1. you can't expect a surplus inventory (the trend is not continuing toward excess inventoryp)
2. the refinery numbers are down compared to last year, but up compared to week of 3/21. Also, the drop was in inventory was more than expected.
Refineries operated at 83 percent of capacity last week, down from 88.4 percent a year earlier, the Energy Department report showed. Refiners operated at 82.2 percent in the week ended March 21, the lowest since October 2005. Also, we do not know the +/- range for any year over year outputs. This could well be in line with historical everages (ex: 84% +/- 3.5%)
Very much unscripted, but not at all surprising.....
Supplies of gasoline and distillate fuel, including heating oil and diesel, also fell. Gasoline inventories dropped 3.44 million barrels to 221.3 million last week, the report showed. A 3-million-barrel decline was expected. Crude-oil supplies last week were 0.1 percent above the five-year average for the period, the department said. A week earlier stockpiles were 1.8 percent higher. Gasoline inventories were 7.9 percent above the five-year average, compared with 9.1 percent above a week earlier.
Total implied U.S. fuel demand averaged 20.5 million barrels a day in the past four weeks, down 0.4 percent from a year earlier, according to the department. Consumption was down 2.2 percent from a year earlier in the four weeks ended March 21.
This was due to further reduction in refinery output
Refineries operated at 83 percent of capacity last week, down from 88.4 percent a year earlier, the Energy Department report showed. Refiners operated at 82.2 percent in the week ended March 21, the lowest since October 2005.
So, I don't think you can draw any long term conclusions about excess inventories, especially in the long term.
Again, we are seriously digressing from the original point of - does the US have "plenty of capacity". No, we do not have "plenty of capacity", we are importing more gasoline now. You then asked why do we need to refine domestically, and I gave you several reasons and sources. I have no opinion as to whether we are refining enough, too little, foreign vs. domestic. Also, this is only peripherally related to energy independence, as the amount of oil I am speaking of is only related to our gasoline consumption, it does not address all the other reasons we import oil.
The historic highs are consistent with inelastic models for oil, the price has raised significantly enough to produce a small decrease in its use. No reasonable person would expect our increasing consumption of gasoline, year over year, to change. Forgive me I don't have the numbers here but roughly, a 45% increase in the price of gasoline would achieve a 9% reduction in demand for gasoline in the short term, or $4.00 per gallon. (The arithmetic - 9% / 0.20 = 45%). I think that is isn't far off. Note, though this is only short term elasticity. Aside from this calculation, simple economic downturn will affect the consumption of gas.
As to the sources date, again, demand for gas in the US will continue to rise for the forseeable future.
From Canada, I agree with you for the northern US, but from GB, I would take issue with that for the reasons laid out in that paper.
We use most of it. As of 2007 data, we use 134.400billion gallons/year, almost as much as the next 25 nations combined
Transportation - costs of shipping, storing, the risks associated (it is both a volatile liquid and a volatile market!)
Added perks (42gallons of oil/barrel, only ~20 becomes gas, the other is kerosene, heating oil, with the ability, if I understand the process correctly to adjust these ratios to meet demand. Example more heating oil in winter, more gas (relatively) in the summer.
US standards for gas are likely different than other countries (see next point)
Like someone else mentioned, volatility in other refinery countries.
There are likely more, but this is not my area of expertise.
Factors such as the cost and timeliness of incremental supply,
physical reliability, and meeting U.S. product specifications can affect price and
supply at the gas pump.
Shipping cost may be an additional issue. Gasoline and many other refined
products need to be protected from contamination from other oils. As a result, they
must be shipped in clean vessels. These product carriers are usually much smaller
than crude carriers, and -- not benefitting from economies of large scale -- have
higher unit costs.
Imported products cost more than those refined domestically simply by virtue
of transport costs. The higher import costs impact the last units of gasoline supply,
providing a price umbrella for domestic refiners, whose pricing -- like all industrial
pricing -- is linked to the cost of the last increments of the good involved.
We actually have plenty of refining capacity.
I just want to point this out:
The US total refining capacity was 17,443,492 barrels of oil/day, which yields on average, 340,148,094 gallons @19.5gallons gas/barrel of oil.
