They do have non-written IQ tests that they give in certain circumstances...The second test they gave me was not written at all. They gave me physical puzzles and had me solve different challenges and measured the time it took me to solve each puzzle.
They're a paid geo-politics analysis company, and anyone can have access to the stuff they write about by paying their subscription fee, which is not substantial, about $130/year or so.
I looked and looked and I couldn't find a subscription package that gave access to their internal emails.
So you are saying that the DNA is fragmented but it can still be 'stitched' together even If the DNA degrades. How do you re-assemble the DNA of an archaic hominid accurately when it had DNA that was different from ours?
Hundreds of millions of original copies, assuming you have a sample big enough to see with the naked eye.
Basically, the amount of material you need to ensure that you get a complete chromosome doubles every 521 years. So, a sample from a million years ago would have to be, like, REALLY fucking big to have a good chance of getting complete genetics out of it.
If anybody at PETA had actually bothered to play Pokemon Black and White for more than five minutes, they'd have met a group of villains named Team Plasma.
If you'd looked at the game link for, like, literally one second, you'd have seen the Pikachu-holding-a-sign-saying-"I support Team Plasma" graphic.
Both flavonols and flavanols are actual plant chemicals, what the evidence its a mistake?
Brandt's study and the Stanford one were both meta-studies using mostly the same studies as source data. If one of the studies seems to have radically different data, then someone fucked up somewhere. Maybe it was Brandt, but her study was apparently published a year ago so someone would have probably noticed by now...
Brandt wondered how the Stanford team, led by faculty from the School of Medicine and Center for Health Policy, could have found no difference in total flavanols between organic and conventional foods when her own results showed organics carried far more of the heart-healthy nutrient. Upon further inspection, she noticed that the team had actually calculated the difference in total flavonols, a different nutrient, and reported the result with the swap of an "o" for an "a".
Many of the other nutrients Brandt analyzed and found to be greater in organics were also missing altogether from the new review, she noted. "The choices they made don't seem to make sense -- they seemed to include ones where the difference was smallest to begin with," said Brandt. "I'd like to know why they chose these and not others that were just as well-described in the same papers they included."
----------------
The study was not 'flawed.' At WORST, the study was 'narrower in focus than the author wished it would have been.'
At WORST, they cherry-picked data based on the findings of a previous study in order to obtain a different result from that study. At BEST, they merely appeared to be doing bad science by mistake.
Well, it was a study that compared nutrition based on the nutrient content of the different production methods of food.
Last year Kirsten Brandt, a researcher from Newcastle University, published a similar analysis of existing studies and wound up with the opposite result, concluding that organic foods are actually more nutritious. In combing through the Stanford study she’s not only noticed a critical error in properly identifying a class of nutrients, a spelling error indicative of biochemical incompetence (or at least an egregious oversight) that skewed one important result, but also that the researchers curiously excluded evaluating many nutrients that she found to be considerably higher in organic foods.
That looks a lot less like "controlling variables", and a lot more like specifically excluding data from a previous study that might have weakened their intended result..
I shouldn't need to point this out, as it's basic logistics. Any plane, any weapon system that you can put on a ship can be put on land. Thus any land base can have just as much of an effective range that any (stationary) fleet can have. It doesn't matter that a naval railgun can put a 30 kiloton chunk of tungston on target within 5 minutes, because the land based system can do the same thing just as fast. Furthermore, land based weapons are not constrained as far as weight or size compared to what shipborne weapons are. They can be bigger and have greater range than the naval weapon.
in 5 minutes, the land target will still be exactly where it was when you fired. An aircraft carrier at top speed can move a kilometer during that time.
Anti-ship missles can see a ship, and adjust course as necessary, but they are way, way more perceptive, and maneuverable, than any railgun projectile could likely be.
Slashdot Mirror
Gundam is not an exoskeleton!
Nor is it the responsibility of the Japanese Agriculture Ministry!
Do you see anything here about "Mechanical Exoskeleton Jox?"
No?
NO, I DIDN'T FUCKING THINK SO
*thumbs-up fist bump*
If you want to lose weight, eat less!
Except to have the willpower to decide to eat less, you need to eat more! Oh, shit!
There's no need for a control group, there's no shortage of fMRI data from people who aren't rhyming.
The "First Contact"
The "Prime Directive"
The "Deadliest Catch"
I hate that annoying Anonymous Coward and his blatant karma whoring.
Er.
Well, you've gone and made this obligatory, haven't you.
(Which may still not work because even liquified hydrogen has much less energy per volume than jet fuel.)
On the other hand, in its gaseous form you can use it to generate as much lift as you like without even burning it...
Healthcare would be a hell of a lot cheaper if the government stayed the hell out of it.
