His view of the stock market is cynical. The guy selling you stock might really be taking a vacation. He might be a 'boomer selling down his IRA to make ends meet.
But 75% of the time the other side is a brokerage's computer trading system placing its bets based on information you don't have yet, and 24.9% of the time it's someone who's paid handsomely to trade other people's money. Unless that 'boomer is selling to you directly it's the market that will be taking advantage of him, not you.
In most real world bargaining the seller doesn't have a record of the buyers transactions with other sellers.
.
While schemes like this may drive up profit margins to some extent, I think the goal for a lot of retailers in using schemes like these is to keep the actual prices paid for products private and in house. The schemes prevent competitors from price matching and destroy comparison shopping sites like Nextag and (oops) Google Shopping, since their robots will no longer be able to collect meaningful prices. All the vendors will think "This way customers will just stay on my site" And that will be true, so long as the vendor is Amazon or Walmart.
The backlash will be people reporting the prices/discounts they were given for products when they review them. Vendors will respond by deleting that information from the reviews, which will upset their customers who will in turn switch to review aggregator sites like Epinions.com for their reviews, which will in turn be bought by Google, Amazon, or Walmart.
The study found that the most expensive element of FDE is not the hardware or software involved, but the value of user time it takes to start up, shut down and hibernate computing systems while using FDE
Did you just recommend he put his electronics in a cooler with melting ice? You know what happens to melting ice right? It melts.
Actually I recommended an ice pack. Perhaps you've seen one in a cooler once? They're usually constructed from ~2 mm thick polyethylene, so unless you're knifey stabby with it the blue gel doesn't leak out. They will attract a lot of condensation however, which would be a problem in Dubai and the UAE where the humidity is high. Thats why I suggested wrapping the ice pack in a towel: So long as you're not opening and closing the cooler every five minutes, very little air will be cooled below the dew point.
As to why the OP would want to go to a residential compound where they don't allow widgets that may or may not have a camera: Where can you have a party in S.A. and not get in trouble for having a party? What happens to a woman in S.A. after a picture of them drinking booze at a wild party pops up on the internet?
For an hour or two an insulated lunch bag (under the seat) would be fine. For all afternoon a cooler (big enough for a 12 pac- er, nevermind) with an ice pack wrapped in a towel would do the trick.
Shouldn't that mean that the association between nitrates and these health risks is not causational? I mean, if it's nitrates then it's nitrates, right? I know that diets high in nitrates are also highly correlated with other "unhealthy" habits like lack of exercise, smoking, etc.
Actually no, it's not nitrates, its nitrosamines. Nitrates can be reduced to nitrites. Nitrites can react with amines (amino acids and their degradation products, lots of those in meat, not so much in veg) at high temperature (cooking) to form nitrosamines.
You're right though they have to control for lots of other factors, usually by doing case control studies.
1. ascorbic acid in vegetables tends to scavenge nitrites, so you don't end up with nitrosamines.
2. Vegetables have a very low amine content, so again you don't end up with nitrosamines.
3. Meats preserved with nitrates (especially the ones subsequently cooked at hi temp - that's when many nitrosamines are formed ) are the ones associated with cancer, etc. Vegetables aren't. I just named the two nitrosamines most prevalent in cooked bacon.
The elevated risk is associated with eating meats cured with nitrates/nitrites. There's no elevated risk associated with vegetables that contain nitrates.
Ditching so-called "wheat" would be first, followed by all simple sugars (starting with fructose, other than what's naturally in any raw fruits).
The monkeys in this study (NIA) are on a diet that includes whole grains and whole corn, but only 4% total calories from sucrose. They are breaking world records for longevity in rhesus monkeys.
Well, we do have a comparison between refined foods/ high sugar diet and a whole grains/low sugar diet, both diets with and without caloric restriction: the NIA diet from the article and a related experiment in Wisconsin.
NIA: whole grains, low sugar. Both the control group and the CR group are living extremely long for Rhesus monkeys.
Wisconsin: refined foods/ high sugar: CR living almost as long as the NIA monkeys, control monkeys die younger.
one hitch though: the Wisconsin control group was fed ad libitum and got fat. The NIA control group was fed enough to stay at a normal weight.
you're worried about nitirites and nitrates in your diet? celery has a lot of nitrites and nitrates. so does spinach. so does lettuce
So what?
