When I first read 30 kilowatts I said "300+ pounds with 3000 watts??? no problem!! You'd be talking 4000 horsepower. Your only real limitation on how much you could move would be the 40 kilogram limit.
But of course 30 Watts is much different. With a car battery based system with 13.8 volt you'd be limited to just a little over 2Amps. DC motors for the FIRST robotics competition draw far, far more than this. (300 - 500 watts peak power.)
I don't mean this in an insulting manner. I just want to use your post as an example of why Wikipedia should stay academic and detailed.
The problem is that people aren't patient. They, like this poster, are admittedly idiots about some subject and they hold a misconception that they should be able to read Wikipedia for less than a few hours and obtain a "good handle" on the subject. (I'm also a music theory idiot, by the way.)
For any interestingly advanced topic, such as music theory, no one can get a "good handle on the subject" in a few hours any more than I can teach object oriented programming to a group of students in a few hours. (Sure, I can pack it all into a three hour lecture, but they won't learn it or be able to apply it.) Brains and minds just simply aren't that fluid and do not organize themselves that quickly.
Education is a process, not an event. It doesn't end and it isn't completed quid-pro-quo like some one hour television episode. You need to work at it, practice it and research it through a variety of methods to get a good handle on whatever subject you have chosen.
Now I do agree with you that encylcopedia's used to be a starting reference. However, that was printed text. It was costly to produce, needed to fit size and weight constraints and could not be addeded or expanded upon once delivered. Wikipedia suffers none of these limitations. There is no reason why Wikipedia cannot be organized efficiently to provide beginner, introductory and advanced material in a digestable fashion. So, maybe the real question that should be asked is "Why doesn't Wikipedia have an organizational hierarchy of content level? They organize historical content such as monarchy lineages and group topics such as television shows. I think it would be helpful if a link such as "Music Theory" could have hyperlinks for different levels of content concerning that subject.
Overall, I encourage Wikipedia to be as detailed and as academic as possible!
Let's see... hey little girl do you want a job that:
You work more than ten hours a day regularly.
Saturday and Sunday as well, in addition to the other five days.
You get to be on call at 3:00am, after having just left work at 10pm.
All of your non-tech co-workers, and especially your boss/owner, view your skills on the same level as those of a janitor. I mean it's just a computer, I can buy one at Office Depot and do what you do, right?
Your boss will view you as a very red line-item, you don't actually produce any value.
You have no hope of moving into management because tech. people can't possibly possess "people" skills.
You fixed the mail server! You can also fix the microwave in the breakroom, right?
You get to produce miracles... Marketing told the client they could have that feature (that requires a complete architecture redesign) by Friday. You're so clever, if they can imagine it, then you can surely build it.
Can you say "Dot.Com". You dream of gold or platinum parachutes but, alas, your's is a lead-parachute.
Everyday somebody in your company is thinking about how to outsource your job.
You get to learn new skills everyday... In fact you get to learn every single system the company every uses. Why is that every tech. I know can use MS Excel better than every marketing weenie and almost every accountant?
I mean come on, I tagged the main article as "duh" because it's obvious to me why women are leaving. What would have been interesting is an article that started out "Why aren't men leaving tech. jobs?" Now there's a psychology paper waiting to be written.
For my CS students: You have desirable skills and are valuable in a broad range of industries. There are jobs that don't have the above expectations/values. Choose those jobs and do not settle for the type of job I described in the above list. Change jobs immediately if they turn into that sort of shit. It makes a world of difference in your happiness, your health and all other aspects of life in general.
Agreed. And yes my point is that government should not be involved in commercial activity.
But I also don't think it's fine to call it a commercial spaceport because I think the most widely accepted connotation of that is "private industry run/managed/funded spaceport" and is used as a deceptive marketing ploy to lead the public to believe that it isn't being funded by themselves.
Just because a definition list encompasses an alternate meaning does not change the fact that most slashdot readers will read that headline and say "Finally a private effort for space launch!" (similar to X-Prize efforts.) And I would wager slashdot readers are a lot more astute at wordsmithing than the NM public on voting day.
with apologies to NM for the implied insult. I could have more accurately substituted "earthlings" for "the NM public"
Since you brought up government subsidized airfields... Do you mean "NM keeps the prime real-estate and gets to make money out of it." in the same way that the US government turns a tidy profit these days from the airfields/airlines that it subsidized?
