"healthy substitute" for junk food like a "healthy cookie-like substitute" or a "healthy ice cream-like substitute" or a "tofu-turkey" is always going to taste unbelievably awful.
Absolutely. Junk food in moderation won't set you back, either. If you have a particular craving for some bacon, don't try to make it ok with turkey bacon (that stuff is terrible). An infrequent reward of bacon or whatever will satisfy your craving, feel rewarding, and let you go about your way.
The people I always see failing at fixing their diet are the ones who try to change what they want and repress their cravings. Then when they finally give in to a craving, they feel like they've failed and give up entirely.
Why would you think that LEDs are bad because you have a poor experience with CFLs?
You're right, many CFLs do have the issues you describe. That makes it a great argument FOR the LED bulbs, which don't have most of the issues you describe. One of the worst characteristics of CFLs is that their lifetime is hit hard by frequent on/off cycles. LED bulbs care about frequent on/off cycles even less than incandescent bulbs.
I think that it's a fair assumption that LED bulbs will be as unreliable as CFLs. The reason why CFLs die from heat and brownouts and mild spikes is because they rely on electronics that are made as shittily as possible to save on the overall cost of the bulb. There's very little to skimp on in incandescent bulbs, so it's harder to deliberately make the bulb cheaper yet still survive the first use.
The actual CFL element, just like LEDs, will easily last thousands of hours before failing or dimming significantly. It's never that part of CFLs that fail. It's also easy enough to make electronics that can survive heat, brownouts and mild voltage spikes, too. Somehow, every other electronic device in the house survives a brownout. Just like CFLs, they'll decrease the cost of manufacture of LED bulbs as low as they can, cutting corners all the way. You'll end up with a junky $60 LED bulb that costs $25 to manufacture instead of a well made $60 LED bulb that costs $26 to manufacture.
In the meantime, the number of applications has skyrocketed to the point that fewer than 25% of applications are being funded. In my subfield, that number is closer to between 7 and 9%. When competition is that fierce, the temptation to fudge data is huge.
Yes, but that's mainly due to the massive increase in the number of PhDs that are being awarded. There are just way too many would-be Principal Investigators. We should shift away from this and train more BSc- and MSc-level people.
But in academia, BS and MS jobs have extremely low pay and opportunity ceilings. It's like any number of jobs in our economy where the low end is paid so poorly, you're a fool for not trying to move up the ladder. Inevitably, there's no one left to do the work at the bottom. Companies get bloated management, universities get bloated administration, it always seems to happen.
I don't know the business models of the European markets, so I won't begin to touch on that. Suffice it to say though, the US is a much larger footprint to cover with large rural distances in between, which inherently makes infrastructure costs quite a bit more.
This is such a bullshit excuse, and I'm tired of hearing it. There are metropolitan areas in the US that are as populated as entire European countries, yet we can't even get similar broadband speeds in these limited areas. I'm square in the middle of one of the top 20 cities, which has a population and population density higher than some places in Europe and Asia, yet I'm stuck with 1.5Mbps DSL or 12 Mbps cable.
There are enough people in these cities to make a business off of fast broadband, the entire country doesn't have to be blanketed to get fast broadband access anywhere. The entrenched monopolies are just milking their customers for all they can while avoiding upgrading their infrastructure at all.
Or hell, the end sequence on Tuchanka in ME3. It was clearly different writers.
Mordin's role on Tuchanka is simply amazing. Even the renegade ending there is gut-wrenchingly epic. If they ended the series with something even a tenth as well thought out as Tuchanka, the whole series would have been perfect. And the Tuchanka ending isn't terribly happy, any way you spin it, so it's not a matter of a happy ending.
Mass Effect just isn't an angsty nihilistic story, so an angsty nihilistic ending doesn't fit. Not every story has to have an artsy or deeply philosophic ending to be a good story. And faking an artsy or philosophic ending certainly won't cut it.
Wickard v. Filburn represents the beginning of the "commerce clause means we can do anything" justification. And really, the Filburn justification isn't any more of a convoluted and twisted bit of logic than the Gun Free School Zones Act logic was.
The big difference is that a scintillator or geiger tube is equivalent to a simple eye that just detects light levels. That can't be used to create a usable image. I suspect they have something like an insectoid compound eye going on.
Or just put a lead collimator in front of a scintillator film on top of a CCD. Bingo, instant gamma camera. I've been doing this for years for SPECT imaging.