1. ascorbic acid in vegetables tends to scavenge nitrites, so you don't end up with nitrosamines.
2. Vegetables have a very low amine content, so again you don't end up with nitrosamines.
3. Meats preserved with nitrates (especially the ones subsequently cooked at hi temp - that's when many nitrosamines are formed ) are the ones associated with cancer, etc. Vegetables aren't. I just named the two nitrosamines most prevalent in cooked bacon.
do you want a couple hundred more scary chemicals in your food listed from plant sources?
Are the food sources (when properly prepared and not contaminated) linked by epidemiological data to excess morbidity or mortality?
so herbivores and omnivores like us respond with an organ called "the liver". which breaks down the toxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, and otherwise lethal brew of noxious chemicals that plants have firing at us for millions of years.
Nitrosamines are hepatotoxins, even in rats. Rats are sometimes referred to as "livers wrapped in fur" in toxicity testing because they are so proficient at dealing with various toxins. Plenty of other toxins aren't really even toxic until they get activated in the liver. The liver isn't some magic suit of armor; it just hydroxylates the shit out of everything until it's water soluble enough for the kidneys to get rid of.
just because you can string together a bunch of chemicals doesn't mean you understand what the greatest toxic danger to your body is that is out there: PLANTS
Actually, stringing together a bunch of chemicals (and then identifying and purifying the resultant polymer) is something I'm pretty good at. The greatest toxic danger to my body personally is probably the neat hydrofluoric acid I work with daily, but whatever.
I get that there are a lot of people freaking out about "the evil of chemicals" - I'm not one of them. It's worse than ever now, since improved mass spec techniques make it cheap and easy to find parts per trillion/parts per billion of just about anything anywhere. On the other hand it hasn't gotten any easier to determine safe exposure levels, especially in long lived mammals. In the end we need good epidemiological data to figure it out, and for nitrosamines we're getting it.
Another big difference between a poverty restricted diet and a CR diet is poverty restricted access to health care. If that infection keeps people from absorbing food through their gut (diarrhea, vomiting, etc) the CR person gets nutrients and liquids intravenously in a hospital. The PR person dies.
Yup. The previous monkey study (which found a benefit to CR) fed the monkeys a highly processed/hi carb diet. The control group was also fed ad libitum and ended up overweight. The current study 1, used a much less processed diet and 2, only fed the control group enough to stay at a normal weight, not ad libitum. In the current study both the control monkeys and the CR monkeys are living longer than average.
Their is nothing inherently bad about any of the ingredients in a triple bacon cheeseburger, nor with the final product.
nitrosopyrrolidine and dimethylnitrosamine?
I'll agree that there is an ever changing crest of FUD and hype surrounding some basic food types and superfoods repectively. On the other hand, the evidence over the past 40 years between increased intake of nitrate preserved meat ( especially when subsequently cooked at high temperature) and CHD, diabetes, and all cause mortality has not been reverting to the mean. Instead the correlation has been getting tighter and tighter, with better mechanistic studies at the biological chemistry end and better data at the epidemiological end.
I'm not saying BAN ALL BACON; I'm saying there is evidence that eating a lot may cause you harm.
Meats preserved with nitrates (most bacon and processed meat) are strongly correlated with all-cause mortality, CHD, and cancer. Unprocessed meat: less so.
So splurge on quality instead of quantity - like you suggest.
Probably win by default. Not only that but he'd actually get his money back this year as opposed to waiting til ~2015 and then have it go to the lawyers.
It's actually a really exciting/really depressing/ asinine part of oncology right now.
1. Your doctor sequences a bunch of cancer cells, finds out which therapies they are resistant and responsive to. Exciting!
2. If your doctor is a lot more diligent, he realizes that your cancer is really a population of quickly mutating cells rapidly undergoing evolution to evade the therapies he pumps into you. If you're lucky, chemotherapy is faster than evolution. If you're unlucky...
3. Asshole "oncologists" and other doctors like Burzynski sequence your cancer cells, tell you they've come up with a custom therapy based on your unique profile, then sell you the same urine they give every other patient and charge you $250k for the privilege.