The current consumption of gas in the US is 388.6 million gallons/day (as of 2006)
If those numbers are correct, we are at a 48,451,906 gallon/day shortfall of US domestic production capacity. Since no one wants a refinery in their backyard, there hasn't been a new one built since the 1970's (The last refinery built in the US was in Garyville, Louisiana, and it started up in 1976.)
So "we" as in the US, have a serious lack of refinery capacity.
A calorie of protein does not equal a calorie of sugar, for example, because insulin ignores protein.
By *definition* it surely does. You put 1 gram of protein into a bomb calorimeter, blow it up, and measure the heat absorbed by the water. The amount of heat gained by the system is from the oxidation of the substance. The # you get is the number of calories/joules in that substance.
Also, where does that protein go when you eat it? Let me show you....
As you see, those carbon skeleton's get fed into the same TCA cycle as fats, and sugars. It all ends up in the TCA cycle and ox-phos pathway. On the way, you generate some nasty intermediates -----> ammonia-->ammonium-->urea-->urine
As you also see, protein can be used to *make* glucose. Insulin might "ignore" protein, but your brain and RBC's run on *glucose* if you don't have it, you will make it, be it from glycogen breakdown or muscle breakdown, or fat breakdown.
Now, does a high protein diet make you lose more fluid? Yes. Does it leave you in a relative ketotic state which suppresses appetite? Yes. Does it put an increased demand on your liver and kidneys? Yes.
Just for starters, when nutritionists talk about calories, they're not really talking about calories like a physicist would. They're really talking about "food calories," which I believe are equivalent to kilocalories. This may be a minor point, but it serves to illustrate that if you think nutrition science maps directly onto physics, you are wrong.
There is no difference in calories...we call them calories because if your cereal said it had 100 kilocalories per bowl people wouldn't know what that means. This is fitting since it is the Thanksgiving season in the US... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1133564, and as evident by that story, it maps perfectly to physics. The thing is this, ever think how many C-C bonds or C-H or C-N bonds are in your 6oz of corn flakes? Sufficient to say, not enough to be counted by "calories" and certainly 100,000 calorie breakfast would turn some heads. Lets not even mention that measuring in calories is like measuring in drams, or a pound...the world has long since moved on to the joule, for energy, in science anyway.
Nutritionist, in the ICU for example, use the Harris-Benedict equations for determining caloric needs for patients in various stages of hurt.
The original equations from Harris and Benedicthere and here. There are modifications to this formula for burns, surgery, inactivity etc...
Second, and more importantly, any good college chemistry instructor will tell you that the body does not "release energy" from the chemical bonds in food
Again, not to pick here, but that good college professor would be 100% incorrect. Your body, thankfully does release energy from chemical bonds, particularly oxidative phosphorylation. This, aside from generating a bulk of our ATP (energy) allows us to maintain a 37.3C body temperature within a wide range of environmental conditions.
In short...to simplify, digestion isa complex process, not all food is equal, but not in the way you think (Carbohydrate 4 kcal/gram,Protein:4 kcal/gram,Fat 9 kcal/gram, Alcohol 7 kcal/gram) and you can measure the "calories" in a food as if you had a gas gauge, for all intents and purposes. I mean this in the general sense of "if I continue to the level of activity, but halve my food intake, you will lose weight. Will it all be fat? No, if you ran and consumed and extra 3500kcal, would you lose exactly 1 pound? Not exactly, but enough to get close.
heh.....maybe I should check the dictionary...
"with baited breath misspelling of with bated breath.."
although it says in the definition of baited that
"2 variant spelling of bate."....unintentionally funny though.:)
The people who have been waiting for Vista with baited breath, and would never switch to OS X. Who may not be 100% happy with Vista but will say it will get better with time and is still better in some ways than XP.
The people who are on the fence. Long time window users who are upset with Vista. Who will simply switch to XP who you really couldn't get to switch to OS X if you paid them. I am guessing business users make up a large group of these people.
The third and final group is a hodgepodge. People who just use the OS that comes with the computer, and are getting more and more fed up with Vista. In this case, the time would actually help Apple. Those people who are at wits end with Vista, demanding XP. Would potentially love nothing more than to jump ship completely. Given people's general uncomfortableness with technology in general. Jumping ships to a new platform is not without great hesitation, regardless of their angst at MS. I think this is why we see market share of Linux increasing, albeit slowly.
