France does not show up in the picture, despite a high ranking GDP.
Does its 80% of electricity production from nuclear weight that much, that it cancels other contributions such as road transport? Or does the study fails to take the whole picture into account?
Usually, nucleus DNA gets transcripted into RNA. HIV takes the path backwards (this is reverse-transcription) and use specific biochemistry for that. The drug attacks that pathway.
I guess it must be effective to a much larger class of virus, but don't worry: they will adapt. After all there is no real need to infect the nucleus, RNA is enough for some viruses, ad far as I understand
Because if I can get away with murder, that necessarily implies that there is "no political community able to enforce [laws against murder]"
There are several cases to distinguish
If it is not known your are the murderer, then you get away with it, but the sovereign will to ban murders remains intact. Just surrender and you will verify it is.
If you manage to flee to a foreign country (without extradition treaties) and get known as the murderer, then you experience the territoriality of sovereignty. A political community can only enforce laws on the territory it controls
If you are a known murderer you can carry on your everyday life in a given society, this indeed means that this society does not seriously care about banning murder. There may be a law, but obviously it got obsoleted by the lack of sovereign will to enforce it. I would not want to live in such a place.
If your right has no political community able to enforce it, it is useless. Moreover it is illegitimate since it does not proceed from the People's will.
The Constitution didn't create a "freedom of speech", it's protecting one that pre-exists.
There is no natural right, because there is no natural force able to enforce such a right. Right, or laws, are created by human groups that are ready to enforce them on a given territory.
This is a US constitutional right, not a natural, or even universally accepted right. Many countries restrict it, for reasons you could consider good (ban holocost denial), or bad (ban criticism of the Great Leader)
Many commenters will probably consider this person is gaming the system.
It is hard to live with 800 USD/month, especially when the price to pay is to live in a remote area without any job or even electricity (which is quite rare in France). That makes me assume she is sincere until further proof of the countrary
Weather forecast need an infrastructure of weather stations. Given that they are properties of the weather forecast companies, competition means replicating the same infrastructure, or more likely divide it since there will not be more money flowing to the whole industry to duplicate weather stations.
Competition will therefore not bring a better service here. A solution could be to create a public service for collecting data, and leave competition to interpretation of the data. Or just do not leave that field to competition.
Perhaps most of the time, staff pick success prediction is just a self-fulfilling prophecy? You tell people a project is interesting, and therefore they donate.
If that is the case, opacity may be useful: if it was not opaque, people could challenge the prediction.
This is may why we may never achieve it: contrarily to fission, fusion must first overcome a huge potential barrier to bring nuclei close enough for it to happen. It means first giving a huge amount of energy to start it, and then you want it to be controlled enough to not have an hydrogen bomb in the lab.
You may not make vitamin D from UV lamp efficiently. There may be various reasons: too low cholesterol levels, the UV lamp does not produce UVB but only UVA, you skin is too brown an filters too efficiently...
Oral supplementation is quite effective on most people, which just the problem that in order to acheive the same blood levels, some need 1000 UI per day, and others need 10000 UI (a harmful dose for the formers).
The risk/benefit ratio of vitamin D is such that supplementing is a good idea anyway. Taking 1000 UI per day will not harm and it can only help.
But in order to get full benefits, higher doses bases on blood testing are required (because you can get an overdose of vitamin D). Studies finding no benefit tend to use a low dose without checking blood levels
The funny point is that climate crises is coming at the same time as oil peak. It means any solution to climate change should not rely on oil, and vice-versa.
Hence, how much oil o they need to change climate?
Slashdot Mirror
France does not show up in the picture, despite a high ranking GDP.
Does its 80% of electricity production from nuclear weight that much, that it cancels other contributions such as road transport? Or does the study fails to take the whole picture into account?
It if funny to find Stakhanov like celebrated workers in the US
I refuse to believe this paragraph was written by a living, breathing human
I am happy to see I am not alone scratching my head after reading this thing.
not likely something that would happen in only a few generations, or even a few thousand.
But how long is a generation for the HIV?
That said, if somebody does get infected with HIV while on this drug, they should completely abstain from sex, or else it's back to the drawing board.
If that is a requirement, it is doomed to fail, but why should people abstain?
Can somebody explain the biochemistry on that?
