In fact, the Stanford study — actually a meta-study, an analysis of more than 200 existing studies — does say that “consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”
Since that’s largely why people eat organic foods, what’s the big deal? Especially if we refer to common definitions of “nutritious” and point out that, in general, nutritious food promotes health and good condition. How can something that reduces your exposure to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria not be “more nutritious” than food that doesn’t?
Because the study narrowly defines “nutritious” as containing more vitamins.
So his problem is the authors were dishonest because they didn't adhere to his incorrect definition of nutritious.
And near the end Like too many studies, the Stanford study dangerously isolates a finding from its larger context
That's a feature, not a bug. The role of a research paper isn't to make some broad sweeping conclusion, it's to carefully explore a narrow question, were the organics more nutritious, and on that question the answer was no.
That's the real story here. Not that he committed suicide, but that he'd rather die than get caught (again?). Every law we have and every rule we enforce is about being a deterrant to going to jail. When death is more attractive than jail, laws no longer mean anything.
You really think he was making a rational informed decision?
The situation is a win-win for the Obama administration, who can now appear to be punishing the man whose film sparked protests and riots around the world.
This is outrageously ridiculous. Why would it be a "win-win" for the Obama administration to appear to be punishing someone for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech?
It's a win with appeasing the Muslim Arab protesters since the filmmaker is under arrest.
And it's a win for the free speech advocates since the guy clearly and publicly violated the terms of his parole, so there's no longer a real risk of an actual first amendment violation.
Note that it was actually actions around the film, using aliases and violating the restrictions of what he could do on the Internet, that got him into trouble, but not the actual film itself.
Given that speed limit signs are fairly standardized and well-defined, having the system recognize them and act appropriately shouldn't be an insurmountable problem.
Except that the posted speed limit only applies in ideal conditions. You can be driving below the posted speed limit yet still be ticketed for driving at an unsafe speed.
So the self-driving vehicle would, at all times, need to choose a reasonable and prudent speed that is equal to or less than the posted speed limit.
And I wonder how often the human behind the wheel will get impatient with the computer for driving so slowly and take the wheel, or how often a following motorist will get impatient and honk or whip around, or how often rear end collisions will occur as a result of following motorists driving too fast for conditions.
That might actually be a fairly significant issue.
People tend to be better at waiting when they're actively doing something (hence all the walking in the airport), I'm guessing a lot of the tendency to speed is due to the fact that drivers generally aren't doing much, and if the computer is in charge they'll be doing even less. Will people just lay back and accept the computer driver, or will they get missed off at doing the limit and just sitting there, so they'll take over so they can go faster.
Having run a few marathons and covering 2000+ km per year I'd dispute the effects of cardiovascular exercise on weight loss (there's a lot of other great reasons to run, weight loss just isn't one of them). High intensity training has some effect (I don't think it's significant though), but a lot of endurance exercise doesn't really affect weight loss.
Diet however, can make a huge impact, there's a lot of other factors that also make a huge impact (genetics, maybe gut flora, etc), but diet is the only one we can really manipulate.
Nowhere is freedom of speech absolute, it's limited by the ability of the society to tolerate it. Even in the US advocating violence can get you in trouble along with forms of obscenity. Quite relevantly public nudity, which I'd qualify as a form of speech, will get you arrested in a lot of places, but if society was more comfortable with the idea than that restriction would be removed.
In these countries video they're not used to this level of freedom of speech and their society needs time to adapt. I like pushing the boundaries of free speech in these countries, but sometimes things go viral and push past their ability to deal with it. Given that people are dying as a direct result of this video I can see the justification of some limited censorship (given that it's far beyond what they're allowed to do in their own society).
As to whether it's effective is another matter, censorship can easily be circumvented, but maybe it's enough of a hindrance to stop it from going viral.
Not having read the article one also has to consider that there's likely a selection bias at work.
Say there are 10 studies for a journalist to choose from, 9 are all very cautious in their interpretation and communication, the remaining one plays up their result as much as possible. Which do you think is going to make the news?
The problem with science and the news is that its news, stuff we already know isn't news, it's the new and surprising stuff that's news, unfortunately in science the new and surprising stuff is usually new and surprising because it's wrong. Sometimes that's because the study/publication have problems, and sometimes just because it was an aberrant result. I generally feel the best science reporting is reporting that uses a new study as a segue to write about the things we already know in order to put the study in context.