No, I read that Virgin is leasing. Virgin is getting a cheaper cost of vehicle launch at the expense of government tax payers with the state expecting [hoping would be a better word] to make 6.5Million annually.
Sorry, Virgin has a shill in the NM government that is acquiring an economic windfall for them on the public's dime. All the economic risk that Virgin should be bearing is being shifted to the public.
Commercial money should fund commercial ventures. The government should not be involved in the business of making money because it has been proven time and time again that government efforts cannot be done efficiently and do not make money.
And there is a basic flaw with your economic argument... If it is going to be profitable and sustainable to provide this facility why do they need to raise sales taxes? Because the truth is they expect to make a net loss each year and need additional tax revenue to break even. (Yes, you can bring in 6.5Million every year and still have a net loss.)
Am I the only one that sees the oxymoron here... "the world's first commercial spaceport" vs
"Governor Bill Richardson recently secured 33 million dollars from the state legislature for the final design, and a proposed 0.25% sales tax increase in Dona Ana County,
This is a government spaceport. Possible deployed to deliver commercial products into space but it should be billed corrected as a government facility. Yet another shining example of your tax dollars at work. I am glad I don't live in that state/county but I fully expect that when a tornado or hurricane wipes it out I will have to foot the FEMA bill for it.
I'm not against space ports. But if Virgin Galactic wants a facility then Virgin Galactic should foot the bill for it.
Ok... Start competing for internet service. Several large (HUGE) companies and lots of good technologies.
Clients want high speed bandwidth. Currently US providers have very high prices and you want to take advantage of this opportunity. It is very hard for wireless types of services to provide the level of bandwidth possible with land based solutions and land-based technologies are cheaper so you select to provide land based internet service.
Now... Go build another land based service. Oh wait you can't. You don't, and can't, own the land the wires run over. You will have to lease pre-existing bandwidth from the Large companies.
Infrastructures are where classically a lot of profit has been possible. Railroads, Telephones, Television, Cable TV, shipping, etc. These are all perfect examples of where you are either one of the first or you will have a high cost of entry and all the large companies in the world and innovation in technology won't make a difference.
It seems to me that your theory has a fundamental flaw in that it assumes both a perfectly free market and a perfect socialist society where nothing is actually owned to get in your way (like the land and telephone poles.) In a political system that allows ownership and contracts then companies can always maneuver to lock somebody out through ownership or agreement. I.E. "You can't do that because I own it and I won't let you" or "You can't do that because he owns it and I have already paid him to agree to my terms which exclude you."
Yes, it seems to me that anti-trust laws are a requirement of capitalist society (though I think we could do with less legislation in this and other areas). It's a fact that some humans are inherently evil/greedy/unethical/immoral/whatever-you-want-to -name-it and will take action to harm or inhibit others to maximize their own profit. Therefore it is necessary for some government control over their behavior to make life bearable for everybody. (Unless you are fan of anarchistic systems, in which case... please invite me to your world I have lots of good unethical/immoral tendencies that I wish to cater to.)
I'm not sure this is a "neocon" problem. The other "neoliberal" parties have contributed an equal share to the problem.
Secondly, I don't see how any government spending isn't "discretionary". Somebody chooses to spend every last penny. The government doesn't need to eat or be sheltered and therefore doesn't have a mandatory spending requirement to live. But using the word "discretionary" is a nice way of saying "Oh but see you have to fund all these non-discretionary programs because we don't have a choice. See, it's not our fault".
Last, while DOD-military, if considered "discretionary", is the number one annual discretionary expense ($424B) it should be pointed out for fairness of all sides that it is NOT the number one government line-item expenditure. That lofty title belongs to Social Security ($540B). And by 2010 Medicare will have caught up to the military ($460B vs $483) and that right now the combination of Medicare and Medicaid also exceeds the DOD-military budget ($539B). (And it is useful to note that for all intents and purposes discretionary spending is 100% military, there is no other discretionary spending.)
Note the one caveat to my argument is that discretionary funds also include the Non-DOD military spending which I don't think is fair to include because that money pays private sector companys and produces a lot of the technological advancement and products that we all use in our homes so it is more difficult to argue it as wasteful. But if we do then, yes the total military budget is larger than either Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid... but not combined since their total is $1.1T and the discreationary is $0.92T. (Since we really seem to discussing budget summary line items and not individual accounts.)
