Then your argument has no usefulness to it. If you simply assert calories in minus calories out equals calories gained, you don't say anything that's useful to anyone. That's because calories out appears to be impossible to measure in its current state. It appears that bacterial fauna is a significant player in what makes up calories out, that's the point of this article.
Congratulations, you didn't read the article. As you see, you are not the only thing digesting what goes in your mouth. It's entirely possible that said skinny person could consume 3500 calories, have their gut fauna convert 1700 of it into undigestible (by human) chemicals, and end up with a resulting actual digested intake of 1800 calories.
This is the point - you can not simply measure the number of calories that go into your mouth, you have to measure how many actually end up in the blood stream.
1) After killing off the gut bacteria, the chemical balance of the gut may still favour those same bacteria re-growing 2) It may be that the presence of certain bacteria is what's necessary to lose weight (e.g. maybe there's bacteria that eat substantial amounts of your calorific intake and convert it to something undigestible), and it turns out that in this case the introduced bacteria out-competed these useful weight loss bacteria.
People who are overweight are 0.94 times as likely to die as people who have normal weight. People who are slightly obese are 0.95 times as likely to die as people who have normal weight. People who are very obese are 1.29 and 1.41 times as likely to die as normal weight. Basically - being really heavy is very bad. Being a little on the chubby side is not.
The benefit is that there are many people who can not for one (legitimate, medical) reason or another receive the vaccine. By having a large proportion of the population vaccinated you stop the disease spreading and you protect even those who can not be vaccinated.
Basically, you do harm to others by not vaccinating (by allowing them to contract deadly diseases).
Uhhh, HPV is the cause of huge numbers of deaths each year. A quick google reveals that cervical cancer rates are 2.3 per 100,000 women per year, aka 3500 deaths a year in the US alone. HPV is the root cause of over 90% of those cancers.
The reason that it's reasonable for the government to mandate what shots your child gets is because your choice does not affect only your child. It affects every child out there that for some reason can not be vaccinated.
I saw Martin speak at a small conference a few years back. He flat out said if he dies, the story dies with him. He had no plans to have anyone finish the series if he goes.
That's been flat out denied multiple times. The TV show creators have repeatedly stated that part of the contract terms for doing the show are that he produces a series a year, and that they know how it ends already.
Basically, whether he's dead or not, and whether the books are written or not, you'll know the end in 3 years.
What makes you think that ATMs in europe aren't embedded in a small concrete building?
Note - that small concrete building usually has a door in the back of it so that a guy can come along, open it, and then fill up the ATM with cash. That again, is the weak point that the explosion will blow out.
No, no it's not. Europe too had legacy finance systems. We overhauled them - making us first adopters. The difference is not that you were first adopters (you weren't), it's that we actually spent some money to improve things.
Yep, I've never met a really good programmer who didn't use every tool he could exploit to find his bugs. Every one of them that I ever met had a strong leaning towards strongly typed languages, because they could exploit the type checker to find their bugs. They had a strong leaning towards testing, because they could exploit it to find their bugs. They had a strong leaning towards running profiling tools for memory, leaks, performance etc because they could exploit them to show were their code was really bad.
As far as I'm concerned - lesson 1 is to use every tool you possibly can to prop yourself up - get the computer to make you into a good programmer.
Hint - if you think that you're the best coder in the world, and that everyone around you is only outputting a bunch of shitty buggy crap, it's probably time for you to do a bunch of introspection.
It's a well known phenomenon that experts will tend to play down how good they are (because they realise what they don't know), while non-experts will tend to play up how good they are. The fact that you're claiming to be god's gift to man kind, and that everyone else seems to be doing something different is a good indication that you may well be in the latter category.
Don't get me wrong - you may actually be god's gift to man kind, and/or you may be amongst a bunch of incompetent monkeys, but that's not the likely scenario.
Increasing the minimum wage rather than the EITC has the benefit that more money is paid in taxes, not less. The result, not only are you able to help those who do have a minimum wage job (who by the way, typically are poor, and it's ridiculous to assert otherwise), but you're also able to help those who have found themselves out of work. That, and rebuild the completely fucked highways, pay firemen, stop the sewers leaking,...