The Huffington Post is notorious for publishing junk medical science, particularly in regards to autism. There are enough good science resources on the internet that I have no trouble simply ignoring health articles on the Huffington Post and letting my BS detector rest. If the science is legit it will also show up in legit sources.
And my opinion of Iranian politics comes from multiple sources, including conversations with Iranians where they generally had a more pessimistic view of their government than I did.
The US government, while it has serious issues, is fundamentally democratic.
The Iranian government, while it has democratic characteristics, is fundamentally a theocracy/autocracy.
Its easy to obscure the truth with details, but when you start comparing the Iranian government to the US government on favourable terms, and calling Iran democratic, you need to take a step back and reconsider which details are really important.
Where did it happen in Europe? In the French Revolution as a violent reaction against the church?
Voltaire had a chance to influence society only because the society was already relatively tolerant. If Voltaire was born in Iran or the URSS, he would have been quickly executed.
You mean USSR? It depends on the era for Iran as the Middle East was more tolerant at various stages, and again pre-Christian Rome was also quite tolerant. Besides, Voltaire was a product of the enlightenment, which was a move away from the church, I find it bizarre to claim that a movement of free thinking that arose in opposition to the church is evidence of the tolerance of the church!
Or the US constitution where the only people citing the bible were the opponents? Do you have any evidence for this proposition? It sounds like you're getting your history from David Barton.
Alexis de Tocqueville said:
for they must know that liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith
You know he was french, not American. Besides, there were lots of quotes like that from the founders, and anyone else from that era because people were a lot more religious in that era. But the people opposing the US constitution and the freedom of religion were disproportionately more religious, and based their arguments on the bible.
It is no coincidence that the USA, one of the most religious countries in the first world, is also one of the countries with the best freedom of expression (1st amendment). In Europe, people are punished for saying politically incorrect things (such as "abortion is murder", "homosexual acts are sinful"), which are deemed "hate speech".
If there is causation its because there's so many different religions in the US so secularism was the only practical policy.
The communist nations had another ideology causing the aggression, but in general, studies show that religiosity is highly correlated with violent cultures, you can argue cause and effect, but Muslim or Christian there is a definite correlation.
In the other extreme (very high atheism) we find the totalitarian Marxist states, which were orders of magnitude worse than any theocracy. So you can argue that there is a correlation between religious or atheist extremism, and violence. It is not a monotonic curve.
The problem with Communist states is they became Communist, then attacked the church on the basis of that ideology. Atheism didn't make them totalitarian, communism made them totalitarian, then being totalitarian meant that the beliefs of the leaders (in this case atheism) could be spread to the populace. Besides, I'm talking about violence on the individual level, not the actions of the state, and by that metric there is a strong and statistically significant correlation.
As in brown rice or less polished white rice? Also all you talking about the husks or the bran (leaving the bran is what makes it brown rice). I was always under the impression they ate straight white rice but I googled a bit but couldn't narrow it down at all.
Fat is more energy dense than starch, but it is also more energy intensive to absorb and transport in the body. Starch is absorbed almost energy free, but fat needs to be broken down every time it crosses a membrane and that takes energy. However, I've seen some pretty fat pigs in research trials as a result of feeding 30% fat (oil, lard, choice white grease, etc.) in the diet. So it CAN be done, but who really wants to essentially be drinking bacon grease.
-A Nutritionist
The thing that bugs me with the starch hypothesis is examples like Japan where a huge proportion of the calories come from white rice and obesity rates are very low. Japan isn't the only example as several other cultures are very starch heavy but have very low obesity rates, is it something to do with white rice, or the specific foods they're eating, or do they simply manage to consume fewer calories due to cultural factors?
Olympic atheletes consume unbelievable calories but exercise like crazy. They don't do it their whole lives, but I'd be curious to know what the outcome is for individuals who have an atheletic youth. Actually, it would probably be better to do such a study on people who are simply avid exercisers as opposed to the very top tier. It's a more common condition and less likely to have outliers like doping. Do you get better health from high calorie, high exercise or does the body wear out from processing so much fuel?
I think more to the point is motivation. An elite athlete, especially one in professional sports, gets a structured training environment designed to motivate them. They still need a ton of drive and self-motivation within that environment, but the external motivation makes a big difference. Plus you also get emotional burnout once they retire. I think sub-elites who still train a lot, but need to self-motivate, might give a very different look since they'll maintain a much steadier level of activity throughout their life.