What do you think? I know it is an oversimplification.
That is an interesting point, and I don't doubt that you are right, the question that I have is this. Of those 12-18 year olds, how many of that actually see MTV as Music Television anymore? There was a time, not that terribly long ago, where they actually spent a considerably portion of the day playing music and were influential in the early careers of many musicians. How true is that anymore? How much M is left in MTV?
As an aside, when I first heard MTV was partnering with MS, I thought, with MTV's help and influence, they had a shot at Apple. At this point of the game, like others have said, I am not so sure anymore.
I agree with this and have said it myself many times. It is a wonderful quote. It is in the headlines everyday, "free markets for everyone else, protection for me". As an example, watch how this sub-prime mortgage market plays out. Watch how the government will jump in and bail thses folks out. If it were you or I making these very poor quality business decisions, we would be ridiculed, and basically told you get what you deserve. You can also see this applied in a class sense as well. Free markets for the lower classes, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, restructuring bankruptcy laws etc....protectionism and bailouts for the upper classes.
In a two sides of the same coin kinda way, free market is like communism, in that it has never really existed, mostly due to the people involved, and it will never exist in the ways intended. The closest we get to it is like a farmer's market setup, which is really more along the lines of what Smith had in mind.
Many people forget that in the era Smith was writing there were quite large government funded monopolies over many trades. Adam Smith's ideal was a market comprised solely of small buyers and sellers. He showed how the workings of such a market would tend toward a price that provides a fair return to land, labor, and capital, produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers, and result in an optimal outcome for society in terms of the allocation of its resources. He made clear, however, that this outcome can result only when no buyer or seller is sufficiently large to influence the market price. This latter point is not frequently mentioned by those who repeatedly invoke Smith. Such a market implicitly assumes a significant degree of equality in the distribution of economic power. Again, this point too is all to frequently disregarded in discourse about free markets. Some quotes are golden:
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
Was translated by free market proponents as basically the government has no role in the day to day lives of people. There is no mention of the reverse, no mention of government intervention to set and enforce minimum social, health, worker safety, and environmental standards in the common interest--to protect the poor against the rich. I would recommend "The betrayal of Adam Smith" from which a lot of this is drawn. It is good, but not great, and makes some provocative points. Better yet, take a summer and read the book, and while reading it, evaluate the setting in which Smith was writing. You will likely draw some very different conclusions then what you see spouted off in the business press. In many instances by people who have never read the work.
You are totally correct, we have known about them forever. There are however, apoptotic pathways that do not directly involve mitochondria in the same central way cytochrome C/cardiolipin/caspase cascades do. So again, "death" is much, much more complicated.
Cheers
that there may be legitimate reasons to not get swept up in the iPhone hype (people are sleeping on streets for them, come on). I think this is more of an indictment our the current US excessive/beyond means consumerism. It extends beyond Apple, but as you rightly point out, sleeping out on the streets for anything, except maybe food if you are hungry, is pretty difficult to understand. It is unhealthy, and unsustainable, as evidenced by American's massivedebt.
According to the Fed, total consumer credit debt, excluding mortgages, hit a record $2.4 trillion in September. Factoring in mortgages, outstanding household debt soars to about $12.3 trillion.
But I digress, Roughly Drafted is a good site, but that are also a pro-Apple site. They just provide a little more substance than blantant/obvious sites.
Cheers!
I was hesitant to reply because I didn't have any hard information aside from my word, and sure there are a lot of those "trust me I work for company n" posters. I agree, it was wrong for Apple to remove the post, I haven't seen it and I assume that it didn't violate any of the discussion board terms.
I was looking around last night, and didn't really find any more information. That said, if you look at the kexts in OS X, none of them have an Apple copyright on them, like many of the other kexts do. But, they don't explicitly say Copyright nVidia/ATI either. Also, if you poke around on the lists site, you find stuff like this, but no definitive word.
You are incorrect, ATI and nVidia do write the code for the drivers that are included in the OS. I searched around the net, and I couldn't find any convincing evidence, but as a former employee, trust me. ATI/nVidia write the drivers, Apple does most of the Q&A. If you file a bugreport on a driver it will end up as being readable by ATI/nVidia, they have access to that category of bugs.