And yes, personally I think that Social Security/Medicare and Medicaid are far more wasteful than the military spending. Fine, call me heartless but I'm sick of paying for everybody else's inability to take care of themselves. But if we are going to throw stones at wasteful spending we might as well spread it fairly and hit every target worthy of blame.
And running around wasting resources on "solutions" to a problem/cause that doesn't/may not exist is a smart thing?
Knowing the truth of something cannot be a bad thing. I'm sorry that the possibility of this truth undermines your favorite crusade for guilt about common human activity.
Personally, I would rather know the truth so that we can direct our resources where they will generate the greatest possible benefits.
A contract is an agreement between parties to conduct their affairs a certain way. There is no way to predict all future circumstances. The parties negotiate as many foreseeable problems, opportunities and conditions and agree to accept the unpredictable. The contract is binding even when conditions change drastically.
Just because the future doesn't turn out to be identical, or even remotely similiar, to the fantasies that one of the parties had doesn't make the contract less binding.
Just because the RIAA was too stupid to predict and negotiate for terms concerning digital music, cell phones and other digital technologies doesn't mean they get a mulligan on their contractual obligations.
Yes, You've got me there. There have been other mice. I wonder though if any of them had litigation brought against them.
In fact, Mighty Mouse was "Supermouse" for two years until the name was changed, presumably under threat of lawsuit by DC comics over the Superman trademark. Not exactly Disney but very similar none the less and a good example of Copyright is used as a weapon to stifle the creativity and profit of others rather than being used to promote and encourage growth and public benefit.
I also find it humorous that Danger Mouse (the band, not the cartoon) was sued over their Grey album for use of Beatles songs. Yeah, not for artwork but another example of lawsuit over rights that should not have existed beyond twenty years. I would also venture to guess that since Danger Mouse (The cartoon, not the band) was a British product that may have made it difficult or impossible for Disney to bring a successful lawsuit against it during that tmie period.
And lastly, I couldn't find lawsuits pertaining to Tom and Jerry specifically but a cartoon short named "A Close Call" featured the characters Milton and Rita Mouse and was sued by Disney in 1931. Though this is probably a righteous lawsuit since Mickey was copyrighted only three years prior to this and I would agree that intellectual property should be protected for a period longer than three years.
The phone company is still the most powerful and deadly organization on the planet. There was a documentary produced about it many years ago: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062153/
Not that it's anything we don't already know but the current copyright laws do not serve the purpose that they were intended to. Protecting the rights of the author to profit from his ideas while protecting the public to make use of and grow from the benefits provided by the idea.
Personally, I feel copyright laws should be abolished and redone from scratch.
My biggest argument for this lies in the fact that different forms of intellectually property are not treated fairly and equally. Why should the author (and heirs) of copyrighted song benefit for 70 years after his death (and in perpetuity through renewals), while the author (and heirs) of a patent for a fusion reactor containment system only be allowed to profit for a total of 20 years after the filing of the patent??? Ask the 'A' in "RSA" about this sometime. He's not dead but the protection of his property is. Walt disney has been dead for 40 years, yet you still can't make a cartoon mouse without being sued.
Is a song worth more than a fusion reactor? No. Is a fusion reactor worth more than a song? No. (Well, I think it is but I'm generally considered uncultured.)
My point is that both are intellectual property and both should be treated fairly and equally with regards to each other. Whether your view is "Copyrights should last 20 years after the filing of the copyright" or "Patents should last 70 years beyond death and be renewable", I don't care. But the intellectual effort of all authors should be treated with a measure of equality.
My view point is 20 years after filing for both. That seems to strike the right balance of the author gets to make a huge profit for 20 years while the public can derive a benefit in the foreseeable future.
But see... You bring up exactly what's wrong with this...
928 studies to ZERO say A & B is true.
ZERO??? Yet a huge group of the population (even 0.001% is huge group of people) believes the opposite. In that group not everyone can be an idiot. So their opinion/belief must be based on some knowledge, some information, some facts. And yet that knowledge doesn't seem to be present in the presentation/argument of the 928 scientific studies. That leads me to wonder:
The presenters have a non-scientific agenda, they purposely only selected 928 studies that supported their position to provide as evidence to others.
The presenters are inept at analyzing the situation and failed to find and consider all possible studies.
What is the quality of each of the 928 "studies"?? It shouldn't take more than a few very well performed, argued and defended studies to make a solid case. It takes only one proof to prove Fermat's last theorem. Why do you need 928?