More likely you'd be wondering "does using cloud computing significantly increase or decrease the effects of weather", and since you're talking about events big enough to cause power outages or loss of internet connection I'd say no. Your interpretation is also very dependent on your specific use of the cloud, using Google docs would increase your dependence on the weather, but using AWS to host your site would decrease it, and the fact that Google docs lives on a cloud, and has less vulnerability to local outages as a results, also decreases it. That's why I don't think many people would use your reading, because it changes so easily depending on the scenario.
Yeah but your substitutions make the statement nonsense.
Besides, you're not convincing anyone the US political system is as bad as the Iranian system, people are familiar with the US system and you won't change their minds. What you are doing is telling them the Iranian government is as good as the US system, and I really doubt that's what you really intended.
"Nutritious fruit" isn't a particularly descriptive label,
And the question wasn't "can you describe a guava", it was "do you know what one is". "A fruit" is the correct answer, nutritious or not. The answer to the question that was asked is "yes".
if I had the idea the other person knew anything about gauvas my answer to the question "Do you know what a guava is?" would probably be "not really".
Do you judge your knowledge of something against what you think the other person knows all the time? Would you tell Mario Andretti, were he to ask you "do you know how to drive?" that "no, I don't"? Poor guy, if everyone did that, he'd never be able to use a cab or hire a limo.
Questions are defined by their context, if Mario Andretti was drunk at a party, and looking for a ride home, I'd say yes, if we were at a race track I'd probably say no since he was probably really asking "Do you know how to drive a race car?"
Since you've just admitted that you know what it is, the honest answer would be 'yes'. Now, if the question was "do you know what it looks like?", you'd have to say "no".
"Nutritious fruit" isn't a particularly descriptive label, if I had the idea the other person knew anything about gauvas my answer to the question "Do you know what a guava is?" would probably be "not really".
You can ask someone if they know what a Pontiac Grand Pre is (it is a CAR), but they might have no idea how to pick one out of a used-car lot.
We know that 54% of people feel like they don't know what cloud computing is, we also know that 51% of people are so uniformed that they think cloud computing has something to do with weather.
No, we don't know that. The question was whether is was affected by the weather. A Pontiac Grand Pre doesn't have "something to do with the weather", but it certainly can be affected by the weather. (The gas milage of most cars is affected by the density of the air, and thus the weather. Icy roads will make driving a Pontiac Grand Pre harder.)
I was assuming that's why the gave the answer, I could be mistaken. Really I think I better questions would be "Is cloud computing related to weather?" and then we wouldn't be having this debate.
Actually, no, it sounds like it WAS a completely useless question. Most people did NOT realize what the question being asked was about.
"54% of Americans do not know what the cloud is and claim to never have used it.... also, another alarming number is that 51% of the surveyed Americans think that stormy weather can interfere with the functionality of the cloud."
So, if 54% surveyed had never heard the term, and and almost identical 51% surveyed who don't know it refers to computing services over the Internet, then it doesn't mean people are stupid, just uninformed, and the second number means nothing (of course, the survey doesn't mention how these numbers overlap, which makes it all the more useless).
And honestly, I would bet over 50% of those who BUILD network-based services that could be considered "in the Cloud" think the whole "Cloud" terminology is one of the stupidest things pseudo-technology journalists and marketers have foisted on the public in years. Based on the over-saturation of "the Cloud", I'm surprised everyone isn't starting to call the Internet "the Tubes"...
People have different definitions about what it means to know what something is, if you ask me if I know what a guava I'm aware that it's a fruit, and I know it's supposed to be nutritious, but if you asked me to pick out one from a set of unfamiliar fruits my odds would be no better than chance. Should I say I know what it is or not?
We know that 54% of people feel like they don't know what cloud computing is, we also know that 51% of people are so uniformed that they think cloud computing has something to do with weather. These questions are testing different things, and while an overlap would be very nice, we can still surmise that the public is both largely uninformed, and aware of the fact they're uninformed, or there were a lot of people being smartasses and saying the cloud is affected by weather because everything is.
Not they're not. That's a bunch of horseshit propaganda that the U.S. and Israel have created to justify their shadow war against Iran, one that's been going on since their puppet totalitarian Shah got tossed out by the modern DEMOCRATIC government of Iran.
I won't argue that the idea Iran wants to wipe out the Jews is complete nonsense.
But calling the Iranian government democratic is an extreme stretch. The candidates are severely restricted, the voting is largely rigged, and the main authority resides with the Supreme Leader who is not elected (not the President who has limited authority), and the Guardian Council who is half appointed by the Supreme Leader and half by the parliament. It may become democratic one day, but right now it is mostly an autocracy.