The algorithm on its own (see if your version of the gene matches one on this list) falls under the "law of nature" ruling, and so isn't patentable. Which leaves you with getting information on your gene. There are a few ways to do this that are covered by the patent - and plenty that aren't. Right now 23andMe will include the BRCA and other breast cancer risk factors as part of its $300 dollar SNP workup (Myriad's test is ~2300). In a few years you'll be able to get your entire genome sequenced for less than the current cost of Myriad's test. At that point you won't need to pay for any test to get its information, you'll just run your sequence against the list of risk factors you're interested in. Free software to do this and score the results is already showing up online (friendly software that is, not software for genetics experts), and it is updated with new tests as they show up.
-This was about a test for risk factors for breast cancer, not a treatment. Treatments for breast cancer, gene based or no, GMOs, etc would be patentable regardless of the outcome of this case.
-This result really doesn't matter in the long run when it comes to the cost of getting genetic tests.
Within a few years the cost of getting ALL of the tests ALL AT ONCE will be below $1500. All of the genetic tests that are ever developed by any company anywhere. Why? Because the cost of sequencing your entire genome will soon be that cheap, and using your own sequence to find out what alleles you have that are relevant to various diseases neatly avoids the “Each of the claimed molecules represents a nonnaturally occurring composition of matter.” rationale for the patent being valid.
The one exception would be sequencing tumors themselves to see which mutations they have developed, but that's another kettle of fish.
Your license plate is always showing. I don't understand how anyone can claim it's private.
With automation and machine vision, highly accurate recording and correlation across fairly broad areas, in space and time, becomes relatively easy and cheap.
Surely this difference is obvious?
On the other hand unmarked police cars have been able to follow your car wherever it goes without a warrant, and that was not considered a privacy violation. While it would be unusual to think you're being followed by the police, it wouldn't be considered to be contravening your rights or your expectations of privacy. Traditionally the expectation of privacy has been about what, when, and where the state can observe as opposed to the level of convenience a method affords. What precedents would you consider to be relevant to the tracking and correlation issue?
So is there a problem with jurisdictions where it is simultaneously illegal to record and log the position and behavior of officers/their vehicles but it is legal for officers to record and log the positions and behavior private citizens/their vehicles?
Slashdot Mirror
His view of the stock market is cynical. The guy selling you stock might really be taking a vacation. He might be a 'boomer selling down his IRA to make ends meet.
But 75% of the time the other side is a brokerage's computer trading system placing its bets based on information you don't have yet, and 24.9% of the time it's someone who's paid handsomely to trade other people's money. Unless that 'boomer is selling to you directly it's the market that will be taking advantage of him, not you.
Remember when "internet search" meant "Yahoo"?
Not really. I remember Lycos, Excite, Infoseek ... but I never used yahoo for search.
What part of "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." Is still unclear?
No need to depend on a coin flip or residual randomness: just have a runoff between the two tied candidates.
While schemes like this may drive up profit margins to some extent, I think the goal for a lot of retailers in using schemes like these is to keep the actual prices paid for products private and in house. The schemes prevent competitors from price matching and destroy comparison shopping sites like Nextag and (oops) Google Shopping, since their robots will no longer be able to collect meaningful prices. All the vendors will think "This way customers will just stay on my site" And that will be true, so long as the vendor is Amazon or Walmart.
The backlash will be people reporting the prices/discounts they were given for products when they review them. Vendors will respond by deleting that information from the reviews, which will upset their customers who will in turn switch to review aggregator sites like Epinions.com for their reviews, which will in turn be bought by Google, Amazon, or Walmart.
The study found that the most expensive element of FDE is not the hardware or software involved, but the value of user time it takes to start up, shut down and hibernate computing systems while using FDE
Did you just recommend he put his electronics in a cooler with melting ice? You know what happens to melting ice right? It melts.
Actually I recommended an ice pack. Perhaps you've seen one in a cooler once? They're usually constructed from ~2 mm thick polyethylene, so unless you're knifey stabby with it the blue gel doesn't leak out. They will attract a lot of condensation however, which would be a problem in Dubai and the UAE where the humidity is high. Thats why I suggested wrapping the ice pack in a towel: So long as you're not opening and closing the cooler every five minutes, very little air will be cooled below the dew point. As to why the OP would want to go to a residential compound where they don't allow widgets that may or may not have a camera: Where can you have a party in S.A. and not get in trouble for having a party? What happens to a woman in S.A. after a picture of them drinking booze at a wild party pops up on the internet?
For an hour or two an insulated lunch bag (under the seat) would be fine. For all afternoon a cooler (big enough for a 12 pac- er, nevermind) with an ice pack wrapped in a towel would do the trick.
