then we might not have so many students think they cannot do something because they are not "smart enough."
Instead, they will be not "good enough". Same thing. People have genetic differences that play a major role in what is ultimately achievable, and how much effort it takes. Pretending that those differences don't exist ("you can do anything you want, my precious snowflake") isn't actually helping us. Instead, recognize that there are differences between people, and then give each person what they need to meet their potential is a much better way.
That's up to you. But keep in mind that by using more encryption, you'll make it more likely that criminalization happens sooner. It will also make it more likely that you'll be flagged, and put under closer surveillance.
Criminalizing firearm possession works reasonably well in most countries where they don't allow firearms. Sure, you can try to obfuscate your encrypted data, but it's not trivial to do it in an undetectable way. And if you download software for it, how do you know such software doesn't have a secret back door ?
Your argument makes no sense. Posting your credit card number on-line where any criminal can read it, is different than handing your credit card to the server in a restaurant, for instance, or allowing law/tax officials to see it, or employees from the bank that issued the card.
Of course, things like web sessions with your bank will still be encrypted, so there's no need to worry about fraud and identity theft. Banks and similar institutions will get a proper license to use encryption, as long as the cleartext transaction is logged for government inspection.
The process of shoving food down your throat is governed by a complex system with lots of variables and inputs. Some of these are under your conscious control, but many aren't. For instance, it takes a lot less willpower to stop eating when you feel full than when you're feeling hungry.
These aren't very practical suggestions. Try getting a paycheck in quarters, carrying them around, and spending them without anybody complaining (and remembering who you are). In the second case, even if you can find a good source of $100 bills, and you can convince the coffee shop owner to take it, you'll get 4 twenty dollar bills as change. Now if you spend 2 or more of those in the same transaction, someone could deduce that it must be have been the person that came in with the hundred dollar bill. In the meantime, the fact that you're handling $100 bills makes you extra suspicious.
Your first study doesn't provide a causal link. It may very well be that people who are already fat are switching to diet drinks in an effort to cut back on calories, or because they've developed type 2 diabetes. The 2nd study shows a weak causal link, but it's got a couple of problems: first of all, it's done on rats, not humans, and also it's done with sweetened yoghurt rather than diet drinks.
Aspartame is one of the few substances that has been analysed to death, and we know it is quickly metabolised into 3 parts that are also found in many other sources of food that we wouldn't think twice of consuming. We don't know nearly as much about herbal teas, for instance.
Slashdot Mirror
then we might not have so many students think they cannot do something because they are not "smart enough."
Instead, they will be not "good enough". Same thing. People have genetic differences that play a major role in what is ultimately achievable, and how much effort it takes. Pretending that those differences don't exist ("you can do anything you want, my precious snowflake") isn't actually helping us. Instead, recognize that there are differences between people, and then give each person what they need to meet their potential is a much better way.
That's up to you. But keep in mind that by using more encryption, you'll make it more likely that criminalization happens sooner. It will also make it more likely that you'll be flagged, and put under closer surveillance.
Criminalizing firearm possession works reasonably well in most countries where they don't allow firearms. Sure, you can try to obfuscate your encrypted data, but it's not trivial to do it in an undetectable way. And if you download software for it, how do you know such software doesn't have a secret back door ?
Your argument makes no sense. Posting your credit card number on-line where any criminal can read it, is different than handing your credit card to the server in a restaurant, for instance, or allowing law/tax officials to see it, or employees from the bank that issued the card.
Of course, things like web sessions with your bank will still be encrypted, so there's no need to worry about fraud and identity theft. Banks and similar institutions will get a proper license to use encryption, as long as the cleartext transaction is logged for government inspection.
A slow metabolism is probably a good thing. Of course, assuming the calorie intake is matched.
would you really not mind having your bank accounts printed on the local newspaper?
Strawman. Nobody's proposing to have privacy sensitive information printed in the newspaper.
I'm not proposing anything, just saying that encryption is not a permanent solution.
If enough people use encrypted communication, it will only be a matter of time before the use of encryption is made a crime.
Another thing to keep in mind is that living on 2010 American standard doesn't necessarily require 2010 American levels of energy consumption.
Why wasnt the heat going into the oceans before the "pause"?
Change in ocean currents.
Whatever it is, it's not very relevant in the global warming discussion, because climate != weather.
And, ironically, it was Columbus who was wrong, and he probably would have died if he hadn't bumped into America.
No, that was his brother, Water Polo.
I would expect that the price level is already pushed too far with the pressure sensors.
It could use a public key authentication.
I'm just cautioning you, but your reaction looks like a bad study with unsupported conclusions.
Just add a small randomness factor for everybody. Afterwards, try to find patterns in people's behaviour.
The process of shoving food down your throat is governed by a complex system with lots of variables and inputs. Some of these are under your conscious control, but many aren't. For instance, it takes a lot less willpower to stop eating when you feel full than when you're feeling hungry.
Flavor, mostly.
These aren't very practical suggestions. Try getting a paycheck in quarters, carrying them around, and spending them without anybody complaining (and remembering who you are). In the second case, even if you can find a good source of $100 bills, and you can convince the coffee shop owner to take it, you'll get 4 twenty dollar bills as change. Now if you spend 2 or more of those in the same transaction, someone could deduce that it must be have been the person that came in with the hundred dollar bill. In the meantime, the fact that you're handling $100 bills makes you extra suspicious.
Your first study doesn't provide a causal link. It may very well be that people who are already fat are switching to diet drinks in an effort to cut back on calories, or because they've developed type 2 diabetes. The 2nd study shows a weak causal link, but it's got a couple of problems: first of all, it's done on rats, not humans, and also it's done with sweetened yoghurt rather than diet drinks.
Aspartame is one of the few substances that has been analysed to death, and we know it is quickly metabolised into 3 parts that are also found in many other sources of food that we wouldn't think twice of consuming. We don't know nearly as much about herbal teas, for instance.
One can of Diet Coke saves 139 kcal compared to a regular Coke. Not a ton, but still worth saving.
The fat woman was actually an actress wearing a fat suit.
Why ? I can't imagine it would be too hard to find a genuinely fat person to take the job.