So yeah, maybe I'm too much of a skeptic. That I sometimes refuse to believe the obvious; that I will have to pay the consequences for my failing to act on it. But given the doubt about the information provided, just based on the nature of the presentation, I will take that chance and I will win far more than I have to pay in consequences.
The moral of that story is: Beware when everything presented to you is 100% anything. Such things are wrong so many times for the once when they are right that is not worth taking the gamble.
Slashdot Mirror
The poster is wrong! 30 Watts is the limit.
When I first read 30 kilowatts I said "300+ pounds with 3000 watts??? no problem!! You'd be talking 4000 horsepower. Your only real limitation on how much you could move would be the 40 kilogram limit.
But of course 30 Watts is much different. With a car battery based system with 13.8 volt you'd be limited to just a little over 2Amps. DC motors for the FIRST robotics competition draw far, far more than this. (300 - 500 watts peak power.)I don't mean this in an insulting manner. I just want to use your post as an example of why Wikipedia should stay academic and detailed.
The problem is that people aren't patient. They, like this poster, are admittedly idiots about some subject and they hold a misconception that they should be able to read Wikipedia for less than a few hours and obtain a "good handle" on the subject. (I'm also a music theory idiot, by the way.)
For any interestingly advanced topic, such as music theory, no one can get a "good handle on the subject" in a few hours any more than I can teach object oriented programming to a group of students in a few hours. (Sure, I can pack it all into a three hour lecture, but they won't learn it or be able to apply it.) Brains and minds just simply aren't that fluid and do not organize themselves that quickly.
Education is a process, not an event. It doesn't end and it isn't completed quid-pro-quo like some one hour television episode. You need to work at it, practice it and research it through a variety of methods to get a good handle on whatever subject you have chosen.
Now I do agree with you that encylcopedia's used to be a starting reference. However, that was printed text. It was costly to produce, needed to fit size and weight constraints and could not be addeded or expanded upon once delivered. Wikipedia suffers none of these limitations. There is no reason why Wikipedia cannot be organized efficiently to provide beginner, introductory and advanced material in a digestable fashion. So, maybe the real question that should be asked is "Why doesn't Wikipedia have an organizational hierarchy of content level? They organize historical content such as monarchy lineages and group topics such as television shows. I think it would be helpful if a link such as "Music Theory" could have hyperlinks for different levels of content concerning that subject.
Overall, I encourage Wikipedia to be as detailed and as academic as possible!
What else do you have to do with your time??
And just how long have you been waiting for the right moment to use that gem??
I'd explain how, but that would be telling
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers"
In Soviet Russia processes schedule YOU!
Thank you for expressing the same insight I had!
Let's see... hey little girl do you want a job that:
I mean come on, I tagged the main article as "duh" because it's obvious to me why women are leaving. What would have been interesting is an article that started out "Why aren't men leaving tech. jobs?" Now there's a psychology paper waiting to be written.
For my CS students: You have desirable skills and are valuable in a broad range of industries. There are jobs that don't have the above expectations/values. Choose those jobs and do not settle for the type of job I described in the above list. Change jobs immediately if they turn into that sort of shit. It makes a world of difference in your happiness, your health and all other aspects of life in general.
Agreed. And yes my point is that government should not be involved in commercial activity.
But I also don't think it's fine to call it a commercial spaceport because I think the most widely accepted connotation of that is "private industry run/managed/funded spaceport" and is used as a deceptive marketing ploy to lead the public to believe that it isn't being funded by themselves.
Just because a definition list encompasses an alternate meaning does not change the fact that most slashdot readers will read that headline and say "Finally a private effort for space launch!" (similar to X-Prize efforts.) And I would wager slashdot readers are a lot more astute at wordsmithing than the NM public on voting day.
with apologies to NM for the implied insult. I could have more accurately substituted "earthlings" for "the NM public"
Since you brought up government subsidized airfields... Do you mean "NM keeps the prime real-estate and gets to make money out of it." in the same way that the US government turns a tidy profit these days from the airfields/airlines that it subsidized?
No, I read that Virgin is leasing. Virgin is getting a cheaper cost of vehicle launch at the expense of government tax payers with the state expecting [hoping would be a better word] to make 6.5Million annually.
Sorry, Virgin has a shill in the NM government that is acquiring an economic windfall for them on the public's dime. All the economic risk that Virgin should be bearing is being shifted to the public.