Really? Then why are American corporations measuring their success in terms of "profit per employee" lately? Last time anybody did that was prior to the Civil War...
I'd say that this is a sign of failure in creating wealth. The south prior to the Civil War wasn't exactly a powerhouse of wealth and self-sufficiency. If American corporations are trying to move in that direction, it's not clear what their long term strategy is.
My wife is a physician and she is not an organ donor and when we got married she made me opt out of organ donation.
She did a rotation in one of the largest and most respected shock-trauma units in the country (University of Maryland) as part of her residency and says that as soon as they wheel somebody in with head injury trauma the team goes to work to save them but at the same time one member of the team starts typing the organs for possible transplant.
She says she won't sign the card because she doesn't want somebody trying to "save" her when there are hundreds of thousands of dollars involved if it goes the other way.
Exactly. I'm absolutely willing to donate my organs when I die, and I've instructed my wife and family to do that. But I want somebody that I trust to be in charge of the decision of when to write me off and start harvesting organs. The hospitals have too much of a financial stake in selling off my parts (or selling off the operations that install my parts). Both my wife and I have had experiences with corpses kept alive too long on life-support, too, so we've assured each other that we won't keep the other on machines after they're dead.
if you do not give them a reason to 'turn your car over' (search it) then you have a bit more power in court, should it get to that.
this is a trick the cops are now trying; to get you to be impatient so that you can 'look suspicious' to them and that gives them the right (in their eyes) to search you 'for dangerous weapons'.
Note that they cannot search your vehicle under the pretext of officer safety if you get out (and of course, they make you get out to perform the search), since the presumed weapons are no longer accessible to you.
Oh my god! Do not get out of the car if you're pulled over! Unless you're ordered to, that is interpreted as extremely intimidating and you will get a gun pulled on you followed by much yelling. You're more likely to get your car searched (though the windows at first, then by hand after probable cause is found) if you start off the encounter by pissing them off.
So? GPS receivers were built under the assumption that no terrestrial signals would exist near them (which was a safe assumption given the frequency allocations). If the choice comes down to 1) keep GPS as it is (receivers are relatively cheap, small, and readily available) or 2) have the service LS was developing at that frequency, then I'd say GPS is the clear winner. Why have to dispose of decades worth of GPS receivers just for yet another LTE network? Why doesn't LS just use a different frequency? There's nothing essential about this particular frequency except that it was (supposed to be) cheap. Fuck 'em.
Also, I just got a 2008 Civic Si. I have found that the mirrors only can be turned out just barely enough (they're electric) to see what I want. The passenger side always has a smidge of the side of my car in the mirror, can't make it go away. But still head and shoulders better than the alternative. Maybe the automakers are making it difficult to set mirrors properly because so many people refuse to do it...
I've had several Hondas with power mirrors and limited range of motion seems to be common. You can, however, manually move the mirror to change where this range is. It'll make a click-click noise when you do this, but it doesn't (seem) to hurt anything.
It used to be that girls studied home economics and cooking, so that someone in the family would know how to handle these things. I'm glad women have other and more options now, but we need to do *something* to fill that knowledge gap.
When I was in middle school, all kids had to take a year of home ec. This included basic cooking and sewing, also. It was actually fun and as a result I know how to mend my clothes and cook with my wife. I don't understand why this still isn't part of every school's curriculum.
Nothing. I've never had a car that would let me do that (even old VWs from the 60s). And yes, I am that curious (though I didn't intend to let the clutch back out)!
It doesn't affect the security of RSA overall, but it strongly affects the security of certain keys, rendering them totally compromised.
...Poof, all the ones that managed to 'accidentally' share a factor with another one pop out with their factors since a public key is just two big prime numbers multiplied together.
Does this mean that every key generated has a chance of rendering a previously existing key totally compromised? If that's the case, RSA is actually broken. There are only so many prime numbers, so as more keys are created, more keys will potentially be compromised. Please, tell me I'm wrong (using a car analogy if possible).
I understand how the US benefits from everyone else signing this treaty, but how is this in the interests of the other countries? Why is everyone else so motivated to sign this?
Please, stop spreading the FUD. Regular tap water can just as well cause water intoxication if you drink too much of it, and ultra-pure water is by no means unsafe to drink.
It does taste weird, though. Although the weirdest tasting water I've ever tried was D2O (which was also ultra pure).
It's even sleazier when you consider that he was previously a senator with close relations to the MPAA. He's not a Washington outsider. He's been on the receiving of his current relationship, and the way he considers it to work is that legislation is payed for. In addition to an admission of bribing Congress, it seems he's admitting that he was accepting bribes while he was in Congress.