You get what you pay for...
They do have non-written IQ tests that they give in certain circumstances...The second test they gave me was not written at all. They gave me physical puzzles and had me solve different challenges and measured the time it took me to solve each puzzle.
Obligatory.
They're a paid geo-politics analysis company, and anyone can have access to the stuff they write about by paying their subscription fee, which is not substantial, about $130/year or so.
I looked and looked and I couldn't find a subscription package that gave access to their internal emails.
And the ZipCar's records show you were driving it at the time.
No, they don't.
They show that your ZipCar card was used to activate the car.
So you are saying that the DNA is fragmented but it can still be 'stitched' together even If the DNA degrades. How do you re-assemble the DNA of an archaic hominid accurately when it had DNA that was different from ours?
Hundreds of millions of original copies, assuming you have a sample big enough to see with the naked eye.
Basically, the amount of material you need to ensure that you get a complete chromosome doubles every 521 years. So, a sample from a million years ago would have to be, like, REALLY fucking big to have a good chance of getting complete genetics out of it.
I posted a very tiny excerpt from a large book in a highly visited site in a relevant topic for free.
...and it'll only cost you fifty thousand dollars to argue that as an affirmative defense in court.
If anybody at PETA had actually bothered to play Pokemon Black and White for more than five minutes, they'd have met a group of villains named Team Plasma.
If you'd looked at the game link for, like, literally one second, you'd have seen the Pikachu-holding-a-sign-saying-"I support Team Plasma" graphic.
but at least you are there in case anyone needs you and you show your support.
Be sure and bring this up to your wife and kids, it'll make them feel better about never seeing you.
Where's that going to lead to though?
Vice-President Honey Boo-Boo in 2040, that's fucking where.
Both flavonols and flavanols are actual plant chemicals, what the evidence its a mistake?
Brandt's study and the Stanford one were both meta-studies using mostly the same studies as source data. If one of the studies seems to have radically different data, then someone fucked up somewhere. Maybe it was Brandt, but her study was apparently published a year ago so someone would have probably noticed by now...
Actually, I read the article
[citation needed]
and I don't understand why the study is flawed.
Maybe this will help:
Brandt wondered how the Stanford team, led by faculty from the School of Medicine and Center for Health Policy, could have found no difference in total flavanols between organic and conventional foods when her own results showed organics carried far more of the heart-healthy nutrient. Upon further inspection, she noticed that the team had actually calculated the difference in total flavonols, a different nutrient, and reported the result with the swap of an "o" for an "a".
Many of the other nutrients Brandt analyzed and found to be greater in organics were also missing altogether from the new review, she noted. "The choices they made don't seem to make sense -- they seemed to include ones where the difference was smallest to begin with," said Brandt. "I'd like to know why they chose these and not others that were just as well-described in the same papers they included."
----------------
The study was not 'flawed.' At WORST, the study was 'narrower in focus than the author wished it would have been.'
At WORST, they cherry-picked data based on the findings of a previous study in order to obtain a different result from that study. At BEST, they merely appeared to be doing bad science by mistake.
Well, it was a study that compared nutrition based on the nutrient content of the different production methods of food.
Last year Kirsten Brandt, a researcher from Newcastle University, published a similar analysis of existing studies and wound up with the opposite result, concluding that organic foods are actually more nutritious. In combing through the Stanford study she’s not only noticed a critical error in properly identifying a class of nutrients, a spelling error indicative of biochemical incompetence (or at least an egregious oversight) that skewed one important result, but also that the researchers curiously excluded evaluating many nutrients that she found to be considerably higher in organic foods.
That looks a lot less like "controlling variables", and a lot more like specifically excluding data from a previous study that might have weakened their intended result..
Get an axe.
I shouldn't need to point this out, as it's basic logistics. Any plane, any weapon system that you can put on a ship can be put on land. Thus any land base can have just as much of an effective range that any (stationary) fleet can have. It doesn't matter that a naval railgun can put a 30 kiloton chunk of tungston on target within 5 minutes, because the land based system can do the same thing just as fast. Furthermore, land based weapons are not constrained as far as weight or size compared to what shipborne weapons are. They can be bigger and have greater range than the naval weapon.
in 5 minutes, the land target will still be exactly where it was when you fired. An aircraft carrier at top speed can move a kilometer during that time.
Anti-ship missles can see a ship, and adjust course as necessary, but they are way, way more perceptive, and maneuverable, than any railgun projectile could likely be.
Please compare this to what would happen in the US should drugs be both legal and easily available.
Probably the same thing that happened in Portugal, which was half the previous rate of drug abuse after one year.
You. Fail. At. Internet. Forever.
FOR. EVER.
This has been around for a while.