The thing is, suppose your cost of living is indeed half that of SV. Lets assume for you, the cost of living is 40k a year - you are able to save or enjoy 30k a year. Lets assume it's 80k a year in SV. That guy earning 140k a year is still saving 60k a year, and will retire to the mid west much better off.
Also, the other thing that this isn't taking into account is the rate at which you get given shares in companies. Someone working for one of the big SV tech companies, and earning $140k a year is likely to be being given more than $100k in stock a year if they're even half competent. Sure, it vests over time, but after a few years, that's literally just $100k coming in from vesting every single year.
First off, you are absolutely right. Making 125K a year in Silicon Valley isn't worth a hill of beans if you have to pay 5K a month for a nice apartment. Or maybe even not so nice.
Just for reference - SV is expensive, but not that expensive. I pay less than $3k a month for a nice 3 bed house there. It's only the idiots who want to live in the city that end up paying $4k a month for a 1 bed apartment.
Yes, but also no. In general, even in areas with a high cost of living, you end up better off. No matter where you live, you typically end up spending somewhere around 30-40% of your income on housing, 20-30% on living, and 30-40% as disposable income of one form or another (savings, having fun, etc). 30-40% of a silicon valley wage is still substantially more than 30-40% of a mid-west wage, that means you gain substantially more savings by working there, and when you retire, and move to somewhere like the mid west, you are substantially better off.
Actually, in terms of rev range, F1 engines and street engines aren't too dissimilar. F1 engines can rev to 15000rpm, but they're designed not to, because the fuel flow is not allowed to increase above 10500rpm. Because of that, they're designed to run at between 8000 and 12000rpm most of the time. Modern road car small turbos tend to rev up to 8000rpm. They're a little separate, but not as much as the 15000rpm rev limit on an F1 engine makes it seem.
The thing that differs on the F1 engine is actually the compression ratio they're expected to endure, and the size and speed of the turbo charger. The turbos carry so much energy that they have to have ballistic shields installed around them in case one fails. That of course is why the engine then ends up so quiet - all the exhaust energy goes into spinning a massive turbo up to 150,000rpm.
There's only so much energy in the exhaust though, and that level has been steadily diminishing, especially with the advent of modern small turbo engines.
Just look at modern F1 cars. They're getting nearly 900 horse power out of a 1.6l turbo (plus hybrid system), and the engines are so quiet you hear tire scrub over them, even with racing slick tires.
Not really, no. Automatics generally shift less optimally than a human, and in doing so, waste fuel. The only advantage they have is that they will put up with changing gear more often, and as such, are able to have 8-10 speed gearboxes fitted rather than the traditional 4-6 speed in a manual. That allows them to keep things closer to the optimal rev range. The result - an automatic will generally get almost exactly the same milage as a manual.
What excess damage? You (the insurance company) have the data, and here is my car. There's no "excess damage", just "damage".
Do you think (the insurance company) that my accident should render less damage? That's not my problem, I'm neither a materials engineer, nor I designed my car.
Do you think I commited fraud? Why do you think so? Maybe because you know your devices are easily hackable? Maybe I should sue you (the insurance company) for puting me at risk for your lack of due diligence.
Yes the insurer absolutely will think you committed fraud. Then their very first step will be to ask the police for an accident report. The police will then report that the skid marks indicate that the car must have been travelling at at least 50mph, not the 20mph indicated by the dongle.
Believe me, when that is put in front of a judge, your "putting you at risk" charge is going to be thrown out, and their fraud charge is going to hit you square between the eyes.
Where by "reasonable timeframe" you mean "once every 2 and a half millennia", plus, getting into a retrograde orbit around the sun increases the fuel bill, and the issue with point 1) even more.
1) It's very difficult to get there - Voyager 1 and 2 are the only probes ever to get that far from the sun and still be functional, and they took decades to get there 2) If you hang around in the orbit of the planet, then you'll have the same orbital period as it. Effectively, you'd stay stationary relative to the planet, and as a result never spot it unless you got lucky and landed exactly where the planet was.
Slashdot Mirror
Then your argument has no usefulness to it. If you simply assert calories in minus calories out equals calories gained, you don't say anything that's useful to anyone. That's because calories out appears to be impossible to measure in its current state. It appears that bacterial fauna is a significant player in what makes up calories out, that's the point of this article.