You can not absolutely trust anyone, including cops and judges. This is why everything should be handled by multiple people with verifiable paper trail and other kinds of documents. One person has a somewhat high probability of being a crook, ten unrelated people recording and documenting the search would have to be a part of enormous conspiracy to be all crooks. Trustworthiness of evidence should not be evaluated by judging the honesty of one person.
This is a mess of unrelated statements that don't seem to have much bearing on your conclusion. But anyway,
Everything should "be handled by multiple people with verifiable paper trail and other kinds of documents", but how do you treat evidence that isn't handled this way? And saying something should happen is weak, anyway. People should tell the truth.
Ten unrelated people in this situation are actually related. They're all cops. You don't need a lap cat or a smoky room to make a conspiracy. The fact that cops hesitate to report on or testify against each other is fairly well established.
And finally, the trustworthiness of evidence should absolutely "be evaluated by judging the honesty of one person"! You're familiar with the analogy of the chain and the weakest link?
No. All it does is follow the ridiculous "Let's weaken the government so we won't have to improve it" A.K.A. "Government should not be more powerful than rich people". What is the root of the problem.
The government is a tool wielded by the rich. Why are you so anxious to sharpen that tool?
Punish the people who break the law, punish cops who break the law more severely because they are given more trust, but keep the evidence.
The people who would be responsible for punishing the cops are ultimately the cops. If you can't trust them to not break the law, how could you trust them to punish each other for breaking the law.
Also, while I agree that tainting evidence could let guilty persons go free, it also serves to protect the innocent from overzealous investigators. If evidence is not collected and handled properly, it can't be guaranteed that it is, in fact, genuine evidence. It's why chain of custody is king. The premise behind this is that it's better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man be imprisoned.
Slashdot Mirror
"healthy substitute" for junk food like a "healthy cookie-like substitute" or a "healthy ice cream-like substitute" or a "tofu-turkey" is always going to taste unbelievably awful.
Absolutely. Junk food in moderation won't set you back, either. If you have a particular craving for some bacon, don't try to make it ok with turkey bacon (that stuff is terrible). An infrequent reward of bacon or whatever will satisfy your craving, feel rewarding, and let you go about your way.
The people I always see failing at fixing their diet are the ones who try to change what they want and repress their cravings. Then when they finally give in to a craving, they feel like they've failed and give up entirely.
Why would you think that LEDs are bad because you have a poor experience with CFLs?
You're right, many CFLs do have the issues you describe. That makes it a great argument FOR the LED bulbs, which don't have most of the issues you describe. One of the worst characteristics of CFLs is that their lifetime is hit hard by frequent on/off cycles. LED bulbs care about frequent on/off cycles even less than incandescent bulbs.
I think that it's a fair assumption that LED bulbs will be as unreliable as CFLs. The reason why CFLs die from heat and brownouts and mild spikes is because they rely on electronics that are made as shittily as possible to save on the overall cost of the bulb. There's very little to skimp on in incandescent bulbs, so it's harder to deliberately make the bulb cheaper yet still survive the first use.
The actual CFL element, just like LEDs, will easily last thousands of hours before failing or dimming significantly. It's never that part of CFLs that fail. It's also easy enough to make electronics that can survive heat, brownouts and mild voltage spikes, too. Somehow, every other electronic device in the house survives a brownout. Just like CFLs, they'll decrease the cost of manufacture of LED bulbs as low as they can, cutting corners all the way. You'll end up with a junky $60 LED bulb that costs $25 to manufacture instead of a well made $60 LED bulb that costs $26 to manufacture.
Yes, but that's mainly due to the massive increase in the number of PhDs that are being awarded. There are just way too many would-be Principal Investigators. We should shift away from this and train more BSc- and MSc-level people.
But in academia, BS and MS jobs have extremely low pay and opportunity ceilings. It's like any number of jobs in our economy where the low end is paid so poorly, you're a fool for not trying to move up the ladder. Inevitably, there's no one left to do the work at the bottom. Companies get bloated management, universities get bloated administration, it always seems to happen.
I don't know the business models of the European markets, so I won't begin to touch on that. Suffice it to say though, the US is a much larger footprint to cover with large rural distances in between, which inherently makes infrastructure costs quite a bit more.