Shouldn't that mean that the association between nitrates and these health risks is not causational? I mean, if it's nitrates then it's nitrates, right? I know that diets high in nitrates are also highly correlated with other "unhealthy" habits like lack of exercise, smoking, etc.
Actually no, it's not nitrates, its nitrosamines. Nitrates can be reduced to nitrites. Nitrites can react with amines (amino acids and their degradation products, lots of those in meat, not so much in veg) at high temperature (cooking) to form nitrosamines. You're right though they have to control for lots of other factors, usually by doing case control studies.
So what?
1. ascorbic acid in vegetables tends to scavenge nitrites, so you don't end up with nitrosamines.
2. Vegetables have a very low amine content, so again you don't end up with nitrosamines.
3. Meats preserved with nitrates (especially the ones subsequently cooked at hi temp - that's when many nitrosamines are formed ) are the ones associated with cancer, etc. Vegetables aren't. I just named the two nitrosamines most prevalent in cooked bacon.
The elevated risk is associated with eating meats cured with nitrates/nitrites. There's no elevated risk associated with vegetables that contain nitrates.
Ditching so-called "wheat" would be first, followed by all simple sugars (starting with fructose, other than what's naturally in any raw fruits).
The monkeys in this study (NIA) are on a diet that includes whole grains and whole corn, but only 4% total calories from sucrose. They are breaking world records for longevity in rhesus monkeys.
NIA: whole grains, low sugar. Both the control group and the CR group are living extremely long for Rhesus monkeys.
Wisconsin: refined foods/ high sugar: CR living almost as long as the NIA monkeys, control monkeys die younger.
one hitch though: the Wisconsin control group was fed ad libitum and got fat. The NIA control group was fed enough to stay at a normal weight.
oh my god! a chemical!
Oh My God! I'm a Chemist!
you're worried about nitirites and nitrates in your diet? celery has a lot of nitrites and nitrates. so does spinach. so does lettuce
So what?
1. ascorbic acid in vegetables tends to scavenge nitrites, so you don't end up with nitrosamines.
2. Vegetables have a very low amine content, so again you don't end up with nitrosamines.
3. Meats preserved with nitrates (especially the ones subsequently cooked at hi temp - that's when many nitrosamines are formed ) are the ones associated with cancer, etc. Vegetables aren't. I just named the two nitrosamines most prevalent in cooked bacon.
do you want a couple hundred more scary chemicals in your food listed from plant sources?
Are the food sources (when properly prepared and not contaminated) linked by epidemiological data to excess morbidity or mortality?
so herbivores and omnivores like us respond with an organ called "the liver". which breaks down the toxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, and otherwise lethal brew of noxious chemicals that plants have firing at us for millions of years.
Nitrosamines are hepatotoxins, even in rats. Rats are sometimes referred to as "livers wrapped in fur" in toxicity testing because they are so proficient at dealing with various toxins. Plenty of other toxins aren't really even toxic until they get activated in the liver. The liver isn't some magic suit of armor; it just hydroxylates the shit out of everything until it's water soluble enough for the kidneys to get rid of.
just because you can string together a bunch of chemicals doesn't mean you understand what the greatest toxic danger to your body is that is out there: PLANTS
Actually, stringing together a bunch of chemicals (and then identifying and purifying the resultant polymer) is something I'm pretty good at. The greatest toxic danger to my body personally is probably the neat hydrofluoric acid I work with daily, but whatever.
I get that there are a lot of people freaking out about "the evil of chemicals" - I'm not one of them. It's worse than ever now, since improved mass spec techniques make it cheap and easy to find parts per trillion/parts per billion of just about anything anywhere. On the other hand it hasn't gotten any easier to determine safe exposure levels, especially in long lived mammals. In the end we need good epidemiological data to figure it out, and for nitrosamines we're getting it.
Another big difference between a poverty restricted diet and a CR diet is poverty restricted access to health care. If that infection keeps people from absorbing food through their gut (diarrhea, vomiting, etc) the CR person gets nutrients and liquids intravenously in a hospital. The PR person dies.
Not necessarily, you might just be fitter and live the same length of time
We just saved Social Security/Medicare! People may grumble about the food though ...
