What about the "ethical concerns" of blocking and delaying the development of cures for diseases (a principle underlying aim of this kind of research) that cause untold suffering to millions upon millions of people as we speak?
In addition to 47 Euros, how much of your monthly taxes goes to subsidizing that transport? "Hidden costs" != "No costs".
That said, I'm pretty sure public transport is still more financially efficient. And it has other benefits (such as being able to go out drinking and not have to worry about driving home). And it allows foreign visitors to travel with much greater ease. And provides transport options to those who can't afford cars.
If it's a matter of antioxidants, wouldn't taking decent amounts of Vitamin C (which has a relatively high toxicity rate) do the same?
Different antioxidants may do different things, in different parts of the body (and even in different people, and when that person is doing different things)... for example, an antioxidant that is able to cross the blood-brain barrier will be able to help mop up free radicals with neuronal cells, while one that is not able to do so, will not be able to, but may be able to mop up free radicals in, say, muscle tissue. Different body processes can even result in the production of different amounts of free radicals in different parts of the body. The body is complex.
Great science there, now for the 'control' portion of your experiment you just need another identical grandfather with the exception that that one didn't drink coffee.
I would venture to guess that he either would've been symptomatic earlier had he not drank the coffee, or he's one of the significant percentage who didn't show this effect. But either way, the existence of exceptions don't disprove anything, I wonder why people can't understand such a simple concept. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Just to add to that, the media *do* often confuse the first vs second derivative... they often say one when they mean the other, and are *never* clear on this (for some reason very few people understand these basics of life), but you can usually figure out which one they're talking about from the context. It doesn't mean they're necessarily "wrong", it just means they are unable to correctly communicate what they're actually trying to say.
BFD. Contact me when it is in decline. A positive growth rate means that sales are still growing
You're confusing the first and second derivatives of PC sales. If the absolute 'growth rate' was, let's say for example's sake, 5% in 2007, 3% in 2008, and will be 1% in 2009, that is a "negative growth rate" i.e. -2% per year... in other words 'growth rate of the growth rate' is negative, and this IS meaningful (in fact, MORE meaningful than the absolute growth rate percentage) because even though you still have a positive 'growth rate' of 1% in 2009 (looking at a static snapshot, so to speak), unless something changes you can predict that it will likely be -1% by 2010, -3% by 2011, and so on. In other words, that number, though still positive now, is dropping so fast that at the current rate it soon will be negative.
A car analogy might be, if you are driving on the highway and suddenly need to hit the brakes. While you are slowing down, your acceleration is *negative* (second derivative), and even though you are still *moving forward* at a positive rate (in absolute terms - first derivative), you WILL come to a stop at those rates of change.
If Netbook sales are actually rising roughly in correspondence though, then this isn't really a decline, it just means people are buying Netbooks *instead* of full-blown PCs when the former are suitable to their desired tasks - fungible commodity. This is *good* for the economy, especially if (as they suggest) margins are lower on Netbooks, as it means people are just seeking (and getting) better value, i.e. they are still basically getting the computing power they need, for less money... economies are adjusting to be more efficient and leaner.
"A geek like you, but who doesn't get the respect you do because I wear a skirt and you wear pants."
Yeah, I've known geek women who got PLENTY of respect, and it's probably because they didn't walk around with a massive chip on their shoulder, a condescending attitude with a sense of entitlement, bashing the people around them and using logical fallacies in every second thing they said. I've also known plenty geek men who got little to no respect. It's all in how professional you are. I sense girlintraining is one of those people who passively but deliberately rubs people the wrong way, and then when they get irritated with her, she uses that in her mind to "prove" to herself that life is unfair and she gets a raw deal w.r.t. other people not respecting her "because she's a woman" or whatever. That in her mind absolves of her of personal responsibility for the nature of her relations with others.
Restrooms are probably the cleanest places you can find in public areas because they're one of the few that are regularly sanitized.
Uh, the very reason they are "regularly sanitized" is because they are FILTHY. Do you have any clue how much urine and bits of feces get splashed all over a cubicle and walls etc. just from one, single flush of a toilet? Now do that for dozens of strangers in a row, before the cleaner comes in, and then make a baby eat there. WTF.
What next, getting morally outraged because I don't want to see you having sex with someone? I mean, after all.. That's perfectly natural too. So is masturbation.
You are setting up your own strawman false-equivalent that is easier to shoot down (sex in public) than breastfeeding, and pretending there is an equivalence between the two.