By that metric weather affects everything, and you'd be asking a completely useless question.
Most people realize the actual question being asked is whether cloud computing is affected by weather more than other generic things, to which the answer is no, in fact it's less affected by weather than other generic things. What do you prove by deliberately misinterpreting the survey question?
Actually in the overwhelming majority of cases both the aggressor and the victim is Muslim, but that's also just a current snapshot. The history of Europe right up until the disarmament of the IRA (and there's probably still other conflicts going on) is one of Christian religious strife. The separation of church and state wasn't inspired by Christianity, it was a deliberate attempt to avoid becoming a Christian theocracy!
Trying to avoid a theocracy does not mean it was not inspired by the Bible. It did not happen on Europe by accident.
Where did it happen in Europe? In the French Revolution as a violent reaction against the church? Or the US constitution where the only people citing the bible were the opponents? Do you have any evidence for this proposition? It sounds like you're getting your history from David Barton.
And if you want to know why Christian nations have become less aggressive I'd claim that it's largely because they became less Christian.
By what logic? Atheist Marxist countries were __extremely__ aggressive. Muslim countries are very aggressive. Some Buddhist countries oppress religious minorities. There is no reason to believe that less Christianity equals less aggression. Also, you forgot the Second Vatican Council.
The communist nations had another ideology causing the aggression, but in general, studies show that religiosity is highly correlated with violent cultures, you can argue cause and effect, but Muslim or Christian there is a definite correlation. In fact I'd argue that the reason Muslim countries are more aggressive than Christian isn't because of Islam, its simply because the Muslim countries are more religious.
Two of the first actions when the Empire became Christian were the Council of Nicaea [wikipedia.org] which tried to establish common Christian doctrine (if you don't agree you're no longer part of the church)
It is very hard to be part of the Church when you do not believe in it, yes? The Church is a doctrinal organization. Her top priorities are preaching sound doctrine, and administering the sacraments. She must allow people to get out (or refrain from getting in), so people have freedom of religion. But it is not reasonable to expect the Church to dilute her teaching so everyone is in.
It doesn't matter if it's reasonable or not, right from the start Christianity was a very authoritative religion that reduced religious liberty. Also note that part of the reason Constantine embraced Christianity was the idea of one god helped re-enforce the idea of one emperor.
Hasn't ended to this day? How so?
When have the Abrahamic religions ever been at peace even with variants of themselves?
Except that the situation is not symmetrical. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the aggressor is Muslim, and the victim is either Christian or Jew.
Actually in the overwhelming majority of cases both the aggressor and the victim is Muslim, but that's also just a current snapshot. The history of Europe right up until the disarmament of the IRA (and there's probably still other conflicts going on) is one of Christian religious strife. The separation of church and state wasn't inspired by Christianity, it was a deliberate attempt to avoid becoming a Christian theocracy! And if you want to know why Christian nations have become less aggressive I'd claim that it's largely because they became less Christian.
Really I think it's 1), or close to it. I've heard an interview of a tour cyclist who applied to some top teams, the meeting was going well until he was asked "Will you do anything to win?", and he always answered "yes, except take drugs". At that point he generally lost the gig. On the team it's not something the cyclist would advertise, and they may be cautious around the new guy, but they spend enough time together and it's common knowledge that its happening that they probably don't bother hiding it eventually.
As for effort getting the next guy, it's just like any other crime. Who will you go after more aggressively? The guy who stole one tour, or the guy who stole seven?
Everyone that the USADA says will testify against him has a charge against them that the will get mitigation for, or has written a book they made money on.
If they had some hard evidence, and the testimony, fine. Otherwise, it is just a case of rolling lieutenants to get the Capo by making them immune to criminal prosecution.
Note my exact comment "Do you know the name of the guys who would have won those tours if Armstrong and those other guys didn't cheat? The guys who were incredibly talented and hard working, but were too ethical to cheat? No? Well neither do I. We'll probably never know who those guys were and even with this action by the USADA Armstrong will still be rich and famous, while these other guys who probably deserved it more, will remain unknown, probably not even knowing that they should have been the real winner."
The idea is that we don't know, and probably never will know, who the best clean rider was, how far down the rankings they finished, and whether they would have won if everyone else competed fair. That's the legacy of Armstrong and those others, we can't trust the exceptional athletes, and the clean ones, who puts in the extra work to succeed fairly, end up just as tainted as the cheaters. Moreso, even if they definitely prove that Armstrong cheated, from his perspective it was still worth it! He still has his (tainted) fame and riches.