Commercial money should fund commercial ventures. The government should not be involved in the business of making money because it has been proven time and time again that government efforts cannot be done efficiently and do not make money.
And there is a basic flaw with your economic argument... If it is going to be profitable and sustainable to provide this facility why do they need to raise sales taxes? Because the truth is they expect to make a net loss each year and need additional tax revenue to break even. (Yes, you can bring in 6.5Million every year and still have a net loss.)
Radar.
Am I the only one that sees the oxymoron here... "the world's first commercial spaceport" vs "Governor Bill Richardson recently secured 33 million dollars from the state legislature for the final design, and a proposed 0.25% sales tax increase in Dona Ana County,
This is a government spaceport. Possible deployed to deliver commercial products into space but it should be billed corrected as a government facility. Yet another shining example of your tax dollars at work. I am glad I don't live in that state/county but I fully expect that when a tornado or hurricane wipes it out I will have to foot the FEMA bill for it.
I'm not against space ports. But if Virgin Galactic wants a facility then Virgin Galactic should foot the bill for it.
Ok... Start competing for internet service. Several large (HUGE) companies and lots of good technologies.
Clients want high speed bandwidth. Currently US providers have very high prices and you want to take advantage of this opportunity. It is very hard for wireless types of services to provide the level of bandwidth possible with land based solutions and land-based technologies are cheaper so you select to provide land based internet service.Now... Go build another land based service. Oh wait you can't. You don't, and can't, own the land the wires run over. You will have to lease pre-existing bandwidth from the Large companies.
Infrastructures are where classically a lot of profit has been possible. Railroads, Telephones, Television, Cable TV, shipping, etc. These are all perfect examples of where you are either one of the first or you will have a high cost of entry and all the large companies in the world and innovation in technology won't make a difference.
It seems to me that your theory has a fundamental flaw in that it assumes both a perfectly free market and a perfect socialist society where nothing is actually owned to get in your way (like the land and telephone poles.) In a political system that allows ownership and contracts then companies can always maneuver to lock somebody out through ownership or agreement. I.E. "You can't do that because I own it and I won't let you" or "You can't do that because he owns it and I have already paid him to agree to my terms which exclude you."
Yes, it seems to me that anti-trust laws are a requirement of capitalist society (though I think we could do with less legislation in this and other areas). It's a fact that some humans are inherently evil/greedy/unethical/immoral/whatever-you-want-to -name-it and will take action to harm or inhibit others to maximize their own profit. Therefore it is necessary for some government control over their behavior to make life bearable for everybody. (Unless you are fan of anarchistic systems, in which case... please invite me to your world I have lots of good unethical/immoral tendencies that I wish to cater to.)
Didn't you read... sound makes us tic.
What??? We're not the center of the galaxy??? Somebody better tell God, 'cause he's gonna be pissed!!
There's no way I'm going to let a telemat in my car!!! Oh... Wait... that's cybermats I don't want in my car.
Never mind.
I'm not sure this is a "neocon" problem. The other "neoliberal" parties have contributed an equal share to the problem.
Secondly, I don't see how any government spending isn't "discretionary". Somebody chooses to spend every last penny. The government doesn't need to eat or be sheltered and therefore doesn't have a mandatory spending requirement to live. But using the word "discretionary" is a nice way of saying "Oh but see you have to fund all these non-discretionary programs because we don't have a choice. See, it's not our fault".
Last, while DOD-military, if considered "discretionary", is the number one annual discretionary expense ($424B) it should be pointed out for fairness of all sides that it is NOT the number one government line-item expenditure. That lofty title belongs to Social Security ($540B). And by 2010 Medicare will have caught up to the military ($460B vs $483) and that right now the combination of Medicare and Medicaid also exceeds the DOD-military budget ($539B). (And it is useful to note that for all intents and purposes discretionary spending is 100% military, there is no other discretionary spending.)
Note the one caveat to my argument is that discretionary funds also include the Non-DOD military spending which I don't think is fair to include because that money pays private sector companys and produces a lot of the technological advancement and products that we all use in our homes so it is more difficult to argue it as wasteful. But if we do then, yes the total military budget is larger than either Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid... but not combined since their total is $1.1T and the discreationary is $0.92T. (Since we really seem to discussing budget summary line items and not individual accounts.)
And yes, personally I think that Social Security/Medicare and Medicaid are far more wasteful than the military spending. Fine, call me heartless but I'm sick of paying for everybody else's inability to take care of themselves. But if we are going to throw stones at wasteful spending we might as well spread it fairly and hit every target worthy of blame.