I'll remember that when some creep smiles and opens his trench coat from across the room for you.
Massive difference in context: When a male creep flashes a female stranger it is firstly a potentially threatening and dangerous situation and should rightfully invoke fear, is secondly explicitly sexual, and is thirdly specifically directed at her.
When a woman flips open to breastfeed in front of me, it is not potentially threatening to me, isn't explicitly sexual, and isn't directed at me. Do you really think this is equivalent?
You're crying at the idea of seeing a baby feeding in the most natural way - and yet you call others "crybabies"? Now that's rich. I hope you can see the irony in that.
to protect your dignity (and my eyes)... Or my eyes.
You say it's about "protecting your eyes"? If so, I can think of many far uglier things than a baby breastfeeding that we generally expect to be see in public or in photos posted on the Internet... say, ugly fat women, badly disfigured individuals... by your logic, we must then also ban public appearance or imagery of these?
Sorry, but you don't have a right not to see things you don't personally like seeing. Seeing things that you don't like is just part of life, mature adults are generally able to deal with it without whining about it, e.g. I think it's a total non-issue, and I find it absurd that you think it's an issue at all.
Pragmatically speaking, sex is a LOT messier, too messy for many public places. I don't think anyone wants to, say, eat in a restaurant where people mess cum and other stuff on the chairs or tables and who knows where else. Sex is messy.
You don't have any right to never see things you don't like seeing. I don't like seeing, say, fat chicks either, but that doesn't mean I have any right to call for the banning of photos of fat chicks or their appearance in public. Sometimes you see things you don't like - get over it, that's life. And "thrust" at you? Please. Actually, in all my life I can't recall more than a small number of occurrences where I saw nursing babies, and it was always subtle anyway, and I've never seen one on Facebook. And it really doesn't bother me anyway, I cannot even begin to imagine how anyone could possibly be bothered by something like that.
Listen to yourself... there's so much anger and bitterness showing in your post, you might want to reconsider your position that you are somehow that morally superior to those that felt suicidal, as those beatings probably affected you more than you think... "all it ever did", I don't think so. I'm not even sure it's normal to feel that strongly about something that really has nothing to do with you if things are as you purport them to be - those suicidal people did nothing to you. It sounds more to me as though positing your status as being higher than those "weak losers" (in your mind) helps you see yourself as stronger or better (an imagined position you're clearly fighting hard to maintain, suggesting maybe it is in doubt in your mind) --- in fact, what you are ultimately doing is very much akin to bullying those 'losers'. It's all about maintaining a position in the social status hierarchy; your not being suicidal doesn't make you 'better than' those people. You're holding a lot of anger and bitterness down and it's very obvious from every other sentence; your attacking people you perceive as weak (who might be a lot stronger than you in fact, you DON'T know what else they go through) is probably doing harm to the people around you.
And how long will it take you to reinstall the entire machine (including all updates and finding and downloading and installing all drivers and installing AV software etc.), and what is the typical market value of the labor required to do that kind of thing?
Dell probably has the advantage of disk image mass installs, but there is a market value to getting XP onto Vista machines.
Then you're part of the problem too; the OP specifically was referring to people who were basically worried about simply having the money to pay basics like foods/gas etc.... don't you see the connection? Remarkable.
A LOT of people are in a financial bind with the way the economy is at the moment and are saving their money for more important things like food/bills/gass..etc, there is no way they are going to waste money on something like this.
Wait... double-take... what kind of person who is in a "financial bind", to the extent that he is worried about saving for food, is sitting around playing games on a PS3 over a broadband connection!? No wonder the economy is the way it is and these people are in financial trouble... get off your bums and do something constructive. I hope you're not one of those in a "financial bind" - the fact that you're then sitting around posting to slashdot about it just makes it even worse.
References? And define "beaten" (does your definition depend on health being state-provided? then of course, Cuba is a communist country). Beyond the fake tourist front-ends, Cuba's a rotten hole.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the "ethical concerns" of blocking and delaying the development of cures for diseases (a principle underlying aim of this kind of research) that cause untold suffering to millions upon millions of people as we speak?
In addition to 47 Euros, how much of your monthly taxes goes to subsidizing that transport? "Hidden costs" != "No costs".
That said, I'm pretty sure public transport is still more financially efficient. And it has other benefits (such as being able to go out drinking and not have to worry about driving home). And it allows foreign visitors to travel with much greater ease. And provides transport options to those who can't afford cars.
