17 studies in humans and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in foods met inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the human studies examined clinical outcomes, finding no significant differences between populations by food type for allergic outcomes (eczema, wheeze, atopic sensitization) or symptomatic Campylobacter infection. Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets, but studies of biomarker and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults did not identify clinically meaningful differences.
I'd say determining that there is not a higher risk of food poisoning or some allergic reactions when eating non-organic food doesn't warrant saying anything about 'healthier'. To base claims of 'healthier' on whether or not organic foods contain more 'nutrients' is even more far fetched. Aside from the fact that organic foods were ascertained to contain less pesticides, the results of this study are perfectly compatible with a hypothetical observation that people who eat non-organic foods die 20 years before those that eat organic foods.
I contend that he just did not read very closely, missing that the paper he was commenting on was also accepted and published. It just seems like a lazy attempt at poisoning the well, which adds very little to any debate.
I do agree that the relation between the findings of the first paper and sea ice coverage need clarification, but it seems to be of less importance given the findings of the second paper.
Well, there is a direction in the sense that single celled life needs to evolve before more complex life can evolve. One could also argue that, given relatively stable circumstances, complex life is bound to evolve at some point. And even though complex species can be much more fragile than single celled species as a whole, the individuals can be more resilient in the face of changing circumstances and less prone to die.
What part of "A paper published in Science finds summer Arctic Sea Ice extent during the Holocene Thermal Maximum 8,000 years ago was "less than half of the record low 2007 level." don't you understand?
I'm not taking a stance on the validity of the sentence, but it does pretty much address your concerns.
Yes, professional capitalism. Promise the world and deliver as little as possible to not chase customers away. Selling a good product for lots of money is silver. Selling crap for lots of money is gold.
I'm not cynical, just saying the system needs an update.
Then, you can tweak the one photon you kept, and every time you do, the other reacts as if you were the one tweaking it?
You can't 'tweak' it. Just measure it and thereby know/enforce that the measurement on the other side is opposite to (or directly related to) your own.
Moreover, the entangled state disappears after one measurement, if I'm not mistaken.
Perhaps an interesting analogy:
Put two billiard balls directly next to each other and hit them with a third ball (exactly between them and in such a way that neither touches the edges of the table).
Your balls are now entangled.
Disclaimer: Probably not a particularly accurate analogy of entanglement, but I find it helps in understanding what use one could get out of knowing about an entangled state and a measurement on one of the entangled elements.
If pretty much the entire rural US was covered in solar panels, yes.
From the PDF (Notice the absence of 'Area currently in use for producing food'):
Land Type(s) Exclusion:
Urban Areas
MRLC - Water
MRLC - Wetlands
BLM ACEC Lands (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) (BLM 2009)
Forest Service IRA (Inventoried Roadless Area) (USFS 2003)
National Park Service Lands
Fish & Wildlife Lands
Federal Parks
Federal Wilderness
Federal Wilderness Study Area
Federal National Monument
Federal National Battlefield
Federal Recreation Area
Federal National Conservation Area
Federal Wildlife Refuge
Federal Wildlife Area
Federal Wild and Scenic Area
But 3D is also the normal way for us to see the world
True, but the world doesn't have bezels.
I do agree with you that 3D can be abused or used properly, but not wholly on the matter whether it enhances suspension of disbelief. The 3D world in a box can really make you more aware of being in a room with people and seats in it. The 2D image does not invite thinking about the layout of the room and the role of the screen in it as much.
Having said all this: for sufficiently large screens the above does not hold. I am a fan of the IMAX dome screens.
There are billions of girls in the world who fall for far douchier bullshit adds about cosmetics/clothes/etc.
Ah yes, the old bait and switch. Once those stupid girls have fallen for our bullshit and have chosen for a career in science it will already be too late for them! Muhahahaha!
They're not buying anything, you know. This is about life choices and as a result, promoting careers in science should be promoting the wonder and curiosity that drives most scientists instead of 'look at how cool you could look as a scientist (but never really will) or all the cool stuff you could do for the world (but realistically will only contribute to the realization of that cool stuff)'. Ask the questions about the world that scientists ask themselves, show how asking those questions in the past have created awesome things now! The girls whose interests are sparked by this are the ones that will be good additions to the field of science and will not be steered away at the first sign of science appearing to be hard work instead of a means of being cool.
It's your proposal. You need to be prepared to back it up with detail or people will think you're just throwing an extremist idea into the arena based on little more than bloodlust.
