I set it up to use Chrome as my PDF viewer. (Which wasn't easy, since the nonstandard way Chrome installs itself under Windows meant that it didn't show up on the list of programs.)
I wonder if it's going to override that setting when it updates itself. I don't really care, as long as it works. I just liked keeping my system clean and didn't want to download Adobe if I didn't have to.
Because "safe" and "perceived to be safe after this guy spent two decades badmouthing it" are very different things. Consumers will avoid GMO-labeled foods regardless.
That, and the fact that there are some costs involved keeping the GMO and non-GMO streams completely separate. They've already had some notable failures in that regard.
Personally, regardless of the benefits of GMOs, and their probable safety, I don't trust Monsanto as far as I can throw them. I don't have any faith that they've done their tests properly, and I believe they're completely willing to take a $5B fine if they can take in $40B in profits before they get called on it.
Just that the large majority who have gas-powered vehicles get cranky about being asked to pay more, while people with electric vehicles get to use the roads for "free".
Cranky enough that they'd put up less fuss about a massive invasion of privacy? Quite possibly, yes.
Word's version control is a lot more sophisticated. It can show you the document clean, or with strikeouts and inserts, or with annotations in the margins. You can accept and reject changes by pointing to them.
I don't know how widely useful such a thing is, but I personally find it very useful. It's one of the few things I break out Word for. (LibreOffice has a similar feature, but its implementation is slow, and it's unusable on the dozens-of-pages documents I use it for.)
There are drugs that genuinely outperform placebo, even if there's also a lot of horseshit in psychiatry. Intellectually, I'd love to see us scrap it all and start over, but that would make a lot of people miserable.
Medicine in general suffers from that problem. It is fantastic in certain areas, and helpless in others. Even some of what is genuinely helpful is poorly grounded. To deprive people of what works just because we don't know why might be intellectually honest but it would also cause unnecessary suffering.
So we continue to paint the car (and rebuild the engine) while drive 90 MPH down a twisty highway. You seem to be on the helpful side, so keep at it.
You'll never fix the kooks, but it's nice to score points with people who aren't yet kooks but seem more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt than you or I would.
In this case, I'm sure the kooks will find something to move on to, but with luck they'll move on to different things rather than all to the same thing. That's what's giving them so much media play.
I can tell you that I encountered a fair number of them online, about a year ago. I expected it to ramp up, but at least in my experience, it actually largely evaporated.
This hardly seems like it's worth NASA's effort. You already know that the loons won't be convinced by it. A press release consisting of the single word "NO" is all it should really take.
But it's also a great opportunity. Not on the 20th, but on the 22nd. When everybody wakes up, they say, "Wow, NASA got it right, and the kooks were kooks. Score one for science." It's nice to see science be able to just slam-dunk something without it getting balled up in revisionism, hedging, and accusations of malfeasance.
And if people learn just a little bit more about gravity, seasons, the solar system, and the galaxy, so much the better.
So kudos to NASA for seizing the day. "Proving that the world isn't ending" isn't really one of NASA's missions, but if it results in better support for NASA's real missions (both financially and in terms of having their results taken seriously), then I want to say "Good job" to their PR department. (Cheap, too!)
And that's why Asperger's was eliminated in the DSM-V.
The new DSM is problematic, just as the last one was. Yes, it's certainly possible to abuse it. But the psychiatrists really are trying to help people, and they're just beginning to explore a difficult new field.
The range of human behavior is far, far more variable and intricate than any protein or subatomic particle. A century ago the science was nonexistent, then barbaric, then more harmful than helpful. Now occasionally it does more good than harm. If you don't like your shrink, get a new one. But rejecting the whole profession is just... well, paranoid.
The DSM was not concocted as part of a plot to lock people up. Its goal is to help. It may not, and that's why there's a DSM-6 already in the works. That's how science works.
It's a popular denier meme: 1998 was a very hot year and if you start your data series there you can show an overall decline.
