Deploying encryption in medical devices is tricky because is increases computational complexity and therefore uses the battery faster
I claim bullshit. An AES implementation in hardware is secure and very cheap, especially at the modest communication speeds that these devices would need.
I have a decent sense of direction, but as far as I can tell it comes from tracking a virtual map, not a magnetic compass. This is especially obvious when walking curved streets or other confusing layouts that can completely mess up my sense of direction.
The stop-and-go driving from city buses also benefits from regenerative braking, whereas diesel motors are at their dirtiest when pulling away from a stop. As an extra benefit, electric buses reduce particulate pollution in populated areas.
And, if the battery is big enough, you can do most of the charging in off-peak hours, allowing plants to run at higher efficiency.
I'm saying selecting twelve people randomly from the populace and asking them to decide isn't a great way of establishing guilt, or reasonable consequences.
Other countries use a single judge, or maybe a panel of judges, none of them trained in science. Hardly seems better in this case.
Yes, people did a lot of cool stuff in ancient times. That doesn't mean that it would be easy or cheap to replicate those things. Also keep in mind that the Roman aqueducts only provided water to about a million people.
all the many types of native trees that would be growing in the forest that would be where your house is if it was wild land.
If my house were in wild land, it would be a swamp, not a forest. Other places would turn into barren plains with some grasses. And plenty of forests around the world only have pine trees and other evergreens with tiny seeds. Traditional foods would be the squirrels that ate those.
As for vegetables... you're either trolling by splitting a "stupid hair" that is actually
How many vegetables can you find in the winter in Northern Europe, Canada or Siberia ? Maybe a few small starchy roots ?
Cholesterol will kill you though. Period. How long it takes will depend on other dietary inputs, your genetics, and how much of it you take in.
An egg has "other dietary inputs" besides the cholesterol. Even if eggs raise serum cholesterol, other parts of the egg could outweigh the possibly negative consequences. This poorly done study doesn't help find the answer to that.
Even the cholesterol itself has useful properties. It helps fight infections, for instance, so just looking at CVD is very myopic. Elderly people generally live longer if they have higher cholesterol.
Our ancestors would even less refuse sugar. Would your common sense have an answer for "how much sugar should I eat each day" too ?
You would have a point if our ancestors had access to sugar. They didn't. Therefore, evolution never had the opportunity to adjust either our taste or metabolism to cope with large availability of sugar.
Protein intakte*without* *exercise* may increase risk, but that's due to getting extra fat, not due to eggs.
It's pretty much impossible to get fat from protein intake alone. Your body can't metabolize enough protein to meet daily calorie requirements, let alone an excess amount. Most people get fat from low-protein, high-carb/fat meals.
Three trick is to make that one egg a day your only meal and then get moving.
One egg is not a meal. That's only like 75 kcal. A good meal is 4-6 eggs.
Now, go take your samples to a lab and measure serum cholesterol levels. You now have some pretty good evidence of what this controversial food does to serum blood cholesterol.
Right, that tells you about serum cholesterol. It tells you nothing about whether eggs (or any other food item) are good or bad for you.
Which is pretty much impossible to do. There are some statistical methods to control for confounding variables, but they only work properly if all these variables are: 1) linear, 2) independent, and 3) time-invariant. In practice, none of these three conditions hold not even close. In addition, not all confounding variables are identified and measured, and the ones that are measured, aren't measured accurately (they use crude questionnaires)
Of course, researchers can choose to ignore the limitations, and simply use their statistics package to run the 'control' command, and claim they have controlled for variables.
If a researcher is biased (thank god this never happens), it's also easy to experiment with different kinds of data selection until you get the results you want.
There are plenty of climates that are not friendly to nut trees and fruits, and also vegetables. Most of the world's production of almonds come from a small area in south california. I've never seen a wild almond tree where I live, so I don't think they were part of our traditional diet. We have apple and cherry trees, but not much other fruits, and even those are very seasonal.
Slashdot Mirror
Redundant Array of Independent DNA ?
Deploying encryption in medical devices is tricky because is increases computational complexity and therefore uses the battery faster
I claim bullshit. An AES implementation in hardware is secure and very cheap, especially at the modest communication speeds that these devices would need.
Another method is to quit eating sugar.
I have a decent sense of direction, but as far as I can tell it comes from tracking a virtual map, not a magnetic compass. This is especially obvious when walking curved streets or other confusing layouts that can completely mess up my sense of direction.
The stop-and-go driving from city buses also benefits from regenerative braking, whereas diesel motors are at their dirtiest when pulling away from a stop. As an extra benefit, electric buses reduce particulate pollution in populated areas.