There's an RSS feed.
If it's a matter of antioxidants, wouldn't taking decent amounts of Vitamin C (which has a relatively high toxicity rate) do the same?
Different antioxidants may do different things, in different parts of the body (and even in different people, and when that person is doing different things) ... for example, an antioxidant that is able to cross the blood-brain barrier will be able to help mop up free radicals with neuronal cells, while one that is not able to do so, will not be able to, but may be able to mop up free radicals in, say, muscle tissue. Different body processes can even result in the production of different amounts of free radicals in different parts of the body. The body is complex.
Great science there, now for the 'control' portion of your experiment you just need another identical grandfather with the exception that that one didn't drink coffee.
I would venture to guess that he either would've been symptomatic earlier had he not drank the coffee, or he's one of the significant percentage who didn't show this effect. But either way, the existence of exceptions don't disprove anything, I wonder why people can't understand such a simple concept. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Just to add to that, the media *do* often confuse the first vs second derivative ... they often say one when they mean the other, and are *never* clear on this (for some reason very few people understand these basics of life), but you can usually figure out which one they're talking about from the context. It doesn't mean they're necessarily "wrong", it just means they are unable to correctly communicate what they're actually trying to say.
"posted its worst growth rate ever"
BFD. Contact me when it is in decline. A positive growth rate means that sales are still growing
You're confusing the first and second derivatives of PC sales. If the absolute 'growth rate' was, let's say for example's sake, 5% in 2007, 3% in 2008, and will be 1% in 2009, that is a "negative growth rate" i.e. -2% per year ... in other words 'growth rate of the growth rate' is negative, and this IS meaningful (in fact, MORE meaningful than the absolute growth rate percentage) because even though you still have a positive 'growth rate' of 1% in 2009 (looking at a static snapshot, so to speak), unless something changes you can predict that it will likely be -1% by 2010, -3% by 2011, and so on. In other words, that number, though still positive now, is dropping so fast that at the current rate it soon will be negative.
A car analogy might be, if you are driving on the highway and suddenly need to hit the brakes. While you are slowing down, your acceleration is *negative* (second derivative), and even though you are still *moving forward* at a positive rate (in absolute terms - first derivative), you WILL come to a stop at those rates of change.
If Netbook sales are actually rising roughly in correspondence though, then this isn't really a decline, it just means people are buying Netbooks *instead* of full-blown PCs when the former are suitable to their desired tasks - fungible commodity. This is *good* for the economy, especially if (as they suggest) margins are lower on Netbooks, as it means people are just seeking (and getting) better value, i.e. they are still basically getting the computing power they need, for less money ... economies are adjusting to be more efficient and leaner.
"A geek like you, but who doesn't get the respect
you do because I wear a skirt and you wear pants."
Yeah, I've known geek women who got PLENTY of respect, and it's probably because they didn't walk around with a massive chip on their shoulder, a condescending attitude with a sense of entitlement, bashing the people around them and using logical fallacies in every second thing they said. I've also known plenty geek men who got little to no respect. It's all in how professional you are. I sense girlintraining is one of those people who passively but deliberately rubs people the wrong way, and then when they get irritated with her, she uses that in her mind to "prove" to herself that life is unfair and she gets a raw deal w.r.t. other people not respecting her "because she's a woman" or whatever. That in her mind absolves of her of personal responsibility for the nature of her relations with others.
Restrooms are probably the cleanest places you can find in public areas because they're one of the few that are regularly sanitized.
Uh, the very reason they are "regularly sanitized" is because they are FILTHY. Do you have any clue how much urine and bits of feces get splashed all over a cubicle and walls etc. just from one, single flush of a toilet? Now do that for dozens of strangers in a row, before the cleaner comes in, and then make a baby eat there. WTF.
What next, getting morally outraged because I don't want to see you having sex with someone? I mean, after all.. That's perfectly natural too. So is masturbation.
You are setting up your own strawman false-equivalent that is easier to shoot down (sex in public) than breastfeeding, and pretending there is an equivalence between the two.
I'll remember that when some creep smiles and opens his trench coat from across the room for you.
Massive difference in context: When a male creep flashes a female stranger it is firstly a potentially threatening and dangerous situation and should rightfully invoke fear, is secondly explicitly sexual, and is thirdly specifically directed at her.
When a woman flips open to breastfeed in front of me, it is not potentially threatening to me, isn't explicitly sexual, and isn't directed at me. Do you really think this is equivalent?