And running around wasting resources on "solutions" to a problem/cause that doesn't/may not exist is a smart thing?
Knowing the truth of something cannot be a bad thing. I'm sorry that the possibility of this truth undermines your favorite crusade for guilt about common human activity.
Personally, I would rather know the truth so that we can direct our resources where they will generate the greatest possible benefits.
No.... Job not added.
There is a difference. To lose something you must have already possessed it.
And yes... by this same, correct, logic deficit savings aren't.
A contract is an agreement between parties to conduct their affairs a certain way. There is no way to predict all future circumstances. The parties negotiate as many foreseeable problems, opportunities and conditions and agree to accept the unpredictable. The contract is binding even when conditions change drastically.
Just because the future doesn't turn out to be identical, or even remotely similiar, to the fantasies that one of the parties had doesn't make the contract less binding.
Just because the RIAA was too stupid to predict and negotiate for terms concerning digital music, cell phones and other digital technologies doesn't mean they get a mulligan on their contractual obligations.
Yes, You've got me there. There have been other mice. I wonder though if any of them had litigation brought against them.
In fact, Mighty Mouse was "Supermouse" for two years until the name was changed, presumably under threat of lawsuit by DC comics over the Superman trademark. Not exactly Disney but very similar none the less and a good example of Copyright is used as a weapon to stifle the creativity and profit of others rather than being used to promote and encourage growth and public benefit.
I also find it humorous that Danger Mouse (the band, not the cartoon) was sued over their Grey album for use of Beatles songs. Yeah, not for artwork but another example of lawsuit over rights that should not have existed beyond twenty years. I would also venture to guess that since Danger Mouse (The cartoon, not the band) was a British product that may have made it difficult or impossible for Disney to bring a successful lawsuit against it during that tmie period.
And lastly, I couldn't find lawsuits pertaining to Tom and Jerry specifically but a cartoon short named "A Close Call" featured the characters Milton and Rita Mouse and was sued by Disney in 1931. Though this is probably a righteous lawsuit since Mickey was copyrighted only three years prior to this and I would agree that intellectual property should be protected for a period longer than three years.
The phone company is still the most powerful and deadly organization on the planet. There was a documentary produced about it many years ago: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062153/
Take that!!! Oh, wait, I just realized I don't understand the counter-argument.
nevermind.Personally, I feel copyright laws should be abolished and redone from scratch.
My biggest argument for this lies in the fact that different forms of intellectually property are not treated fairly and equally. Why should the author (and heirs) of copyrighted song benefit for 70 years after his death (and in perpetuity through renewals), while the author (and heirs) of a patent for a fusion reactor containment system only be allowed to profit for a total of 20 years after the filing of the patent??? Ask the 'A' in "RSA" about this sometime. He's not dead but the protection of his property is. Walt disney has been dead for 40 years, yet you still can't make a cartoon mouse without being sued.
Is a song worth more than a fusion reactor? No. Is a fusion reactor worth more than a song? No. (Well, I think it is but I'm generally considered uncultured.)
My point is that both are intellectual property and both should be treated fairly and equally with regards to each other. Whether your view is "Copyrights should last 20 years after the filing of the copyright" or "Patents should last 70 years beyond death and be renewable", I don't care. But the intellectual effort of all authors should be treated with a measure of equality.
My view point is 20 years after filing for both. That seems to strike the right balance of the author gets to make a huge profit for 20 years while the public can derive a benefit in the foreseeable future.
But see... You bring up exactly what's wrong with this...
928 studies to ZERO say A & B is true.
ZERO??? Yet a huge group of the population (even 0.001% is huge group of people) believes the opposite. In that group not everyone can be an idiot. So their opinion/belief must be based on some knowledge, some information, some facts. And yet that knowledge doesn't seem to be present in the presentation/argument of the 928 scientific studies. That leads me to wonder:
So yeah, maybe I'm too much of a skeptic. That I sometimes refuse to believe the obvious; that I will have to pay the consequences for my failing to act on it. But given the doubt about the information provided, just based on the nature of the presentation, I will take that chance and I will win far more than I have to pay in consequences.
The moral of that story is: Beware when everything presented to you is 100% anything. Such things are wrong so many times for the once when they are right that is not worth taking the gamble.
I took a look at reality once...
I prefer my own.