually introduced by scientists. Presumably becase, like many other phenomena, it is useful to examine biological evolution at more than one scale.
Creationists have merely co-opted them for their evolution denial needs. The micro/macro distinction is a way of conceeding things they can no longer deny in front of the general public without being laughed at in the age of DNA sequencing, while still drawing a line between that and common descent, which less of the public is familiar with the evidence for.
The bad news for science is where there IS funding. Science should be independent of government as much as possible. AFAICT, federally funded science has historically been pretty independent of political meddling.
Of course, you might be experiencing difficulties if you are researching climate change or the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs under the current administration, but hopefully that's a short-term blip on an otherwise effective system.
Meanwhile, it didn't do it any long-term favors to biomedical research, as the NIH and university leaderships handled their huge influx of money about as well as Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan did with theirs. There are dozens of universities with new buildings they were planning to pay off with NIH overhead, that are now completely screwed. In my admittedly limited experience, buildings are far to expensive to pay off with the F&A overhead of federal research grants. That's why they're virtually always funded by rich donors.
Perhaps you know of a few dozen exceptions?
F&A money usually runs about 1/3 of the total grant, but is immediately split up between the researcher's department, college, and university (and even the researcher gets a slice back, laundered of its spending restrictions). Not all of those parties want to spend their slice on a new building; in fact most of it goes toward operating expenses and (relatively) small purchases that are not in their institutional budget. Trying to squeeze $10MM out of it would seriously cramp their style.
Slashdot Mirror
How are you going to ensure that everything on your net is "G" rated? Do these people have any idea how much labor would be involved in the constant policing?
I have a close friend who took 15 months to get it right. Now he's a changed person.
The moral for people starting treatment: be patient! Don't despair if the first few combinations don't work. AIUI there are cases where nothing at all works, but don't conclude that until your doctor has literally tried everything.
BTW, I thought Jesus's middle name started with an "H". Are we talking about two different Jesi?
For that matter, every religious person on the planet can clearly see the folly of everyone else's religion. Isn't there something a rational person would conclude from that fact?
I used to be conscientious about reading them, but I came to the same conclusion as a report: IANAL, and I don't have a clue what all the legalbabble actually means. In the unlikely event I ever end up in court over one of them, that's exactly what I'll tell the judge.
Yeah, FOX is too busy trying to drum up a war with Iran.
Are you aware that last year's drop in US casualties in Iraq was the result of switching from ground engagements to air raids, which are up by a factor of five since a year ago? Our leaders are happily trading Iraqi babies for a reduced anti-war sentiment back home. Every single soldier I know would be appalled at the very idea of attacking civilians. Every single one of them would refuse an order to do so. Yeah, you can tell by what has been going on in Iraq, and how determinedly the top brass go about investigating an incident when the public finds out.
Not every soldier is a monster, but you have to drink some powerful kool-aid to think wars don't bring out the monster in a lot of otherwise decent people.
You obviously have bought the mainstream propaganda about war. War is all about death and power. Killing others so that you have power. That is evil no matter what side you are on. So if the Mongols come around burning your people's villages and raping their donkeys, you shouldn't take up arms against it?
I suspect we're all a little bit guilty of a lot of bad stuff, if you're willing to peel back enough layers.
(I wonder who owned "my" land 500 years ago, and how many people got killed in the sequence of changes in ownership that ultimately put it in my hands.)
Pothead |= deadbeat. Judge results, not style, shitsuck. Your rebuttal is somewhat weakened by your unfortunate choice of the logical symbol for "entails" to indicate the inequality!
Did you learn where basset hounds came from by doing a CSI calculation?
And it's creationism, pure and simple. Scratch an IDiot and you get an evangelical. Or a Republican who wants the evangelical vote.
And while we're at it, what makes you think big bang cosmology is any more "atheistic" than any other branch of science, mathematics, or engineering? Others of your cult argue that it's *proof* that Genesis I is correct! No science invokes God as an explanation, but theists can add "and God had something to do with it" to *any* scientific theory -- except the ones for which they've somehow decided they don't want to. You and others of your cult have obviously made different decisions about whether to add "goddidit" to big bang cosmology or to deny it altogether. so. The word "evolution" is extremely specific? I really don't think so. It's Latin for "unrolling", used as a metaphor exactly as we use "unfolding" in Modern English. And as with lots of other fancy Latin words, it has been adopted for various specific scientific usages, including biological evolution, stellar evolution, etc. Context is usually sufficient to identify which one is under discussion; only an ideogogue would confuse the issue in general. (E.g, the nutwingfucktards who think big bang cosmology is "Darwinism".) This post will be a test: will this post be modded based on my religion or on the post's logical and argumentative quality/content! Hard to say why a post gets moderated. But it's pretty obvious that 1. He is probably a religious idiot. explains the content. (Unless you were parodying, which is trivially easy given the predictability of what evolution deniers say.)
Creationists have merely co-opted them for their evolution denial needs. The micro/macro distinction is a way of conceeding things they can no longer deny in front of the general public without being laughed at in the age of DNA sequencing, while still drawing a line between that and common descent, which less of the public is familiar with the evidence for.
What's the problem? We've all been demanding "open" elections.
Of course, you might be experiencing difficulties if you are researching climate change or the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs under the current administration, but hopefully that's a short-term blip on an otherwise effective system.
Perhaps you know of a few dozen exceptions?
F&A money usually runs about 1/3 of the total grant, but is immediately split up between the researcher's department, college, and university (and even the researcher gets a slice back, laundered of its spending restrictions). Not all of those parties want to spend their slice on a new building; in fact most of it goes toward operating expenses and (relatively) small purchases that are not in their institutional budget. Trying to squeeze $10MM out of it would seriously cramp their style.