Yup. The previous monkey study (which found a benefit to CR) fed the monkeys a highly processed/hi carb diet. The control group was also fed ad libitum and ended up overweight. The current study 1, used a much less processed diet and 2, only fed the control group enough to stay at a normal weight, not ad libitum. In the current study both the control monkeys and the CR monkeys are living longer than average.
Their is nothing inherently bad about any of the ingredients in a triple bacon cheeseburger, nor with the final product.
nitrosopyrrolidine and dimethylnitrosamine?
I'll agree that there is an ever changing crest of FUD and hype surrounding some basic food types and superfoods repectively. On the other hand, the evidence over the past 40 years between increased intake of nitrate preserved meat ( especially when subsequently cooked at high temperature) and CHD, diabetes, and all cause mortality has not been reverting to the mean. Instead the correlation has been getting tighter and tighter, with better mechanistic studies at the biological chemistry end and better data at the epidemiological end.
I'm not saying BAN ALL BACON; I'm saying there is evidence that eating a lot may cause you harm.
okay so its not possible to have
1 lean bacon (more red than white)
Meats preserved with nitrates (most bacon and processed meat) are strongly correlated with all-cause mortality, CHD, and cancer. Unprocessed meat: less so.
So splurge on quality instead of quantity - like you suggest.
Well maybe the rest can get together and revoke licensing agreements with Apple.
Apple: Right back at ya!
Intellectual Ventures: Can we play too?
Microsoft: There can be only one.
Still have one of your old flip phones in the back of a closet? You might need it ...
Probably win by default. Not only that but he'd actually get his money back this year as opposed to waiting til ~2015 and then have it go to the lawyers.
1. Your doctor sequences a bunch of cancer cells, finds out which therapies they are resistant and responsive to. Exciting!
2. If your doctor is a lot more diligent, he realizes that your cancer is really a population of quickly mutating cells rapidly undergoing evolution to evade the therapies he pumps into you. If you're lucky, chemotherapy is faster than evolution. If you're unlucky ...
3. Asshole "oncologists" and other doctors like Burzynski sequence your cancer cells, tell you they've come up with a custom therapy based on your unique profile, then sell you the same urine they give every other patient and charge you $250k for the privilege.
The algorithm on its own (see if your version of the gene matches one on this list) falls under the "law of nature" ruling, and so isn't patentable. Which leaves you with getting information on your gene. There are a few ways to do this that are covered by the patent - and plenty that aren't. Right now 23andMe will include the BRCA and other breast cancer risk factors as part of its $300 dollar SNP workup (Myriad's test is ~2300). In a few years you'll be able to get your entire genome sequenced for less than the current cost of Myriad's test. At that point you won't need to pay for any test to get its information, you'll just run your sequence against the list of risk factors you're interested in. Free software to do this and score the results is already showing up online (friendly software that is, not software for genetics experts), and it is updated with new tests as they show up.
Two points:
-This was about a test for risk factors for breast cancer, not a treatment. Treatments for breast cancer, gene based or no, GMOs, etc would be patentable regardless of the outcome of this case.
-This result really doesn't matter in the long run when it comes to the cost of getting genetic tests.
Within a few years the cost of getting ALL of the tests ALL AT ONCE will be below $1500. All of the genetic tests that are ever developed by any company anywhere. Why? Because the cost of sequencing your entire genome will soon be that cheap, and using your own sequence to find out what alleles you have that are relevant to various diseases neatly avoids the “Each of the claimed molecules represents a nonnaturally occurring composition of matter.” rationale for the patent being valid.
The one exception would be sequencing tumors themselves to see which mutations they have developed, but that's another kettle of fish.
Your license plate is always showing. I don't understand how anyone can claim it's private.
With automation and machine vision, highly accurate recording and correlation across fairly broad areas, in space and time, becomes relatively easy and cheap.
Surely this difference is obvious?
On the other hand unmarked police cars have been able to follow your car wherever it goes without a warrant, and that was not considered a privacy violation. While it would be unusual to think you're being followed by the police, it wouldn't be considered to be contravening your rights or your expectations of privacy. Traditionally the expectation of privacy has been about what, when, and where the state can observe as opposed to the level of convenience a method affords. What precedents would you consider to be relevant to the tracking and correlation issue?
So is there a problem with jurisdictions where it is simultaneously illegal to record and log the position and behavior of officers/their vehicles but it is legal for officers to record and log the positions and behavior private citizens/their vehicles?