Viewed on any other scale, this artifact goes away. But it doesn't matter how many times you tell deniers about that; they know what story they want to tell and will continue to cherry pick the data to tell it.
I found it less distracting than the 3D artifacts. It didn't help that I didn't have a great seat for seeing 3D, but still, between the technical side effects and the "look, we're in 3D, it's coming right at you" shots, that took a bigger toll on my suspension of disbelief than the oddly smooth 48fps.
They mostly did. The whole story, plus Appendix A, plus Quest for Erebor, plus some stuff from Unfinished Tales. Plus a bunch of stuff they made up (some of it necessary, some of it really, really not).
That's why it takes them 3 hours to get through the first six chapters. And why there are two more films coming.
There is some stuff cut out (chapter 6 gets pretty short shrift, actually, cutting the talking eagles and adding in yet more combat) but nothing like the sheer amount of stuff they cut from the LotR movies. If they shot LotR at this pace it would have been six times as long.
Works for me. One advantage of the Electoral College, if you can call it that, is that it does allow you to vote your conscience in most states without the nagging fear that you're gonna pull a Nader.
If you live in the dozen (or less, arguably much less) states that are right at the tipping point, satisfying your conscience may require more thought. But if you lived in California, Texas, New York, or three dozen other very safe states, you can vote for anybody you like.
Well, those do seem to be the top ones on the GOP chopping block. Their counteroffer consists of closing unspecified loopholes and deductions. These are the biggest deductions, and if you want to reduce the deficit, they're the ones you'd have to go after.
They do affect the upper classes, but they affect the middle class proportionately more. Unless, of course, those loopholes and deductions include things like the lower capital gains tax rate, but I haven't heard that suggested. And given avowed GOP preferences, I would assume that the mystery basket contains primarily middle class rather than upper class loopholes until specified otherwise.
I'm seeing this assertion all over this thread, but a dearth of sources. I recall a few anecdotes myself, from other Slashdot articles. But I get the impression that it's only because tasers are still regarded as "techy", and make the news, while plain old beatings don't.
Has anybody got any data on whether tasers are actually being used increasingly, and aren't just a substitution for the kind of brutality that leaves incriminating bruises? I assume that the incidence is increasing as more and more officers have them, but is this additional violence, or are the tasers making formerly non-violent officers violent?
I agree with you, though "goiter" probably isn't the best example. It's caused by iodine deficiency, not crap in the water.
The problem with the crap in the water is that it takes years, or decades, to manifest itself. It shows up as an increase in chronic illnesses, so you can't claim all by yourself that your case was caused by them. It's very difficult to trace health problems to any one source of pollution.
By the time you've managed to put together a rock-solid case that can survive the FUD the industry will put together, the specific entity to blame has "gone bankrupt" and sold off their assets.
Those tankers contain, what, a half-dozen tons of CO2? Probably less than that; the truck can only carry a few dozen tons and the containers themselves far outweigh the mass of the CO2.
The worldwide CO2 output is on the order of 30 BILLION tons of CO2. All the soda bottlers in the entire world don't add up to a rounding error.
There, you have an answer. Which you could probably have figured out all by yourself, but I'm sure you enjoy the fact that anonymity means you can ask this all over in the next CO2 thread and pretending nobody ever gives you an answer.
The secret sauce is their "team of nationally and internationally known experts in human and robotic spaceflight, planetary and lunar science, exploration, venture capital formation, and public outreach", who of course go without introduction (i.e. we haven't found them yet).
I'm particularly fond of their saying that they have "clearance from NASA". What the hell does that mean? Are they cleared for launch of an unnamed rocket from an undisclosed location? Hell no. It means that they said, "Hey, NASA, do you mind if we make bogus claims about going to the moon" and NASA said "Sure, knock yourselves out."
Slashdot Mirror
I set it up to use Chrome as my PDF viewer. (Which wasn't easy, since the nonstandard way Chrome installs itself under Windows meant that it didn't show up on the list of programs.)
I wonder if it's going to override that setting when it updates itself. I don't really care, as long as it works. I just liked keeping my system clean and didn't want to download Adobe if I didn't have to.