Congratulations, you didn't read the article. As you see, you are not the only thing digesting what goes in your mouth. It's entirely possible that said skinny person could consume 3500 calories, have their gut fauna convert 1700 of it into undigestible (by human) chemicals, and end up with a resulting actual digested intake of 1800 calories.
This is the point - you can not simply measure the number of calories that go into your mouth, you have to measure how many actually end up in the blood stream.
It may not be quite that simple.
1) After killing off the gut bacteria, the chemical balance of the gut may still favour those same bacteria re-growing
2) It may be that the presence of certain bacteria is what's necessary to lose weight (e.g. maybe there's bacteria that eat substantial amounts of your calorific intake and convert it to something undigestible), and it turns out that in this case the introduced bacteria out-competed these useful weight loss bacteria.
For men, it is true that the optimum weight/BMI* is "normal" and any increase is bad.
Actually no, overweight is the optimum. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
People who are overweight are 0.94 times as likely to die as people who have normal weight. People who are slightly obese are 0.95 times as likely to die as people who have normal weight. People who are very obese are 1.29 and 1.41 times as likely to die as normal weight. Basically - being really heavy is very bad. Being a little on the chubby side is not.
The benefit is that there are many people who can not for one (legitimate, medical) reason or another receive the vaccine. By having a large proportion of the population vaccinated you stop the disease spreading and you protect even those who can not be vaccinated.
Basically, you do harm to others by not vaccinating (by allowing them to contract deadly diseases).
Uhhh, HPV is the cause of huge numbers of deaths each year. A quick google reveals that cervical cancer rates are 2.3 per 100,000 women per year, aka 3500 deaths a year in the US alone. HPV is the root cause of over 90% of those cancers.
The reason that it's reasonable for the government to mandate what shots your child gets is because your choice does not affect only your child. It affects every child out there that for some reason can not be vaccinated.
Dualling and duelling are different things. Dualling is making something have a dual (a pair). Duelling is shooting someone at dawn.
I saw Martin speak at a small conference a few years back. He flat out said if he dies, the story dies with him. He had no plans to have anyone finish the series if he goes.
That's been flat out denied multiple times. The TV show creators have repeatedly stated that part of the contract terms for doing the show are that he produces a series a year, and that they know how it ends already.
Basically, whether he's dead or not, and whether the books are written or not, you'll know the end in 3 years.
What makes you think that ATMs in europe aren't embedded in a small concrete building?
Note - that small concrete building usually has a door in the back of it so that a guy can come along, open it, and then fill up the ATM with cash. That again, is the weak point that the explosion will blow out.
No, no it's not. Europe too had legacy finance systems. We overhauled them - making us first adopters. The difference is not that you were first adopters (you weren't), it's that we actually spent some money to improve things.
Yep, I've never met a really good programmer who didn't use every tool he could exploit to find his bugs. Every one of them that I ever met had a strong leaning towards strongly typed languages, because they could exploit the type checker to find their bugs. They had a strong leaning towards testing, because they could exploit it to find their bugs. They had a strong leaning towards running profiling tools for memory, leaks, performance etc because they could exploit them to show were their code was really bad.
As far as I'm concerned - lesson 1 is to use every tool you possibly can to prop yourself up - get the computer to make you into a good programmer.
Hint - if you think that you're the best coder in the world, and that everyone around you is only outputting a bunch of shitty buggy crap, it's probably time for you to do a bunch of introspection.
It's a well known phenomenon that experts will tend to play down how good they are (because they realise what they don't know), while non-experts will tend to play up how good they are. The fact that you're claiming to be god's gift to man kind, and that everyone else seems to be doing something different is a good indication that you may well be in the latter category.
Don't get me wrong - you may actually be god's gift to man kind, and/or you may be amongst a bunch of incompetent monkeys, but that's not the likely scenario.
Increasing the minimum wage rather than the EITC has the benefit that more money is paid in taxes, not less. The result, not only are you able to help those who do have a minimum wage job (who by the way, typically are poor, and it's ridiculous to assert otherwise), but you're also able to help those who have found themselves out of work. That, and rebuild the completely fucked highways, pay firemen, stop the sewers leaking, ...