You know, in that same vein! (:( ) there is a product called Thrombin JMI, which is recombinant bovine thrombin (aka activated Factor II. It is a spray that will aid in blood clotting. But this again is for small oozy/capillary type bleeding.
Don't be so patronizing, firstly. Secondly, show me one bit of evidence to back up your claim that a scientist goes into his research project trying to explicitly and only to disprove his theory. It doesn't happen. Again, you must be open to the fact that:
1. Your experimental data can show your theory to be wrong
2. Your valid falsifiable theory may be shown wrong by someone else.
I you are not open to those possibilities, then your work is going to be skewed. There have been may instances of this, polywater, is one that comes to mind.
The most accurate way to put it is, you make an observation, you formulate a hypothesis, you design a study and let the chips fall where they fall. The data, if the work is done correctly, will speak for itself. You need to be, as much as humanly possible, unbiased one way or the other, the rest of the bias you do your best to remove with controls.
It is clear to me now, reading your other posts in this thread that you likely have no formal scientific training, and know little of what you speak.
Science is supposed to be forming a hypothesis and then trying to disprove it via the scientific method.
I think you are getting a facet of statistical analysis confused with the scientific method. In short, you observe a phenomenon, you postulate/theorize the mechanisms of the phenomenon, you test your hypothesis/theory. You don't try to disprove your theory. But you must be open to the fact that your theory can be wrong. That is where pathological science and the likes come in.
What you speak of, I think, is accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis. Basically, a statistical anaylsis is done of your work and based on that math, within a certain range, you can show whether your data supports your theory X causes Y, rejecting the null hypothesis, or does not support your theory that X does not cause Y, accepting/not rejecting the null hypothesis.
I would suggest you go check out some updated materials and read up, because what you are saying is just not correct anymore. It should have a fair penetration through the epidermis, especially damaged epidermis due to its structure, though I would admit systemic absorption through the skin s unlikely, and in fact it penetrates nicely(sorry pdf).
Furthermore, the finer method of action for *limus in atopic dermatitis is being hashed out but still pretty well known (they are both analogs of cyclosporine and as such their method of action was shown to be similar). Since at least 2000 this is what has been said:
Tacrolimus does not have any specific receptors at its cell surface. It penetrates the cell and binds to the cytoplasm of the T-cells at a specific "binding protein". Thus a complex comes into being which again binds calcineurin. The larger complex generated this way inhibits both the transcription of cytokins as Interleukin 12 as well as the T-cell proliferation. The significantly increased serum-IgE-level, typical for atopical diseases is lowered. Furthermore, Tacrolimus inhibits the release of histamine and inflammatory mediators from mast cells and basophilic granulocytes.reference
Tacrolimus, topical 0.03%, 0.1% (Protopic) -- Reduces itching and inflammation by suppressing the release of cytokines from T cells. Also inhibits transcription for genes that encode IL-3, IL-4, IL-5, GM-CSF, and TNF-alpha, all of which are involved in the early stages of T-cell activation. Additionally, may inhibit release of preformed mediators from skin mast cells and basophils, and may down-regulate expression of FCeRI on Langerhans cells. Ruzicka T, Bieber T, Schopf E, et al: A short-term trial of tacrolimus ointment for atopic dermatitis. European Tacrolimus Multicenter Atopic Dermatitis Study Group. N Engl J Med 1997 Sep 18; 337(12): 816-21reference
The important part there is the langerhans part as they are limited (pretty much) to within the skin. Also, the may parts have some evidence, but the results need to be further studied, and replicated, here are some replicated experiments from 2004/5, so the evidence is there and growing:
Gisondi P, Ellis CN, Girolomoni G. Pimecrolimus in dermatology: atopic dermatitis and beyond. Int J Clin Pract. 2005 Aug;59(8):969-74.
Koo JY, Fleischer AB Jr, Abramovits W, Pariser DM, McCall CO, Horn TD, Gottlieb AB, Jaracz E, Rico MJ. Tacrolimus ointment is safe and effective in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: results in 8000 patients. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Aug;53(2 Suppl 2):S195-205.