Because "safe" and "perceived to be safe after this guy spent two decades badmouthing it" are very different things. Consumers will avoid GMO-labeled foods regardless.
That, and the fact that there are some costs involved keeping the GMO and non-GMO streams completely separate. They've already had some notable failures in that regard.
Personally, regardless of the benefits of GMOs, and their probable safety, I don't trust Monsanto as far as I can throw them. I don't have any faith that they've done their tests properly, and I believe they're completely willing to take a $5B fine if they can take in $40B in profits before they get called on it.
Just that the large majority who have gas-powered vehicles get cranky about being asked to pay more, while people with electric vehicles get to use the roads for "free".
Cranky enough that they'd put up less fuss about a massive invasion of privacy? Quite possibly, yes.
Word's version control is a lot more sophisticated. It can show you the document clean, or with strikeouts and inserts, or with annotations in the margins. You can accept and reject changes by pointing to them.
I don't know how widely useful such a thing is, but I personally find it very useful. It's one of the few things I break out Word for. (LibreOffice has a similar feature, but its implementation is slow, and it's unusable on the dozens-of-pages documents I use it for.)
Seriously. Do they require any actual work? Or are they just upgrading the features to the point where they can read email and browse the web?
"Decimation" is commonly taken to mean "complete or near-complete destruction". Yes, it's etymologically wrong. Get over it.
Absolutely. In the meantime, I highly recommend driving without a seatbelt. You can put it on once the collision is underway.
With many fascinating new species of plants and animals.
In this case, Dr. No is Ian Betteridge, who coined Betteridge's Law (though obviously the idea has been around long before him).
There are drugs that genuinely outperform placebo, even if there's also a lot of horseshit in psychiatry. Intellectually, I'd love to see us scrap it all and start over, but that would make a lot of people miserable.
Medicine in general suffers from that problem. It is fantastic in certain areas, and helpless in others. Even some of what is genuinely helpful is poorly grounded. To deprive people of what works just because we don't know why might be intellectually honest but it would also cause unnecessary suffering.
So we continue to paint the car (and rebuild the engine) while drive 90 MPH down a twisty highway. You seem to be on the helpful side, so keep at it.
You'll never fix the kooks, but it's nice to score points with people who aren't yet kooks but seem more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt than you or I would.
In this case, I'm sure the kooks will find something to move on to, but with luck they'll move on to different things rather than all to the same thing. That's what's giving them so much media play.
I can tell you that I encountered a fair number of them online, about a year ago. I expected it to ramp up, but at least in my experience, it actually largely evaporated.
This hardly seems like it's worth NASA's effort. You already know that the loons won't be convinced by it. A press release consisting of the single word "NO" is all it should really take.
But it's also a great opportunity. Not on the 20th, but on the 22nd. When everybody wakes up, they say, "Wow, NASA got it right, and the kooks were kooks. Score one for science." It's nice to see science be able to just slam-dunk something without it getting balled up in revisionism, hedging, and accusations of malfeasance.
And if people learn just a little bit more about gravity, seasons, the solar system, and the galaxy, so much the better.
So kudos to NASA for seizing the day. "Proving that the world isn't ending" isn't really one of NASA's missions, but if it results in better support for NASA's real missions (both financially and in terms of having their results taken seriously), then I want to say "Good job" to their PR department. (Cheap, too!)
And that's why Asperger's was eliminated in the DSM-V.
The new DSM is problematic, just as the last one was. Yes, it's certainly possible to abuse it. But the psychiatrists really are trying to help people, and they're just beginning to explore a difficult new field.
The range of human behavior is far, far more variable and intricate than any protein or subatomic particle. A century ago the science was nonexistent, then barbaric, then more harmful than helpful. Now occasionally it does more good than harm. If you don't like your shrink, get a new one. But rejecting the whole profession is just... well, paranoid.
The DSM was not concocted as part of a plot to lock people up. Its goal is to help. It may not, and that's why there's a DSM-6 already in the works. That's how science works.