Right now Armstrong shows the young cyclists that even the big hero cheats, and if they want to win they have to cheat too, this culture of doping destroys sport and turns otherwise good people into cheaters. I don't mind handing out some deals to take that hero down a few notches and give people a reason to stay clean.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets look at the meat of the article
In fact, the Stanford study — actually a meta-study, an analysis of more than 200 existing studies — does say that “consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”
Since that’s largely why people eat organic foods, what’s the big deal? Especially if we refer to common definitions of “nutritious” and point out that, in general, nutritious food promotes health and good condition. How can something that reduces your exposure to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria not be “more nutritious” than food that doesn’t?
Because the study narrowly defines “nutritious” as containing more vitamins.
So his problem is the authors were dishonest because they didn't adhere to his incorrect definition of nutritious.
And near the end
Like too many studies, the Stanford study dangerously isolates a finding from its larger context
That's a feature, not a bug. The role of a research paper isn't to make some broad sweeping conclusion, it's to carefully explore a narrow question, were the organics more nutritious, and on that question the answer was no.
That's the real story here. Not that he committed suicide, but that he'd rather die than get caught (again?). Every law we have and every rule we enforce is about being a deterrant to going to jail. When death is more attractive than jail, laws no longer mean anything.
You really think he was making a rational informed decision?
The situation is a win-win for the Obama administration, who can now appear to be punishing the man whose film sparked protests and riots around the world.
This is outrageously ridiculous. Why would it be a "win-win" for the Obama administration to appear to be punishing someone for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech?
It's a win with appeasing the Muslim Arab protesters since the filmmaker is under arrest.
And it's a win for the free speech advocates since the guy clearly and publicly violated the terms of his parole, so there's no longer a real risk of an actual first amendment violation.
Note that it was actually actions around the film, using aliases and violating the restrictions of what he could do on the Internet, that got him into trouble, but not the actual film itself.
Except that the posted speed limit only applies in ideal conditions. You can be driving below the posted speed limit yet still be ticketed for driving at an unsafe speed.
So the self-driving vehicle would, at all times, need to choose a reasonable and prudent speed that is equal to or less than the posted speed limit.
And I wonder how often the human behind the wheel will get impatient with the computer for driving so slowly and take the wheel, or how often a following motorist will get impatient and honk or whip around, or how often rear end collisions will occur as a result of following motorists driving too fast for conditions.
That might actually be a fairly significant issue.
People tend to be better at waiting when they're actively doing something (hence all the walking in the airport), I'm guessing a lot of the tendency to speed is due to the fact that drivers generally aren't doing much, and if the computer is in charge they'll be doing even less. Will people just lay back and accept the computer driver, or will they get missed off at doing the limit and just sitting there, so they'll take over so they can go faster.
Having run a few marathons and covering 2000+ km per year I'd dispute the effects of cardiovascular exercise on weight loss (there's a lot of other great reasons to run, weight loss just isn't one of them). High intensity training has some effect (I don't think it's significant though), but a lot of endurance exercise doesn't really affect weight loss.
Diet however, can make a huge impact, there's a lot of other factors that also make a huge impact (genetics, maybe gut flora, etc), but diet is the only one we can really manipulate.
Frankly I'm not hugely bothered by it.
Nowhere is freedom of speech absolute, it's limited by the ability of the society to tolerate it. Even in the US advocating violence can get you in trouble along with forms of obscenity. Quite relevantly public nudity, which I'd qualify as a form of speech, will get you arrested in a lot of places, but if society was more comfortable with the idea than that restriction would be removed.
In these countries video they're not used to this level of freedom of speech and their society needs time to adapt. I like pushing the boundaries of free speech in these countries, but sometimes things go viral and push past their ability to deal with it. Given that people are dying as a direct result of this video I can see the justification of some limited censorship (given that it's far beyond what they're allowed to do in their own society).
As to whether it's effective is another matter, censorship can easily be circumvented, but maybe it's enough of a hindrance to stop it from going viral.
Not having read the article one also has to consider that there's likely a selection bias at work.
Say there are 10 studies for a journalist to choose from, 9 are all very cautious in their interpretation and communication, the remaining one plays up their result as much as possible. Which do you think is going to make the news?