Hanifin JM, Paller AS, Eichenfield L, Clark RA, Korman N, Weinstein G, Caro I, Jaracz E, Rico MJ; US Tacrolimus Ointment Study Group. Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus ointment treatment for up to 4 years in patients with atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Aug;53(2 Suppl 2):S186-94.
Tan J, Langley R. Safety and efficacy of tacrolimus ointment 0.1% (Protopic) in atopic dermatitis: a Canadian open-label multicenter study. J Cutan Med Surg. 2004 Jul-Aug;8(4):213-9.
In your defense, the 2005 PDR still says the method of action is not fully known...but that is not surprising, it may have been updated for '06, or not. It is not a very flexible book.
In short, much work has been done since 2000 on this subject, mostly because the results have been really impressive, especially in those patients who were refractive to other therapies.
In closing, you just hit a tender spot that is a bane of medical education. In th
There is no organism that causes the most common eczema (discoid can be caused by S. aureus), it is an immune/allergy most likely and in some cases it is unknown.
The method of action of *limus is well known. Calcineurin modifying something or other....in short they modify IL-2 response. This is consistent with suppressing immune response. If there was a causative agent causing the symptom, you would never* put a patient on immunosupprents.
But I think I see what you are saying, the body becomes tolerant or there is more than one mechanism that is causing the symptoms, the tacrolimus helps one and the equilibrium just shifts to the other. Also, the is not much data on long term *crolimus topically and when we learned about it, it was a "treatment of last resort" warning/disclaimer. So maybe it is best that it only works for a short while, blessing in disguise.
What specific kind of eczema does you kid have? (seborrheic eczema, Irritant, Discoid, Allergic, and the most common, Atopic)
From the sound of it, it sounds like atopic eczema/dermatitis. Also, in that case, the cause is largely unknown.
Anyway, good luck with the fight. With all luck, your kid will grow out of it. *crosses fingers*
*Disclaimer for completeness: There is an immune reconstitution syndrome associated with immne system rebound in HIV infection in which the patient does have an infection but the immune response is way overboard and you use immunosuppresents in the treatment. There may be some other exceptions, as well
Slashdot Mirror
I was simply stating that:
1. you can't expect a surplus inventory (the trend is not continuing toward excess inventoryp)2. the refinery numbers are down compared to last year, but up compared to week of 3/21. Also, the drop was in inventory was more than expected.
Refineries operated at 83 percent of capacity last week, down from 88.4 percent a year earlier, the Energy Department report showed. Refiners operated at 82.2 percent in the week ended March 21, the lowest since October 2005. Also, we do not know the +/- range for any year over year outputs. This could well be in line with historical everages (ex: 84% +/- 3.5%)
Now, do I buy this?
``Domestic demand isn't great but that's not important,'' said Antoine Halff, head of energy research at New York-based Newedge USA LLC. ``Global demand is still growing and that's what matters.'' ....not sure.Source:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIhaNNy2gKRs&refer=home
Very much unscripted, but not at all surprising.....
Supplies of gasoline and distillate fuel, including heating oil and diesel, also fell. Gasoline inventories dropped 3.44 million barrels to 221.3 million last week, the report showed. A 3-million-barrel decline was expected. Crude-oil supplies last week were 0.1 percent above the five-year average for the period, the department said. A week earlier stockpiles were 1.8 percent higher. Gasoline inventories were 7.9 percent above the five-year average, compared with 9.1 percent above a week earlier. Total implied U.S. fuel demand averaged 20.5 million barrels a day in the past four weeks, down 0.4 percent from a year earlier, according to the department. Consumption was down 2.2 percent from a year earlier in the four weeks ended March 21.This was due to further reduction in refinery output
Refineries operated at 83 percent of capacity last week, down from 88.4 percent a year earlier, the Energy Department report showed. Refiners operated at 82.2 percent in the week ended March 21, the lowest since October 2005.So, I don't think you can draw any long term conclusions about excess inventories, especially in the long term.
Again, we are seriously digressing from the original point of - does the US have "plenty of capacity". No, we do not have "plenty of capacity", we are importing more gasoline now. You then asked why do we need to refine domestically, and I gave you several reasons and sources. I have no opinion as to whether we are refining enough, too little, foreign vs. domestic. Also, this is only peripherally related to energy independence, as the amount of oil I am speaking of is only related to our gasoline consumption, it does not address all the other reasons we import oil.