This is such a bullshit excuse, and I'm tired of hearing it. There are metropolitan areas in the US that are as populated as entire European countries, yet we can't even get similar broadband speeds in these limited areas. I'm square in the middle of one of the top 20 cities, which has a population and population density higher than some places in Europe and Asia, yet I'm stuck with 1.5Mbps DSL or 12 Mbps cable.
There are enough people in these cities to make a business off of fast broadband, the entire country doesn't have to be blanketed to get fast broadband access anywhere. The entrenched monopolies are just milking their customers for all they can while avoiding upgrading their infrastructure at all.
...vote for people who have morals and ethics...
I wish! In which election has this been possible?
Or hell, the end sequence on Tuchanka in ME3. It was clearly different writers.
Mordin's role on Tuchanka is simply amazing. Even the renegade ending there is gut-wrenchingly epic. If they ended the series with something even a tenth as well thought out as Tuchanka, the whole series would have been perfect. And the Tuchanka ending isn't terribly happy, any way you spin it, so it's not a matter of a happy ending.
Mass Effect just isn't an angsty nihilistic story, so an angsty nihilistic ending doesn't fit. Not every story has to have an artsy or deeply philosophic ending to be a good story. And faking an artsy or philosophic ending certainly won't cut it.
FYI, if you use AdBlock, adding this to the custom filters will get rid of the Share buttons. I had completely forgotten they were still there.
slashdot.org##SPAN[id*="sharethis-"]
slashdot.org##A[class="comment_share_toggle btn link"]
Wickard v. Filburn represents the beginning of the "commerce clause means we can do anything" justification. And really, the Filburn justification isn't any more of a convoluted and twisted bit of logic than the Gun Free School Zones Act logic was.
The big difference is that a scintillator or geiger tube is equivalent to a simple eye that just detects light levels. That can't be used to create a usable image. I suspect they have something like an insectoid compound eye going on.
Or just put a lead collimator in front of a scintillator film on top of a CCD. Bingo, instant gamma camera. I've been doing this for years for SPECT imaging.
Family or not, these are the people that should be loaded into the Soylent Green hoppers first, if they ever bring us to that state.
Who are you joking? These are the people who will design the Soylent Green hoppers.
This is usually done not through hiring slaves.
Really? Then why are American corporations measuring their success in terms of "profit per employee" lately? Last time anybody did that was prior to the Civil War...
I'd say that this is a sign of failure in creating wealth. The south prior to the Civil War wasn't exactly a powerhouse of wealth and self-sufficiency. If American corporations are trying to move in that direction, it's not clear what their long term strategy is.
My wife is a physician and she is not an organ donor and when we got married she made me opt out of organ donation.
She did a rotation in one of the largest and most respected shock-trauma units in the country (University of Maryland) as part of her residency and says that as soon as they wheel somebody in with head injury trauma the team goes to work to save them but at the same time one member of the team starts typing the organs for possible transplant.
She says she won't sign the card because she doesn't want somebody trying to "save" her when there are hundreds of thousands of dollars involved if it goes the other way.
Exactly. I'm absolutely willing to donate my organs when I die, and I've instructed my wife and family to do that. But I want somebody that I trust to be in charge of the decision of when to write me off and start harvesting organs. The hospitals have too much of a financial stake in selling off my parts (or selling off the operations that install my parts). Both my wife and I have had experiences with corpses kept alive too long on life-support, too, so we've assured each other that we won't keep the other on machines after they're dead.
if you do not give them a reason to 'turn your car over' (search it) then you have a bit more power in court, should it get to that.
this is a trick the cops are now trying; to get you to be impatient so that you can 'look suspicious' to them and that gives them the right (in their eyes) to search you 'for dangerous weapons'.
Note that they cannot search your vehicle under the pretext of officer safety if you get out (and of course, they make you get out to perform the search), since the presumed weapons are no longer accessible to you.
Oh my god! Do not get out of the car if you're pulled over! Unless you're ordered to, that is interpreted as extremely intimidating and you will get a gun pulled on you followed by much yelling. You're more likely to get your car searched (though the windows at first, then by hand after probable cause is found) if you start off the encounter by pissing them off.
"intermodulation distortion"
GPS receivers are built too cheap
So? GPS receivers were built under the assumption that no terrestrial signals would exist near them (which was a safe assumption given the frequency allocations). If the choice comes down to 1) keep GPS as it is (receivers are relatively cheap, small, and readily available) or 2) have the service LS was developing at that frequency, then I'd say GPS is the clear winner. Why have to dispose of decades worth of GPS receivers just for yet another LTE network? Why doesn't LS just use a different frequency? There's nothing essential about this particular frequency except that it was (supposed to be) cheap. Fuck 'em.
