The flour is easily broken down into sugars early in the digestive process. Carbs that require more processing, like whole-grain flour -- since it's stuck to other substances in the seed -- are "better"./blockquote.
Whole grain flour is almost as easily broken down as white flour. The carbohydrate is only physically attached to the other stuff, and only weakly so -- it's been _ground up_, after all. That's why their glycemic indexes are just about the same.
Probably the biggest benefit to whole-wheat flour is it tastes like shit so you don't eat as much.
Then, there's meat. I remember what a good steak tasted like. Even today, if I lay out cash to get a prime grade cut...it barely has the flavor of the old days. They've bred out the marbling, the little flecks of fat within the meat fibers that is where the flavor comes from.
Then either you're being robbed, or your taste buds have died. What has happened is that a lot of supermarkets have started carrying crap beef (USDA Select grade or equivalent), and some of them give it names with "prime" in it. The USDA grades are still judged by the amount of marbling, and USDA Prime has plenty of it. It also costs $15-$20+/lb for cuts used for steaks and most places don't carry it.
I've always found it sadly hypocritical that/. geeks who have so little patience with people making mistakes on technical issues, when said mistakes can easily be corrected by a little bit of reading, are comfortable making similarly blatantly wrong statements about the US Patent system, when said mistakes can easily be corrected my reading the freely available Manual of Patent Examination Procedure.
Thing is, the "blatantly wrong" statements about the US Patent system appear to predict its behavior better than the gospel according to the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure.
This doesn't just cover podcasting. It covers all "episodic media". Which means prior art for all "episodic media" (including text subscriptions) should count.
If there's anything in there that's at all novel or non-obvious, I can't see it.
The remark about the three-second rule is 1) A summary of research by a different researcher and 2) Probably not supported the statements of that researcher -- she is only quoted mentioning 1/2 second following distances (which _are_ nucking futz at speed, as any regular traveler of MD I-270 or the capital beltway likely knows), not any three-second rule.
The article -- but again, not in a quote -- also claims a driver's reaction time is about 1 second. IMO, if you're reaction time is that bad, get off the road.
Three second rule? Ha. Even in my Driver's Ed class it was only a 2-second rule.
Seems to me that if a set of rules works best when only 60% follow it, it's possible that the problem is a poor set of rules, not necessarily inherent superiority of a mixed strategy.
I think events recently have made it absolutely clear that there will be no justice in the courts, anywhere. Specifically, the previous Pirate Bay trial where the judge was an advocate for the plaintiff's cause, and Sony v. Tenenbaum where the judge refused to allow a fair use defense to be presented to the jury. The fix is in.
And yes, I have looked at such facts as the Early Medieval Warm, the Little Ice Age and the way that CO2 increase in the atmosphere follows a temperature rise, not precedes it.
The way the AGCC proponents handle the Early Medieval Warm and the Little Ice Age is the same way they handle the 1970s global cooling scare -- they claim it didn't exist and if it did, it was merely a local phenomenon.
Why can't we have a War on Poverty or a War on Hunger or a War on Illiteracy? Maybe we won't win, but at least the basic premise isn't complete bullshit.
We've actually already had the first two, at least. The "War on Poverty" was during Lyndon Johnson's regime; it resulted in the US welfare system. The "War on Hunger" (or, rather, one of many of them) was also during Johnson's presidency; it resulted in many US food aid programs. Several US Presidents, including Clinton and Bush, have talked about a "War on Illiteracy", though I don't think it ever got formal recognition the way the others did.
Unfortunately, the basic premise of those _is_ also complete bullshit. Not that those things don't exist, but that there's no way to wage war against them.
In any case, most models show that even a rather dramatic altering of CO2 emissions will not alter the course of climate change for a minimum of 200 years. Even if we stopped now, the glaciers are still going to melt. The CO2 is already in the air.
And how far out do you have to go for those models to have no demonstrated predictive power?
Wait, no really? See, here is what I am talking about. I can't even sit in a darkened room humming to myself without being accused of filching the RIAA goods!
Yes, you can. It's ASCAP which will come after you for that.
There is nothing I hate more than being interrupted when I am developing some code to sit in a meeting, and then find out that I didn't need to be there at all and now my time was just completely wasted...
Especially fun when it has the added dimension of 1) The meeting is to emphasize to developers the importance of delivering the code on time or 2) The meeting is partially to rant at developers for falling behind the schedule.
Sounds like a bunch of smart people, with too much idle time, sitting around the university cafeteria asking the question "why do men like big breasts?
They may think up some very clever ideas, but how do they really know any of them are true?
Because they're not total fools. They took that cafeteria idea, and turned it into a grant proposal, thus getting someone else to pay them to bring large numbers of women (of all breast sizes) into their lab so they could study this issue. They brought some men in, did some surveys, ran some statistical analysis, and published their work in a peer reviewed journal.
(They then signed up at the lab next door investigating treatments for repetitive motion injury, but that's not really relevant)
No, we simply have more women. Math says more people = greater variation. We should also have more ugly people too but the news rarely talks about that.
I'm re-reading Niven/Pournelles' Fallen Angels; this guy sounds like some of the Luddites in that book, not only not understanding technology, but fearing and hating it. Don't believe him, he's either just trying to get attention, or is a whacko.
Wait, you have a copy of _Fallen Angels_? Remain where you are, the thought police will be by to collect yo.. err, it shortly.
(The _Fallen Angels_ backstory is about a world in which global warming alarmists forced humankind to severely curtail use of energy, sending it into a new dark ages. Unfortunately, the world was actually headed into a new ice age and fossil fuel use was all that was holding it off.)
Galileo succeeded because he had evidence on his side, not because he was persecuted. You realize that you can be persecuted and be wrong, right?