The problem with science and the news is that its news, stuff we already know isn't news, it's the new and surprising stuff that's news, unfortunately in science the new and surprising stuff is usually new and surprising because it's wrong. Sometimes that's because the study/publication have problems, and sometimes just because it was an aberrant result. I generally feel the best science reporting is reporting that uses a new study as a segue to write about the things we already know in order to put the study in context.
You're more charitable than I am.
The Huffington Post is notorious for publishing junk medical science, particularly in regards to autism. There are enough good science resources on the internet that I have no trouble simply ignoring health articles on the Huffington Post and letting my BS detector rest. If the science is legit it will also show up in legit sources.
I'm actually a Canadian.
And my opinion of Iranian politics comes from multiple sources, including conversations with Iranians where they generally had a more pessimistic view of their government than I did.
The US government, while it has serious issues, is fundamentally democratic.
The Iranian government, while it has democratic characteristics, is fundamentally a theocracy/autocracy.
Its easy to obscure the truth with details, but when you start comparing the Iranian government to the US government on favourable terms, and calling Iran democratic, you need to take a step back and reconsider which details are really important.
Voltaire had a chance to influence society only because the society was already relatively tolerant. If Voltaire was born in Iran or the URSS, he would have been quickly executed.
You mean USSR? It depends on the era for Iran as the Middle East was more tolerant at various stages, and again pre-Christian Rome was also quite tolerant. Besides, Voltaire was a product of the enlightenment, which was a move away from the church, I find it bizarre to claim that a movement of free thinking that arose in opposition to the church is evidence of the tolerance of the church!
You know he was french, not American. Besides, there were lots of quotes like that from the founders, and anyone else from that era because people were a lot more religious in that era. But the people opposing the US constitution and the freedom of religion were disproportionately more religious, and based their arguments on the bible.
If there is causation its because there's so many different religions in the US so secularism was the only practical policy.
The problem with Communist states is they became Communist, then attacked the church on the basis of that ideology. Atheism didn't make them totalitarian, communism made them totalitarian, then being totalitarian meant that the beliefs of the leaders (in this case atheism) could be spread to the populace. Besides, I'm talking about violence on the individual level, not the actions of the state, and by that metric there is a strong and statistically significant correlation.
So I just chatted with my Chinese office mate and he said they eat mostly white rice.
As in brown rice or less polished white rice? Also all you talking about the husks or the bran (leaving the bran is what makes it brown rice). I was always under the impression they ate straight white rice but I googled a bit but couldn't narrow it down at all.
Fat is more energy dense than starch, but it is also more energy intensive to absorb and transport in the body. Starch is absorbed almost energy free, but fat needs to be broken down every time it crosses a membrane and that takes energy. However, I've seen some pretty fat pigs in research trials as a result of feeding 30% fat (oil, lard, choice white grease, etc.) in the diet. So it CAN be done, but who really wants to essentially be drinking bacon grease.
-A Nutritionist
The thing that bugs me with the starch hypothesis is examples like Japan where a huge proportion of the calories come from white rice and obesity rates are very low. Japan isn't the only example as several other cultures are very starch heavy but have very low obesity rates, is it something to do with white rice, or the specific foods they're eating, or do they simply manage to consume fewer calories due to cultural factors?
Olympic atheletes consume unbelievable calories but exercise like crazy. They don't do it their whole lives, but I'd be curious to know what the outcome is for individuals who have an atheletic youth. Actually, it would probably be better to do such a study on people who are simply avid exercisers as opposed to the very top tier. It's a more common condition and less likely to have outliers like doping. Do you get better health from high calorie, high exercise or does the body wear out from processing so much fuel?
I think more to the point is motivation. An elite athlete, especially one in professional sports, gets a structured training environment designed to motivate them. They still need a ton of drive and self-motivation within that environment, but the external motivation makes a big difference. Plus you also get emotional burnout once they retire. I think sub-elites who still train a lot, but need to self-motivate, might give a very different look since they'll maintain a much steadier level of activity throughout their life.
More likely you'd be wondering "does using cloud computing significantly increase or decrease the effects of weather", and since you're talking about events big enough to cause power outages or loss of internet connection I'd say no. Your interpretation is also very dependent on your specific use of the cloud, using Google docs would increase your dependence on the weather, but using AWS to host your site would decrease it, and the fact that Google docs lives on a cloud, and has less vulnerability to local outages as a results, also decreases it. That's why I don't think many people would use your reading, because it changes so easily depending on the scenario.
Yeah but your substitutions make the statement nonsense.