The historic highs are consistent with inelastic models for oil, the price has raised significantly enough to produce a small decrease in its use. No reasonable person would expect our increasing consumption of gasoline, year over year, to change. Forgive me I don't have the numbers here but roughly, a 45% increase in the price of gasoline would achieve a 9% reduction in demand for gasoline in the short term, or $4.00 per gallon. (The arithmetic - 9% / 0.20 = 45%). I think that is isn't far off. Note, though this is only short term elasticity. Aside from this calculation, simple economic downturn will affect the consumption of gas.
As to the sources date, again, demand for gas in the US will continue to rise for the forseeable future.
From Canada, I agree with you for the northern US, but from GB, I would take issue with that for the reasons laid out in that paper.
There are many reasons, IMO
There are likely more, but this is not my area of expertise.
Factors such as the cost and timeliness of incremental supply, physical reliability, and meeting U.S. product specifications can affect price and supply at the gas pump. Shipping cost may be an additional issue. Gasoline and many other refined products need to be protected from contamination from other oils. As a result, they must be shipped in clean vessels. These product carriers are usually much smaller than crude carriers, and -- not benefitting from economies of large scale -- have higher unit costs. Imported products cost more than those refined domestically simply by virtue of transport costs. The higher import costs impact the last units of gasoline supply, providing a price umbrella for domestic refiners, whose pricing -- like all industrial pricing -- is linked to the cost of the last increments of the good involved.Sources:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_consumption_country.phphttp://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/04Sep/RL32583.pdf ------excellent resource
I don't dispute there are other ways to get gasoline to the US. As I pointed out in my original post:
So "we" as in the US, have a serious lack of refinery capacity.That still stands as true. Which is why I was addressing his claim that "we", the US, have pleny of refinery capacity. We don't.
I just want to point this out:
The US total refining capacity was 17,443,492 barrels of oil/day, which yields on average, 340,148,094 gallons @19.5gallons gas/barrel of oil. The current consumption of gas in the US is 388.6 million gallons/day (as of 2006)
If those numbers are correct, we are at a 48,451,906 gallon/day shortfall of US domestic production capacity. Since no one wants a refinery in their backyard, there hasn't been a new one built since the 1970's (The last refinery built in the US was in Garyville, Louisiana, and it started up in 1976.)
So "we" as in the US, have a serious lack of refinery capacity.
Sources:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99288.htm
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn12966.htm
you must have impressive uptime.
By *definition* it surely does. You put 1 gram of protein into a bomb calorimeter, blow it up, and measure the heat absorbed by the water. The amount of heat gained by the system is from the oxidation of the substance. The # you get is the number of calories/joules in that substance.
Also, where does that protein go when you eat it? Let me show you....
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/08366/timages/aametab.gifAs you see, those carbon skeleton's get fed into the same TCA cycle as fats, and sugars. It all ends up in the TCA cycle and ox-phos pathway. On the way, you generate some nasty intermediates -----> ammonia-->ammonium-->urea-->urine
As you also see, protein can be used to *make* glucose. Insulin might "ignore" protein, but your brain and RBC's run on *glucose* if you don't have it, you will make it, be it from glycogen breakdown or muscle breakdown, or fat breakdown.
Now, does a high protein diet make you lose more fluid? Yes. Does it leave you in a relative ketotic state which suppresses appetite? Yes. Does it put an increased demand on your liver and kidneys? Yes.
References:There is no difference in calories...we call them calories because if your cereal said it had 100 kilocalories per bowl people wouldn't know what that means. This is fitting since it is the Thanksgiving season in the US... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1133564, and as evident by that story, it maps perfectly to physics. The thing is this, ever think how many C-C bonds or C-H or C-N bonds are in your 6oz of corn flakes? Sufficient to say, not enough to be counted by "calories" and certainly 100,000 calorie breakfast would turn some heads. Lets not even mention that measuring in calories is like measuring in drams, or a pound...the world has long since moved on to the joule, for energy, in science anyway.
Nutritionist, in the ICU for example, use the Harris-Benedict equations for determining caloric needs for patients in various stages of hurt.