The reality is that your proposal exhibits a gross oversimplification of the reality of war and the responsibilities that surround it. I was hoping that you were more serious about defending it.
Define 'leaders'.
Define 'offensive war/battle'.
Define 'justified'.
Envision 'political propaganda'. Except this time, post-war leaders actually die when their opponents are successful in smearing them. Direct democracy is almost never, if ever, a good idea.
Also, your image of kings 'at the front line' may be slightly romanticized. As I understand it, even if they led their men into battle, they would not be in the front ranks and would even then be captured for ransom most of the time.
Anecdotal evidence (done badly)? Check.
Statistics pulled out of your ass? Check.
Unfounded feeling of superiority? Check.
Blatant lies? Check.
Argumentum ad populum? Check.
Please crawl back under your safe rock and the fantasy world that it protects.
In relative power draw? Probably.
In absolute power draw? Perhaps.
But what effect does local dimming have?
Does it matter if you turn off dynamic contrast features?
I know I was hoping to see answers to these questions, preferably for newer monitors that assumingly employ modern technology. The current state of this bit of 'news' 'for nerds' is '8 year old stuff' 'that anybody with an interest in technology could have told you if they were twelve'.
The problem is that the second page of the article is filled with almost 50 measurements that imply 'extensive testing' that add little, if anything, to the basic greyscale and color tests.
I can't help but feel that those tests were added simply to add more keywords ("social networks energy efficiency", jay!) to the article and to seemingly add more weight to their concluding "rules of thumb". In the mind of the general crowd it will stick as "They did a really big test and black websites cost less power than white websites because they use less light". I'm under the impression that there is no lack of hollow easily misleading effect-chasing journalism. Assuming that's the case we shouldn't encourage more of it, regardless of potential positive effects that arise from it (which would be negligible, in this particular instance).
I'm not saying newer LCD screens would perform differently (dynamic contrast, local dimming, etc. == marketing stats boosting and terrible) but basing a blanket statement like "B) Websites with darker colours tend to cause the monitor to consume less power." on a test with one LCD monitor is stretching it.
Indeed. From the full text (jay, free to read! But frames, really?):
It is with this tradition in mind that we develop our articial neural network model, with evolving network structure, using the number of neurons, i, as our proxy for intelligence.
Not very sophisticated, if you ask me. More importantly, though:
Context nodes, which store the previous state of their cognitive node and return this state (times a weight) as input in the next round, are labelled C.
So they've implemented a special type of node that serves as a very very short term memory.
For example, manual interrogation of networks revealed that, of the tit-for-tat type strategies that emerge, many are tit-for-2(or more)-tats
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat#Tit_for_two_tats). It is slightly interesting that the (round n-1) context nodes and traditional nodes combined can generate operational memory of round n-2, but what the paper boils down to is: evolving neural networks with memory nodes evolve strategies that use memory.
My neurobiology isn't that strong, but I'm not too sure whether early life forms have the equivalent of such memory nodes, which kind of puts a dent in the whole this-could-be-in-part-how-early-intelligence-evolved.
Cardio is basically pointless when it comes to weight loss (but still extremely beneficial to your general health!). 'Exercise' is a far too general term here. The way in which exercise can induce weight loss is by increasing your non-fatty tissue and subsequently your Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR). A couple of weeks of strength training can achieve that: http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/2001/04000/Effect_of_strength_training_on_resting_metabolic.5.aspx.
This graph or Wikipedia shows why increasing your RMR can be effective in aiding in losing weight.
I will agree with you that the total amount of energy intake is also important. Not eating that extra pound is not a bad idea at all. But it is misleading to imply that merely eating less is the way to go. In fact, if not combined with daily activity (I'm avoiding the word exercise here), it can leave you as unhealthy as your visibly obese neighbour. See, f.i.: http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Abdominal-fat-and-what-to-do-about-it.shtml (btw, 'visceral fat' is the more correct term as it doesn't conjure up associations with 'love handles' and such). Or Google 'dr jimmy bell fat' for some popular media coverage on the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. The conclusions drawn in the media are crap. Here's why:
First, a link to the article pdf: http://media.dssimon.com/taperequest/acp75_study.pdf
Then, from the abstract:
I'd say determining that there is not a higher risk of food poisoning or some allergic reactions when eating non-organic food doesn't warrant saying anything about 'healthier'. To base claims of 'healthier' on whether or not organic foods contain more 'nutrients' is even more far fetched. Aside from the fact that organic foods were ascertained to contain less pesticides, the results of this study are perfectly compatible with a hypothetical observation that people who eat non-organic foods die 20 years before those that eat organic foods.