Besides, you're not convincing anyone the US political system is as bad as the Iranian system, people are familiar with the US system and you won't change their minds. What you are doing is telling them the Iranian government is as good as the US system, and I really doubt that's what you really intended.
"Nutritious fruit" isn't a particularly descriptive label,
And the question wasn't "can you describe a guava", it was "do you know what one is". "A fruit" is the correct answer, nutritious or not. The answer to the question that was asked is "yes".
if I had the idea the other person knew anything about gauvas my answer to the question "Do you know what a guava is?" would probably be "not really".
Do you judge your knowledge of something against what you think the other person knows all the time? Would you tell Mario Andretti, were he to ask you "do you know how to drive?" that "no, I don't"? Poor guy, if everyone did that, he'd never be able to use a cab or hire a limo.
Questions are defined by their context, if Mario Andretti was drunk at a party, and looking for a ride home, I'd say yes, if we were at a race track I'd probably say no since he was probably really asking "Do you know how to drive a race car?"
Should I say I know what it is or not?
Since you've just admitted that you know what it is, the honest answer would be 'yes'. Now, if the question was "do you know what it looks like?", you'd have to say "no".
"Nutritious fruit" isn't a particularly descriptive label, if I had the idea the other person knew anything about gauvas my answer to the question "Do you know what a guava is?" would probably be "not really".
You can ask someone if they know what a Pontiac Grand Pre is (it is a CAR), but they might have no idea how to pick one out of a used-car lot.
We know that 54% of people feel like they don't know what cloud computing is, we also know that 51% of people are so uniformed that they think cloud computing has something to do with weather.
No, we don't know that. The question was whether is was affected by the weather. A Pontiac Grand Pre doesn't have "something to do with the weather", but it certainly can be affected by the weather. (The gas milage of most cars is affected by the density of the air, and thus the weather. Icy roads will make driving a Pontiac Grand Pre harder.)
I was assuming that's why the gave the answer, I could be mistaken. Really I think I better questions would be "Is cloud computing related to weather?" and then we wouldn't be having this debate.
Actually, no, it sounds like it WAS a completely useless question. Most people did NOT realize what the question being asked was about.
"54% of Americans do not know what the cloud is and claim to never have used it. ... also, another alarming number is that 51% of the surveyed Americans think that stormy weather can interfere with the functionality of the cloud."
So, if 54% surveyed had never heard the term, and and almost identical 51% surveyed who don't know it refers to computing services over the Internet, then it doesn't mean people are stupid, just uninformed, and the second number means nothing (of course, the survey doesn't mention how these numbers overlap, which makes it all the more useless).
And honestly, I would bet over 50% of those who BUILD network-based services that could be considered "in the Cloud" think the whole "Cloud" terminology is one of the stupidest things pseudo-technology journalists and marketers have foisted on the public in years. Based on the over-saturation of "the Cloud", I'm surprised everyone isn't starting to call the Internet "the Tubes"...
People have different definitions about what it means to know what something is, if you ask me if I know what a guava I'm aware that it's a fruit, and I know it's supposed to be nutritious, but if you asked me to pick out one from a set of unfamiliar fruits my odds would be no better than chance. Should I say I know what it is or not?
We know that 54% of people feel like they don't know what cloud computing is, we also know that 51% of people are so uniformed that they think cloud computing has something to do with weather. These questions are testing different things, and while an overlap would be very nice, we can still surmise that the public is both largely uninformed, and aware of the fact they're uninformed, or there were a lot of people being smartasses and saying the cloud is affected by weather because everything is.
Iran is committed to the extinction of the Jews.
Not they're not. That's a bunch of horseshit propaganda that the U.S. and Israel have created to justify their shadow war against Iran, one that's been going on since their puppet totalitarian Shah got tossed out by the modern DEMOCRATIC government of Iran.
I won't argue that the idea Iran wants to wipe out the Jews is complete nonsense.
But calling the Iranian government democratic is an extreme stretch. The candidates are severely restricted, the voting is largely rigged, and the main authority resides with the Supreme Leader who is not elected (not the President who has limited authority), and the Guardian Council who is half appointed by the Supreme Leader and half by the parliament. It may become democratic one day, but right now it is mostly an autocracy.
By that metric weather affects everything, and you'd be asking a completely useless question.
Most people realize the actual question being asked is whether cloud computing is affected by weather more than other generic things, to which the answer is no, in fact it's less affected by weather than other generic things. What do you prove by deliberately misinterpreting the survey question?