The original equations from Harris and Benedict here and here. There are modifications to this formula for burns, surgery, inactivity etc...Again, not to pick here, but that good college professor would be 100% incorrect. Your body, thankfully does release energy from chemical bonds, particularly oxidative phosphorylation. This, aside from generating a bulk of our ATP (energy) allows us to maintain a 37.3C body temperature within a wide range of environmental conditions.
In short...to simplify, digestion isa complex process, not all food is equal, but not in the way you think (Carbohydrate 4 kcal/gram,Protein:4 kcal/gram,Fat 9 kcal/gram, Alcohol 7 kcal/gram) and you can measure the "calories" in a food as if you had a gas gauge, for all intents and purposes. I mean this in the general sense of "if I continue to the level of activity, but halve my food intake, you will lose weight. Will it all be fat? No, if you ran and consumed and extra 3500kcal, would you lose exactly 1 pound? Not exactly, but enough to get close.
Some good source reading:heh.....maybe I should check the dictionary... "with baited breath misspelling of with bated breath .."
although it says in the definition of baited that
"2 variant spelling of bate ." ....unintentionally funny though. :)
What do you think? I know it is an oversimplification.
That is an interesting point, and I don't doubt that you are right, the question that I have is this. Of those 12-18 year olds, how many of that actually see MTV as Music Television anymore? There was a time, not that terribly long ago, where they actually spent a considerably portion of the day playing music and were influential in the early careers of many musicians. How true is that anymore? How much M is left in MTV?
As an aside, when I first heard MTV was partnering with MS, I thought, with MTV's help and influence, they had a shot at Apple. At this point of the game, like others have said, I am not so sure anymore.
I agree with this and have said it myself many times. It is a wonderful quote. It is in the headlines everyday, "free markets for everyone else, protection for me". As an example, watch how this sub-prime mortgage market plays out. Watch how the government will jump in and bail thses folks out. If it were you or I making these very poor quality business decisions, we would be ridiculed, and basically told you get what you deserve. You can also see this applied in a class sense as well. Free markets for the lower classes, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, restructuring bankruptcy laws etc....protectionism and bailouts for the upper classes.
In a two sides of the same coin kinda way, free market is like communism, in that it has never really existed, mostly due to the people involved, and it will never exist in the ways intended. The closest we get to it is like a farmer's market setup, which is really more along the lines of what Smith had in mind.
Many people forget that in the era Smith was writing there were quite large government funded monopolies over many trades. Adam Smith's ideal was a market comprised solely of small buyers and sellers. He showed how the workings of such a market would tend toward a price that provides a fair return to land, labor, and capital, produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers, and result in an optimal outcome for society in terms of the allocation of its resources. He made clear, however, that this outcome can result only when no buyer or seller is sufficiently large to influence the market price. This latter point is not frequently mentioned by those who repeatedly invoke Smith. Such a market implicitly assumes a significant degree of equality in the distribution of economic power. Again, this point too is all to frequently disregarded in discourse about free markets. Some quotes are golden:
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." Was translated by free market proponents as basically the government has no role in the day to day lives of people. There is no mention of the reverse, no mention of government intervention to set and enforce minimum social, health, worker safety, and environmental standards in the common interest--to protect the poor against the rich. I would recommend "The betrayal of Adam Smith" from which a lot of this is drawn. It is good, but not great, and makes some provocative points. Better yet, take a summer and read the book, and while reading it, evaluate the setting in which Smith was writing. You will likely draw some very different conclusions then what you see spouted off in the business press. In many instances by people who have never read the work.You are totally correct, we have known about them forever. There are however, apoptotic pathways that do not directly involve mitochondria in the same central way cytochrome C/cardiolipin/caspase cascades do. So again, "death" is much, much more complicated. Cheers
I think you are completely missing this as part of the bigger picture of behavior and buying habits.
...version and I'm in. It should have been this way from the beginning.
I was hesitant to reply because I didn't have any hard information aside from my word, and sure there are a lot of those "trust me I work for company n" posters. I agree, it was wrong for Apple to remove the post, I haven't seen it and I assume that it didn't violate any of the discussion board terms.