So yeah, nothing to see here.
I contend that he just did not read very closely, missing that the paper he was commenting on was also accepted and published. It just seems like a lazy attempt at poisoning the well, which adds very little to any debate.
I do agree that the relation between the findings of the first paper and sea ice coverage need clarification, but it seems to be of less importance given the findings of the second paper.
Well, there is a direction in the sense that single celled life needs to evolve before more complex life can evolve. One could also argue that, given relatively stable circumstances, complex life is bound to evolve at some point. And even though complex species can be much more fragile than single celled species as a whole, the individuals can be more resilient in the face of changing circumstances and less prone to die.
What part of "A paper published in Science finds summer Arctic Sea Ice extent during the Holocene Thermal Maximum 8,000 years ago was "less than half of the record low 2007 level." don't you understand?
I'm not taking a stance on the validity of the sentence, but it does pretty much address your concerns.
Yes, professional capitalism. Promise the world and deliver as little as possible to not chase customers away.
Selling a good product for lots of money is silver. Selling crap for lots of money is gold.
I'm not cynical, just saying the system needs an update.
Indeed, I hadn't thought about modulation. Rethinking it, I'm not sure whether it is possible to robustly transfer undetectable data in an RF signal.
Then, you can tweak the one photon you kept, and every time you do, the other reacts as if you were the one tweaking it?
You can't 'tweak' it. Just measure it and thereby know/enforce that the measurement on the other side is opposite to (or directly related to) your own. Moreover, the entangled state disappears after one measurement, if I'm not mistaken.
I found this section of the wikipedia article on entanglement to be most informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Concept
Also, cryptography. Properly encrypted data should look like noise even if it's right in front of you.
Are you suggesting that I exchange my computer for a pair of SSDs?
Perhaps an interesting analogy:
Put two billiard balls directly next to each other and hit them with a third ball (exactly between them and in such a way that neither touches the edges of the table).
Your balls are now entangled.
Disclaimer: Probably not a particularly accurate analogy of entanglement, but I find it helps in understanding what use one could get out of knowing about an entangled state and a measurement on one of the entangled elements.
If pretty much the entire rural US was covered in solar panels, yes.
From the PDF (Notice the absence of 'Area currently in use for producing food'):
Land Type(s) Exclusion:
Urban Areas
MRLC - Water
MRLC - Wetlands
BLM ACEC Lands (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) (BLM 2009)
Forest Service IRA (Inventoried Roadless Area) (USFS 2003)
National Park Service Lands
Fish & Wildlife Lands
Federal Parks
Federal Wilderness
Federal Wilderness Study Area
Federal National Monument
Federal National Battlefield
Federal Recreation Area
Federal National Conservation Area
Federal Wildlife Refuge
Federal Wildlife Area
Federal Wild and Scenic Area
Thank you!
How I loathe undescriptive icons in shades of black and grey.
True, but the world doesn't have bezels.
I do agree with you that 3D can be abused or used properly, but not wholly on the matter whether it enhances suspension of disbelief. The 3D world in a box can really make you more aware of being in a room with people and seats in it. The 2D image does not invite thinking about the layout of the room and the role of the screen in it as much.
Having said all this: for sufficiently large screens the above does not hold. I am a fan of the IMAX dome screens.
Whiz-bang indeed: Hitachi explains perpendicular recording
Although there probably is some truth to that, it does look like pretty crappy research to me: http://academyofwinebusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/24-AWBR2011-Mantonakis-Galiffi.pdf
Ah yes, the old bait and switch. Once those stupid girls have fallen for our bullshit and have chosen for a career in science it will already be too late for them! Muhahahaha!
They're not buying anything, you know. This is about life choices and as a result, promoting careers in science should be promoting the wonder and curiosity that drives most scientists instead of 'look at how cool you could look as a scientist (but never really will) or all the cool stuff you could do for the world (but realistically will only contribute to the realization of that cool stuff)'. Ask the questions about the world that scientists ask themselves, show how asking those questions in the past have created awesome things now! The girls whose interests are sparked by this are the ones that will be good additions to the field of science and will not be steered away at the first sign of science appearing to be hard work instead of a means of being cool.