Trying to avoid a theocracy does not mean it was not inspired by the Bible. It did not happen on Europe by accident.
Where did it happen in Europe? In the French Revolution as a violent reaction against the church? Or the US constitution where the only people citing the bible were the opponents? Do you have any evidence for this proposition? It sounds like you're getting your history from David Barton.
By what logic? Atheist Marxist countries were __extremely__ aggressive. Muslim countries are very aggressive. Some Buddhist countries oppress religious minorities. There is no reason to believe that less Christianity equals less aggression.
Also, you forgot the Second Vatican Council.
The communist nations had another ideology causing the aggression, but in general, studies show that religiosity is highly correlated with violent cultures, you can argue cause and effect, but Muslim or Christian there is a definite correlation. In fact I'd argue that the reason Muslim countries are more aggressive than Christian isn't because of Islam, its simply because the Muslim countries are more religious.
It is very hard to be part of the Church when you do not believe in it, yes?
The Church is a doctrinal organization. Her top priorities are preaching sound doctrine, and administering the sacraments. She must allow people to get out (or refrain from getting in), so people have freedom of religion. But it is not reasonable to expect the Church to dilute her teaching so everyone is in.
It doesn't matter if it's reasonable or not, right from the start Christianity was a very authoritative religion that reduced religious liberty. Also note that part of the reason Constantine embraced Christianity was the idea of one god helped re-enforce the idea of one emperor.
When have the Abrahamic religions ever been at peace even with variants of themselves?
Except that the situation is not symmetrical. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the aggressor is Muslim, and the victim is either Christian or Jew.
Actually in the overwhelming majority of cases both the aggressor and the victim is Muslim, but that's also just a current snapshot. The history of Europe right up until the disarmament of the IRA (and there's probably still other conflicts going on) is one of Christian religious strife. The separation of church and state wasn't inspired by Christianity, it was a deliberate attempt to avoid becoming a Christian theocracy! And if you want to know why Christian nations have become less aggressive I'd claim that it's largely because they became less Christian.
Really I think it's 1), or close to it. I've heard an interview of a tour cyclist who applied to some top teams, the meeting was going well until he was asked "Will you do anything to win?", and he always answered "yes, except take drugs". At that point he generally lost the gig. On the team it's not something the cyclist would advertise, and they may be cautious around the new guy, but they spend enough time together and it's common knowledge that its happening that they probably don't bother hiding it eventually.
As for effort getting the next guy, it's just like any other crime. Who will you go after more aggressively? The guy who stole one tour, or the guy who stole seven?
Your kidding right? You don't know who Alex Zülle, Jan Ullric (2ns place to Lance THREE times), Joseba Beloki , Andreas Klöden and Ivan Basso are?
Cycling fans do, that is for sure.
I had to look up the spellings, but I know all those guys and would kill to meet any of them.
Oh, and all of them were busted at one point or other for doping, in the Festina Raid, Operación Puerto, or other tests.
You cheat, you test positive or get caught in a raid with your name on a bag of blood for doping.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/08/24/lance_armstrong_doping_scandal_everyone_was_chating_from_1999_to_2005_.html
Everyone that the USADA says will testify against him has a charge against them that the will get mitigation for, or has written a book they made money on.
If they had some hard evidence, and the testimony, fine. Otherwise, it is just a case of rolling lieutenants to get the Capo by making them immune to criminal prosecution.
Note my exact comment
"Do you know the name of the guys who would have won those tours if Armstrong and those other guys didn't cheat? The guys who were incredibly talented and hard working, but were too ethical to cheat? No? Well neither do I. We'll probably never know who those guys were and even with this action by the USADA Armstrong will still be rich and famous, while these other guys who probably deserved it more, will remain unknown, probably not even knowing that they should have been the real winner."
The idea is that we don't know, and probably never will know, who the best clean rider was, how far down the rankings they finished, and whether they would have won if everyone else competed fair. That's the legacy of Armstrong and those others, we can't trust the exceptional athletes, and the clean ones, who puts in the extra work to succeed fairly, end up just as tainted as the cheaters. Moreso, even if they definitely prove that Armstrong cheated, from his perspective it was still worth it! He still has his (tainted) fame and riches.
Right now Armstrong shows the young cyclists that even the big hero cheats, and if they want to win they have to cheat too, this culture of doping destroys sport and turns otherwise good people into cheaters. I don't mind handing out some deals to take that hero down a few notches and give people a reason to stay clean.