I was looking around last night, and didn't really find any more information. That said, if you look at the kexts in OS X, none of them have an Apple copyright on them, like many of the other kexts do. But, they don't explicitly say Copyright nVidia/ATI either. Also, if you poke around on the lists site, you find stuff like this, but no definitive word.
Really weak evidence. So...I got nothing :)
You are incorrect, ATI and nVidia do write the code for the drivers that are included in the OS. I searched around the net, and I couldn't find any convincing evidence, but as a former employee, trust me. ATI/nVidia write the drivers, Apple does most of the Q&A. If you file a bugreport on a driver it will end up as being readable by ATI/nVidia, they have access to that category of bugs.
You know, in that same vein! ( :( ) there is a product called Thrombin JMI, which is recombinant bovine thrombin (aka activated Factor II. It is a spray that will aid in blood clotting. But this again is for small oozy/capillary type bleeding.
Well said, and likely to a large degree correct.
Don't be so patronizing, firstly. Secondly, show me one bit of evidence to back up your claim that a scientist goes into his research project trying to explicitly and only to disprove his theory. It doesn't happen. Again, you must be open to the fact that:
1. Your experimental data can show your theory to be wrong2. Your valid falsifiable theory may be shown wrong by someone else.
I you are not open to those possibilities, then your work is going to be skewed. There have been may instances of this, polywater, is one that comes to mind.
The most accurate way to put it is, you make an observation, you formulate a hypothesis, you design a study and let the chips fall where they fall. The data, if the work is done correctly, will speak for itself. You need to be, as much as humanly possible, unbiased one way or the other, the rest of the bias you do your best to remove with controls.
It is clear to me now, reading your other posts in this thread that you likely have no formal scientific training, and know little of what you speak.
I think you are getting a facet of statistical analysis confused with the scientific method. In short, you observe a phenomenon, you postulate/theorize the mechanisms of the phenomenon, you test your hypothesis/theory. You don't try to disprove your theory. But you must be open to the fact that your theory can be wrong. That is where pathological science and the likes come in.
What you speak of, I think, is accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis. Basically, a statistical anaylsis is done of your work and based on that math, within a certain range, you can show whether your data supports your theory X causes Y, rejecting the null hypothesis, or does not support your theory that X does not cause Y, accepting/not rejecting the null hypothesis.
Furthermore, the finer method of action for *limus in atopic dermatitis is being hashed out but still pretty well known (they are both analogs of cyclosporine and as such their method of action was shown to be similar). Since at least 2000 this is what has been said:
The important part there is the langerhans part as they are limited (pretty much) to within the skin. Also, the may parts have some evidence, but the results need to be further studied, and replicated, here are some replicated experiments from 2004/5, so the evidence is there and growing:
In your defense, the 2005 PDR still says the method of action is not fully known...but that is not surprising, it may have been updated for '06, or not. It is not a very flexible book.
In short, much work has been done since 2000 on this subject, mostly because the results have been really impressive, especially in those patients who were refractive to other therapies.
In closing, you just hit a tender spot that is a bane of medical education. In th
There is no organism that causes the most common eczema (discoid can be caused by S. aureus), it is an immune/allergy most likely and in some cases it is unknown.
The method of action of *limus is well known. Calcineurin modifying something or other....in short they modify IL-2 response. This is consistent with suppressing immune response. If there was a causative agent causing the symptom, you would never* put a patient on immunosupprents.
But I think I see what you are saying, the body becomes tolerant or there is more than one mechanism that is causing the symptoms, the tacrolimus helps one and the equilibrium just shifts to the other. Also, the is not much data on long term *crolimus topically and when we learned about it, it was a "treatment of last resort" warning/disclaimer. So maybe it is best that it only works for a short while, blessing in disguise.
What specific kind of eczema does you kid have? (seborrheic eczema, Irritant, Discoid, Allergic, and the most common, Atopic)
From the sound of it, it sounds like atopic eczema/dermatitis. Also, in that case, the cause is largely unknown.
Anyway, good luck with the fight. With all luck, your kid will grow out of it. *crosses fingers*
*Disclaimer for completeness: There is an immune reconstitution syndrome associated with immne system rebound in HIV infection in which the patient does have an infection but the immune response is way overboard and you use immunosuppresents in the treatment. There may be some other exceptions, as well