Usually, nucleus DNA gets transcripted into RNA. HIV takes the path backwards (this is reverse-transcription) and use specific biochemistry for that. The drug attacks that pathway.
I guess it must be effective to a much larger class of virus, but don't worry: they will adapt. After all there is no real need to infect the nucleus, RNA is enough for some viruses, ad far as I understand
Because if I can get away with murder, that necessarily implies that there is "no political community able to enforce [laws against murder]"
There are several cases to distinguish
If it is not known your are the murderer, then you get away with it, but the sovereign will to ban murders remains intact. Just surrender and you will verify it is.
If you manage to flee to a foreign country (without extradition treaties) and get known as the murderer, then you experience the territoriality of sovereignty. A political community can only enforce laws on the territory it controls
If you are a known murderer you can carry on your everyday life in a given society, this indeed means that this society does not seriously care about banning murder. There may be a law, but obviously it got obsoleted by the lack of sovereign will to enforce it. I would not want to live in such a place.
So then murder is OK so long as I can successfully get away with it. Got it.
When did I say such a thing? You seems a bit confused about what sovereignty is.
Common sense says that nothing can be advertised as unlimited, because nothing on Earth is unlimited.
Stupidity has no limits :-)
Computer do not breathe, hence it is very kind from AI to help fixing this issue.
With all the industrial food wrapped into plastic containers, human also eat plastic, since almost all plastic leak chemical into the food.
Polyethylene and polypropylene may be the exceptions, but they always come with other chemicals that improve color or plasticity.
If your right has no political community able to enforce it, it is useless. Moreover it is illegitimate since it does not proceed from the People's will.
The Constitution didn't create a "freedom of speech", it's protecting one that pre-exists.
There is no natural right, because there is no natural force able to enforce such a right. Right, or laws, are created by human groups that are ready to enforce them on a given territory.
The point is everyone has the freedom of speech.
This is a US constitutional right, not a natural, or even universally accepted right. Many countries restrict it, for reasons you could consider good (ban holocost denial), or bad (ban criticism of the Great Leader)
Many commenters will probably consider this person is gaming the system.
It is hard to live with 800 USD/month, especially when the price to pay is to live in a remote area without any job or even electricity (which is quite rare in France). That makes me assume she is sincere until further proof of the countrary
international citizens
International citizens have rights in US courts?
Yes, the fever dream of capital: eliminate labor costs.
It is also its promised death: without labor costs, there is no more consumers.
Weather forecast need an infrastructure of weather stations. Given that they are properties of the weather forecast companies, competition means replicating the same infrastructure, or more likely divide it since there will not be more money flowing to the whole industry to duplicate weather stations.
Competition will therefore not bring a better service here. A solution could be to create a public service for collecting data, and leave competition to interpretation of the data. Or just do not leave that field to competition.
I understand the problem is that vulnerable software was signed and is therefore trusted. Google did not set up any way to revoke certificates?
Perhaps most of the time, staff pick success prediction is just a self-fulfilling prophecy? You tell people a project is interesting, and therefore they donate.
If that is the case, opacity may be useful: if it was not opaque, people could challenge the prediction.
This is may why we may never achieve it: contrarily to fission, fusion must first overcome a huge potential barrier to bring nuclei close enough for it to happen. It means first giving a huge amount of energy to start it, and then you want it to be controlled enough to not have an hydrogen bomb in the lab.
You may not make vitamin D from UV lamp efficiently. There may be various reasons: too low cholesterol levels, the UV lamp does not produce UVB but only UVA, you skin is too brown an filters too efficiently...
Oral supplementation is quite effective on most people, which just the problem that in order to acheive the same blood levels, some need 1000 UI per day, and others need 10000 UI (a harmful dose for the formers).
The risk/benefit ratio of vitamin D is such that supplementing is a good idea anyway. Taking 1000 UI per day will not harm and it can only help.
But in order to get full benefits, higher doses bases on blood testing are required (because you can get an overdose of vitamin D). Studies finding no benefit tend to use a low dose without checking blood levels
The funny point is that climate crises is coming at the same time as oil peak. It means any solution to climate change should not rely on oil, and vice-versa.
Hence, how much oil o they need to change climate?
We already have vitamin D which is very effective against seasonal viruses like the flu.
Of course the problem is that this cannot be patented
An observer moving faster, but compared to what point?