Sunnyvale. It's not uncommon here at all.
The thing is, suppose your cost of living is indeed half that of SV. Lets assume for you, the cost of living is 40k a year - you are able to save or enjoy 30k a year. Lets assume it's 80k a year in SV. That guy earning 140k a year is still saving 60k a year, and will retire to the mid west much better off.
Also, the other thing that this isn't taking into account is the rate at which you get given shares in companies. Someone working for one of the big SV tech companies, and earning $140k a year is likely to be being given more than $100k in stock a year if they're even half competent. Sure, it vests over time, but after a few years, that's literally just $100k coming in from vesting every single year.
First off, you are absolutely right. Making 125K a year in Silicon Valley isn't worth a hill of beans if you have to pay 5K a month for a nice apartment. Or maybe even not so nice.
Just for reference - SV is expensive, but not that expensive. I pay less than $3k a month for a nice 3 bed house there. It's only the idiots who want to live in the city that end up paying $4k a month for a 1 bed apartment.
Uhhh yeh, and you don't think a couple earning $250,000 can afford a tax lawyer too? Yeh right. Get off your high horse.
Yes, but also no. In general, even in areas with a high cost of living, you end up better off. No matter where you live, you typically end up spending somewhere around 30-40% of your income on housing, 20-30% on living, and 30-40% as disposable income of one form or another (savings, having fun, etc). 30-40% of a silicon valley wage is still substantially more than 30-40% of a mid-west wage, that means you gain substantially more savings by working there, and when you retire, and move to somewhere like the mid west, you are substantially better off.
Actually, in terms of rev range, F1 engines and street engines aren't too dissimilar. F1 engines can rev to 15000rpm, but they're designed not to, because the fuel flow is not allowed to increase above 10500rpm. Because of that, they're designed to run at between 8000 and 12000rpm most of the time. Modern road car small turbos tend to rev up to 8000rpm. They're a little separate, but not as much as the 15000rpm rev limit on an F1 engine makes it seem.
The thing that differs on the F1 engine is actually the compression ratio they're expected to endure, and the size and speed of the turbo charger. The turbos carry so much energy that they have to have ballistic shields installed around them in case one fails. That of course is why the engine then ends up so quiet - all the exhaust energy goes into spinning a massive turbo up to 150,000rpm.
There's only so much energy in the exhaust though, and that level has been steadily diminishing, especially with the advent of modern small turbo engines.
Just look at modern F1 cars. They're getting nearly 900 horse power out of a 1.6l turbo (plus hybrid system), and the engines are so quiet you hear tire scrub over them, even with racing slick tires.
Not really, no. Automatics generally shift less optimally than a human, and in doing so, waste fuel. The only advantage they have is that they will put up with changing gear more often, and as such, are able to have 8-10 speed gearboxes fitted rather than the traditional 4-6 speed in a manual. That allows them to keep things closer to the optimal rev range. The result - an automatic will generally get almost exactly the same milage as a manual.
"And the excess damage?"
What excess damage? You (the insurance company) have the data, and here is my car. There's no "excess damage", just "damage".
Do you think (the insurance company) that my accident should render less damage? That's not my problem, I'm neither a materials engineer, nor I designed my car.
Do you think I commited fraud? Why do you think so? Maybe because you know your devices are easily hackable? Maybe I should sue you (the insurance company) for puting me at risk for your lack of due diligence.
Yes the insurer absolutely will think you committed fraud. Then their very first step will be to ask the police for an accident report. The police will then report that the skid marks indicate that the car must have been travelling at at least 50mph, not the 20mph indicated by the dongle.
Believe me, when that is put in front of a judge, your "putting you at risk" charge is going to be thrown out, and their fraud charge is going to hit you square between the eyes.
Where by "reasonable timeframe" you mean "once every 2 and a half millennia", plus, getting into a retrograde orbit around the sun increases the fuel bill, and the issue with point 1) even more.
1) It's very difficult to get there - Voyager 1 and 2 are the only probes ever to get that far from the sun and still be functional, and they took decades to get there
2) If you hang around in the orbit of the planet, then you'll have the same orbital period as it. Effectively, you'd stay stationary relative to the planet, and as a result never spot it unless you got lucky and landed exactly where the planet was.