Actual female scientist role models would probably help too, but it seems they're actually doing a slightly decent job at that: http://science-girl-thing.eu/profiles-of-women-in-science
It's your proposal. You need to be prepared to back it up with detail or people will think you're just throwing an extremist idea into the arena based on little more than bloodlust.
The reality is that your proposal exhibits a gross oversimplification of the reality of war and the responsibilities that surround it. I was hoping that you were more serious about defending it.
Define 'leaders'.
Define 'offensive war/battle'.
Define 'justified'.
Envision 'political propaganda'. Except this time, post-war leaders actually die when their opponents are successful in smearing them. Direct democracy is almost never, if ever, a good idea.
Also, your image of kings 'at the front line' may be slightly romanticized. As I understand it, even if they led their men into battle, they would not be in the front ranks and would even then be captured for ransom most of the time.
Anecdotal evidence (done badly)? Check.
Statistics pulled out of your ass? Check.
Unfounded feeling of superiority? Check.
Blatant lies? Check.
Argumentum ad populum? Check.
Please crawl back under your safe rock and the fantasy world that it protects.
In relative power draw? Probably.
In absolute power draw? Perhaps.
But what effect does local dimming have?
Does it matter if you turn off dynamic contrast features?
I know I was hoping to see answers to these questions, preferably for newer monitors that assumingly employ modern technology. The current state of this bit of 'news' 'for nerds' is '8 year old stuff' 'that anybody with an interest in technology could have told you if they were twelve'.
The problem is that the second page of the article is filled with almost 50 measurements that imply 'extensive testing' that add little, if anything, to the basic greyscale and color tests.
I can't help but feel that those tests were added simply to add more keywords ("social networks energy efficiency", jay!) to the article and to seemingly add more weight to their concluding "rules of thumb". In the mind of the general crowd it will stick as "They did a really big test and black websites cost less power than white websites because they use less light".
I'm under the impression that there is no lack of hollow easily misleading effect-chasing journalism. Assuming that's the case we shouldn't encourage more of it, regardless of potential positive effects that arise from it (which would be negligible, in this particular instance).
The LCD they tested is also 8 years old.
I'm not saying newer LCD screens would perform differently (dynamic contrast, local dimming, etc. == marketing stats boosting and terrible) but basing a blanket statement like "B) Websites with darker colours tend to cause the monitor to consume less power." on a test with one LCD monitor is stretching it.
Indeed. From the full text (jay, free to read! But frames, really?):
Not very sophisticated, if you ask me. More importantly, though:
So they've implemented a special type of node that serves as a very very short term memory.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat#Tit_for_two_tats). It is slightly interesting that the (round n-1) context nodes and traditional nodes combined can generate operational memory of round n-2, but what the paper boils down to is: evolving neural networks with memory nodes evolve strategies that use memory.
My neurobiology isn't that strong, but I'm not too sure whether early life forms have the equivalent of such memory nodes, which kind of puts a dent in the whole this-could-be-in-part-how-early-intelligence-evolved.
Cardio is basically pointless when it comes to weight loss (but still extremely beneficial to your general health!). 'Exercise' is a far too general term here. The way in which exercise can induce weight loss is by increasing your non-fatty tissue and subsequently your Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR). A couple of weeks of strength training can achieve that: http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/2001/04000/Effect_of_strength_training_on_resting_metabolic.5.aspx.
This graph or Wikipedia shows why increasing your RMR can be effective in aiding in losing weight.
Additionally, high spikes in blood sugar levels (insert carbohydrates/HFCS-rant here) and the associated insulin spikes are very suspect when it comes to losing fatty tissue (and generally: weight), see: http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/pancreas/insulin_phys.html (CTRL+F: lipid metabolism).
I will agree with you that the total amount of energy intake is also important. Not eating that extra pound is not a bad idea at all. But it is misleading to imply that merely eating less is the way to go. In fact, if not combined with daily activity (I'm avoiding the word exercise here), it can leave you as unhealthy as your visibly obese neighbour. See, f.i.: http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Abdominal-fat-and-what-to-do-about-it.shtml (btw, 'visceral fat' is the more correct term as it doesn't conjure up associations with 'love handles' and such). Or Google 'dr jimmy bell fat' for some popular media coverage on the subject.
Well, the damage wasn't too bad actually. Pics: http://www.vg.no/bildespesial/spesial.php?id=8728