And, if the battery is big enough, you can do most of the charging in off-peak hours, allowing plants to run at higher efficiency.
And you can still make quick charge circuit at places where buses stop.
What do you do about the engineers you can't bribe or influence?
What engineers ? Oh, those! Nasty accident, very nasty, body parts everywhere...
Pretty hard to argue that vape juice is harmful when it is nothing more than what you might get coming off a cake that's baking in your oven
How many cakes do you bake in a given day, though ?
Let's start by proving that water is safe to use. Go ahead.
I'll demonstrate it by having billions of people drinking it, and soaking their skin in it. You do the same with glyphosate.
I'm saying selecting twelve people randomly from the populace and asking them to decide isn't a great way of establishing guilt, or reasonable consequences.
Other countries use a single judge, or maybe a panel of judges, none of them trained in science. Hardly seems better in this case.
Prove a negative?
If you prefer, you may also prove that it is positively safe to use.
Yes, people did a lot of cool stuff in ancient times. That doesn't mean that it would be easy or cheap to replicate those things. Also keep in mind that the Roman aqueducts only provided water to about a million people.
Everyone can be an "artist" but there'll still be a skill to using it to generate attractive art
You could train a network to generate attractive art. That's not even really hard.
70 miles is quite a distance to transport huge quantities of water.
it was the hype over 20 years ago, and was discarded soon after it didn't really work. It looks like the new generation is learning it all over again.
Except now it does work.
I have no idea why they'd use photo realism
Probably because there's a much larger dataset of them.
all the many types of native trees that would be growing in the forest that would be where your house is if it was wild land.
If my house were in wild land, it would be a swamp, not a forest. Other places would turn into barren plains with some grasses. And plenty of forests around the world only have pine trees and other evergreens with tiny seeds. Traditional foods would be the squirrels that ate those.
As for vegetables... you're either trolling by splitting a "stupid hair" that is actually
How many vegetables can you find in the winter in Northern Europe, Canada or Siberia ? Maybe a few small starchy roots ?
Cholesterol will kill you though. Period. How long it takes will depend on other dietary inputs, your genetics, and how much of it you take in.
An egg has "other dietary inputs" besides the cholesterol. Even if eggs raise serum cholesterol, other parts of the egg could outweigh the possibly negative consequences. This poorly done study doesn't help find the answer to that.
Even the cholesterol itself has useful properties. It helps fight infections, for instance, so just looking at CVD is very myopic. Elderly people generally live longer if they have higher cholesterol.
Our ancestors would even less refuse sugar. Would your common sense have an answer for "how much sugar should I eat each day" too ?
You would have a point if our ancestors had access to sugar. They didn't. Therefore, evolution never had the opportunity to adjust either our taste or metabolism to cope with large availability of sugar.
Protein intakte*without* *exercise* may increase risk, but that's due to getting extra fat, not due to eggs.
It's pretty much impossible to get fat from protein intake alone. Your body can't metabolize enough protein to meet daily calorie requirements, let alone an excess amount. Most people get fat from low-protein, high-carb/fat meals.
Three trick is to make that one egg a day your only meal and then get moving.
One egg is not a meal. That's only like 75 kcal. A good meal is 4-6 eggs.
the study seems very flawed, not distinguishing between the known bad type of cholesterol and the kind found in eggs.
Cholesterol is a molecule, and there's only one type.
You are thinking about lipoproteins, but those are made in your body. They don't come from the egg.
Everything in moderation; nothing in excess.
How many cigarettes/day is a moderate amount for a 6 year old ?
Now, go take your samples to a lab and measure serum cholesterol levels. You now have some pretty good evidence of what this controversial food does to serum blood cholesterol.
Right, that tells you about serum cholesterol. It tells you nothing about whether eggs (or any other food item) are good or bad for you.
you'd hope they would have controlled for that...
Which is pretty much impossible to do. There are some statistical methods to control for confounding variables, but they only work properly if all these variables are: 1) linear, 2) independent, and 3) time-invariant. In practice, none of these three conditions hold not even close. In addition, not all confounding variables are identified and measured, and the ones that are measured, aren't measured accurately (they use crude questionnaires)
Of course, researchers can choose to ignore the limitations, and simply use their statistics package to run the 'control' command, and claim they have controlled for variables.
If a researcher is biased (thank god this never happens), it's also easy to experiment with different kinds of data selection until you get the results you want.
There are plenty of climates that are not friendly to nut trees and fruits, and also vegetables. Most of the world's production of almonds come from a small area in south california. I've never seen a wild almond tree where I live, so I don't think they were part of our traditional diet. We have apple and cherry trees, but not much other fruits, and even those are very seasonal.