You're crying at the idea of seeing a baby feeding in the most natural way - and yet you call others "crybabies"? Now that's rich. I hope you can see the irony in that.
to protect your dignity (and my eyes) ... Or my eyes.
You say it's about "protecting your eyes"? If so, I can think of many far uglier things than a baby breastfeeding that we generally expect to be see in public or in photos posted on the Internet ... say, ugly fat women, badly disfigured individuals ... by your logic, we must then also ban public appearance or imagery of these?
Sorry, but you don't have a right not to see things you don't personally like seeing. Seeing things that you don't like is just part of life, mature adults are generally able to deal with it without whining about it, e.g. I think it's a total non-issue, and I find it absurd that you think it's an issue at all.
Pragmatically speaking, sex is a LOT messier, too messy for many public places. I don't think anyone wants to, say, eat in a restaurant where people mess cum and other stuff on the chairs or tables and who knows where else. Sex is messy.
You don't have any right to never see things you don't like seeing. I don't like seeing, say, fat chicks either, but that doesn't mean I have any right to call for the banning of photos of fat chicks or their appearance in public. Sometimes you see things you don't like - get over it, that's life. And "thrust" at you? Please. Actually, in all my life I can't recall more than a small number of occurrences where I saw nursing babies, and it was always subtle anyway, and I've never seen one on Facebook. And it really doesn't bother me anyway, I cannot even begin to imagine how anyone could possibly be bothered by something like that.
Low salt intake can cause health problems like low blood pressure (which can cause e.g. tiredness or fainting). You NEED some salt.
Most paper will be readable in 30 years. Will your digital documents?
Yes, as long as I keep maintaining their readability (that applies to paper) they will last. Indefinitely in fact (unlike paper).
so even if you've still got a medium which is readable (cdroms in 30 years? Probably not...)
This REALLY isn't hard to solve: Every five to ten years or so, simply copy your document archive to $MEDIUM_OF_THE_DAY$.
If only it was just 13-year olds who write like that these days.
A plantation is not a forest or jungle - very big difference.
Google with its android a dud
Firstly it's a bit soon to call this as the first version of Android has only recently come out, secondly Android is primarily a PLATFORM.
From another angle: My impression is simply, you're clearly spitting venom, and I think it's because you're still in pain.
Listen to yourself ... there's so much anger and bitterness showing in your post, you might want to reconsider your position that you are somehow that morally superior to those that felt suicidal, as those beatings probably affected you more than you think ... "all it ever did", I don't think so. I'm not even sure it's normal to feel that strongly about something that really has nothing to do with you if things are as you purport them to be - those suicidal people did nothing to you. It sounds more to me as though positing your status as being higher than those "weak losers" (in your mind) helps you see yourself as stronger or better (an imagined position you're clearly fighting hard to maintain, suggesting maybe it is in doubt in your mind) --- in fact, what you are ultimately doing is very much akin to bullying those 'losers'. It's all about maintaining a position in the social status hierarchy; your not being suicidal doesn't make you 'better than' those people. You're holding a lot of anger and bitterness down and it's very obvious from every other sentence; your attacking people you perceive as weak (who might be a lot stronger than you in fact, you DON'T know what else they go through) is probably doing harm to the people around you.
And how long will it take you to reinstall the entire machine (including all updates and finding and downloading and installing all drivers and installing AV software etc.), and what is the typical market value of the labor required to do that kind of thing?
Dell probably has the advantage of disk image mass installs, but there is a market value to getting XP onto Vista machines.
I honestly don't understand your logic.
Then you're part of the problem too; the OP specifically was referring to people who were basically worried about simply having the money to pay basics like foods/gas etc. ... don't you see the connection? Remarkable.
A LOT of people are in a financial bind with the way the economy is at the moment and are saving their money for more important things like food/bills/gass..etc, there is no way they are going to waste money on something like this.
Wait ... double-take ... what kind of person who is in a "financial bind", to the extent that he is worried about saving for food, is sitting around playing games on a PS3 over a broadband connection!? No wonder the economy is the way it is and these people are in financial trouble ... get off your bums and do something constructive. I hope you're not one of those in a "financial bind" - the fact that you're then sitting around posting to slashdot about it just makes it even worse.
On healthcare for example, we are beaten by Cuba!
References? And define "beaten" (does your definition depend on health being state-provided? then of course, Cuba is a communist country). Beyond the fake tourist front-ends, Cuba's a rotten hole.