Also, I just got a 2008 Civic Si. I have found that the mirrors only can be turned out just barely enough (they're electric) to see what I want. The passenger side always has a smidge of the side of my car in the mirror, can't make it go away. But still head and shoulders better than the alternative. Maybe the automakers are making it difficult to set mirrors properly because so many people refuse to do it...
I've had several Hondas with power mirrors and limited range of motion seems to be common. You can, however, manually move the mirror to change where this range is. It'll make a click-click noise when you do this, but it doesn't (seem) to hurt anything.
It used to be that girls studied home economics and cooking, so that someone in the family would know how to handle these things. I'm glad women have other and more options now, but we need to do *something* to fill that knowledge gap.
When I was in middle school, all kids had to take a year of home ec. This included basic cooking and sewing, also. It was actually fun and as a result I know how to mend my clothes and cook with my wife. I don't understand why this still isn't part of every school's curriculum.
Er, what happens if you do engage reverse at 70?
Nothing. I've never had a car that would let me do that (even old VWs from the 60s). And yes, I am that curious (though I didn't intend to let the clutch back out)!
It doesn't affect the security of RSA overall, but it strongly affects the security of certain keys, rendering them totally compromised.
...Poof, all the ones that managed to 'accidentally' share a factor with another one pop out with their factors since a public key is just two big prime numbers multiplied together.
Does this mean that every key generated has a chance of rendering a previously existing key totally compromised? If that's the case, RSA is actually broken. There are only so many prime numbers, so as more keys are created, more keys will potentially be compromised. Please, tell me I'm wrong (using a car analogy if possible).
How is the prosecutor going to meet that burden without putting the lady on the stand and having her testify about her mental state (memory)?
They're not. They're going to assume that she's lying and jail her until she remembers it. If she's not lying, she'll be locked up for a long time.
I understand how the US benefits from everyone else signing this treaty, but how is this in the interests of the other countries? Why is everyone else so motivated to sign this?
Please, stop spreading the FUD. Regular tap water can just as well cause water intoxication if you drink too much of it, and ultra-pure water is by no means unsafe to drink.
It does taste weird, though. Although the weirdest tasting water I've ever tried was D2O (which was also ultra pure).
They could take off their badges or shield them while they're working. You'd think that would catch someone's attention, though.
It's even sleazier when you consider that he was previously a senator with close relations to the MPAA. He's not a Washington outsider. He's been on the receiving of his current relationship, and the way he considers it to work is that legislation is payed for. In addition to an admission of bribing Congress, it seems he's admitting that he was accepting bribes while he was in Congress.
Wow, you're getting really worked up...
You can not absolutely trust anyone, including cops and judges. This is why everything should be handled by multiple people with verifiable paper trail and other kinds of documents. One person has a somewhat high probability of being a crook, ten unrelated people recording and documenting the search would have to be a part of enormous conspiracy to be all crooks. Trustworthiness of evidence should not be evaluated by judging the honesty of one person.
This is a mess of unrelated statements that don't seem to have much bearing on your conclusion. But anyway,
Everything should "be handled by multiple people with verifiable paper trail and other kinds of documents", but how do you treat evidence that isn't handled this way? And saying something should happen is weak, anyway. People should tell the truth.
Ten unrelated people in this situation are actually related. They're all cops. You don't need a lap cat or a smoky room to make a conspiracy. The fact that cops hesitate to report on or testify against each other is fairly well established.
And finally, the trustworthiness of evidence should absolutely "be evaluated by judging the honesty of one person"! You're familiar with the analogy of the chain and the weakest link?
No. All it does is follow the ridiculous "Let's weaken the government so we won't have to improve it" A.K.A. "Government should not be more powerful than rich people". What is the root of the problem.
The government is a tool wielded by the rich. Why are you so anxious to sharpen that tool?
Punish the people who break the law, punish cops who break the law more severely because they are given more trust, but keep the evidence.
The people who would be responsible for punishing the cops are ultimately the cops. If you can't trust them to not break the law, how could you trust them to punish each other for breaking the law.
Also, while I agree that tainting evidence could let guilty persons go free, it also serves to protect the innocent from overzealous investigators. If evidence is not collected and handled properly, it can't be guaranteed that it is, in fact, genuine evidence. It's why chain of custody is king. The premise behind this is that it's better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man be imprisoned.