It's a popular denier meme: 1998 was a very hot year and if you start your data series there you can show an overall decline.
Viewed on any other scale, this artifact goes away. But it doesn't matter how many times you tell deniers about that; they know what story they want to tell and will continue to cherry pick the data to tell it.
Got a cite for that?
Does it hold for the feds, or just for state and local?
I found it less distracting than the 3D artifacts. It didn't help that I didn't have a great seat for seeing 3D, but still, between the technical side effects and the "look, we're in 3D, it's coming right at you" shots, that took a bigger toll on my suspension of disbelief than the oddly smooth 48fps.
They mostly did. The whole story, plus Appendix A, plus Quest for Erebor, plus some stuff from Unfinished Tales. Plus a bunch of stuff they made up (some of it necessary, some of it really, really not).
That's why it takes them 3 hours to get through the first six chapters. And why there are two more films coming.
There is some stuff cut out (chapter 6 gets pretty short shrift, actually, cutting the talking eagles and adding in yet more combat) but nothing like the sheer amount of stuff they cut from the LotR movies. If they shot LotR at this pace it would have been six times as long.
Works for me. One advantage of the Electoral College, if you can call it that, is that it does allow you to vote your conscience in most states without the nagging fear that you're gonna pull a Nader.
If you live in the dozen (or less, arguably much less) states that are right at the tipping point, satisfying your conscience may require more thought. But if you lived in California, Texas, New York, or three dozen other very safe states, you can vote for anybody you like.
And how did that work out for you?
Well, those do seem to be the top ones on the GOP chopping block. Their counteroffer consists of closing unspecified loopholes and deductions. These are the biggest deductions, and if you want to reduce the deficit, they're the ones you'd have to go after.
They do affect the upper classes, but they affect the middle class proportionately more. Unless, of course, those loopholes and deductions include things like the lower capital gains tax rate, but I haven't heard that suggested. And given avowed GOP preferences, I would assume that the mystery basket contains primarily middle class rather than upper class loopholes until specified otherwise.
I'm seeing this assertion all over this thread, but a dearth of sources. I recall a few anecdotes myself, from other Slashdot articles. But I get the impression that it's only because tasers are still regarded as "techy", and make the news, while plain old beatings don't.
Has anybody got any data on whether tasers are actually being used increasingly, and aren't just a substitution for the kind of brutality that leaves incriminating bruises? I assume that the incidence is increasing as more and more officers have them, but is this additional violence, or are the tasers making formerly non-violent officers violent?
I agree with you, though "goiter" probably isn't the best example. It's caused by iodine deficiency, not crap in the water.
The problem with the crap in the water is that it takes years, or decades, to manifest itself. It shows up as an increase in chronic illnesses, so you can't claim all by yourself that your case was caused by them. It's very difficult to trace health problems to any one source of pollution.
By the time you've managed to put together a rock-solid case that can survive the FUD the industry will put together, the specific entity to blame has "gone bankrupt" and sold off their assets.
Those tankers contain, what, a half-dozen tons of CO2? Probably less than that; the truck can only carry a few dozen tons and the containers themselves far outweigh the mass of the CO2.
The worldwide CO2 output is on the order of 30 BILLION tons of CO2. All the soda bottlers in the entire world don't add up to a rounding error.
There, you have an answer. Which you could probably have figured out all by yourself, but I'm sure you enjoy the fact that anonymity means you can ask this all over in the next CO2 thread and pretending nobody ever gives you an answer.
The secret sauce is their "team of nationally and internationally known experts in human and robotic spaceflight, planetary and lunar science, exploration, venture capital formation, and public outreach", who of course go without introduction (i.e. we haven't found them yet).
I'm particularly fond of their saying that they have "clearance from NASA". What the hell does that mean? Are they cleared for launch of an unnamed rocket from an undisclosed location? Hell no. It means that they said, "Hey, NASA, do you mind if we make bogus claims about going to the moon" and NASA said "Sure, knock yourselves out."