The original poster claimed that presenting contrary data would necessarily result in fame and fortune. I simply pointed out that it could result in persecution instead.
When I go into a shop and buy a book, I do not sign a licence agreement, I go to the cashier and say "I want to buy this book" and they accept some money in return. That constitutes purchasing the *book*, not a licence to the contents of the book.
I don't have a Kindle. However, when I go to the page of a Kindle edition on the Amazon website, I am presented with an offer to purchase the book. There's even a button to push to pop up "How Buying Works"... which states "Your _purchase_ will be sent automatically and wirelessly to the Kindle via Amazon Whispernet." (emphasis mine) What then happens is Amazon transmits the book to your Kindle, where a new copy is made. That copy, on your Kindle, is yours.
I'm pretty sure that if Amazon broke into my house, removed a book I had purchased and burned it then they would be guilty of breaking and entering, criminal damage and probably a number of other laws, whether or not they refunded my money.
Indeed, they would, but none of those are copyright law.
One of the common misconceptions about "global warming" is that everywhere in the world will become warmer; this is not true, "global warming" refers to the average temperature increasing. Some places may get colder, some may get warmer, and some may stay the same. The region you live in may have a climate that hasn't changed, and it may not change in the near future, but this does not imply that the climate in the rest of the world is not changing.
So you're saying the theory is carefully constructed so as to be non-disprovable, except by data that only the theory's proponents have... and will not release.
What are you skeptical of? The science? The science predates said politician, and has only gotten stronger in the ensuing decade. Those who decry the science usually don't understand scientist's motivation. Any scientists that gives evidence that global warming isn't/won't happen will receive fame and fortune, just as Darwin, and Galileo, and Einstein received fame for showing the establishment to be wrong.
Galileo's probably the closest analog. You do know what happened to him, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Then either you're being robbed, or your taste buds have died. What has happened is that a lot of supermarkets have started carrying crap beef (USDA Select grade or equivalent), and some of them give it names with "prime" in it. The USDA grades are still judged by the amount of marbling, and USDA Prime has plenty of it. It also costs $15-$20+/lb for cuts used for steaks and most places don't carry it.
Thing is, the "blatantly wrong" statements about the US Patent system appear to predict its behavior better than the gospel according to the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure.
This doesn't just cover podcasting. It covers all "episodic media". Which means prior art for all "episodic media" (including text subscriptions) should count.
If there's anything in there that's at all novel or non-obvious, I can't see it.
The remark about the three-second rule is
1) A summary of research by a different researcher
and
2) Probably not supported the statements of that researcher -- she is only quoted mentioning 1/2 second following distances (which _are_ nucking futz at speed, as any regular traveler of MD I-270 or the capital beltway likely knows), not any three-second rule.
The article -- but again, not in a quote -- also claims a driver's reaction time is about 1 second. IMO, if you're reaction time is that bad, get off the road.
Three second rule? Ha. Even in my Driver's Ed class it was only a 2-second rule.
Seems to me that if a set of rules works best when only 60% follow it, it's possible that the problem is a poor set of rules, not necessarily inherent superiority of a mixed strategy.
I think events recently have made it absolutely clear that there will be no justice in the courts, anywhere. Specifically, the previous Pirate Bay trial where the judge was an advocate for the plaintiff's cause, and Sony v. Tenenbaum where the judge refused to allow a fair use defense to be presented to the jury. The fix is in.
It's not a lie, it's an inference. Likely a sardonic one, but not necessarily a lie.
Can you move to Manila and take advantage of the lower cost of living there? No. So there's the problem.
Excuse me, I have to use some of my extra 400% to make an arrangement with the crewman in charge of the anchor on a cargo ship...
Ah, yes, forcing. A neat way to explain a non-linear system with a linear model, and at the same time assume what you're trying to demonstrate.
The way the AGCC proponents handle the Early Medieval Warm and the Little Ice Age is the same way they handle the 1970s global cooling scare -- they claim it didn't exist and if it did, it was merely a local phenomenon.
We've actually already had the first two, at least. The "War on Poverty" was during Lyndon Johnson's regime; it resulted in the US welfare system. The "War on Hunger" (or, rather, one of many of them) was also during Johnson's presidency; it resulted in many US food aid programs. Several US Presidents, including Clinton and Bush, have talked about a "War on Illiteracy", though I don't think it ever got formal recognition the way the others did.
Unfortunately, the basic premise of those _is_ also complete bullshit. Not that those things don't exist, but that there's no way to wage war against them.
Yes, you can. It's ASCAP which will come after you for that.
The opening arguments from the defense will now consist of defense counsel singing "I've Been Working on the Railroad".
You and Don Quixote, Esq. With equal success.
The terms for commercial fiction works are actually much more reasonable; authors do not sign away their copyrights.
If it is, they likely already know, and consider it worth it to look "green" or to take advantage of some sort of incentive program.
Investment by big oil doesn't mean anything either way.
Especially fun when it has the added dimension of
1) The meeting is to emphasize to developers the importance of delivering the code on time
or
2) The meeting is partially to rant at developers for falling behind the schedule.
Because they're not total fools. They took that cafeteria idea, and turned it into a grant proposal, thus getting someone else to pay them to bring large numbers of women (of all breast sizes) into their lab so they could study this issue. They brought some men in, did some surveys, ran some statistical analysis, and published their work in a peer reviewed journal.
(They then signed up at the lab next door investigating treatments for repetitive motion injury, but that's not really relevant)
Yeah, but there's a reason Slashdot is text-only.
Wait, you have a copy of _Fallen Angels_? Remain where you are, the thought police will be by to collect yo.. err, it shortly.
(The _Fallen Angels_ backstory is about a world in which global warming alarmists forced humankind to severely curtail use of energy, sending it into a new dark ages. Unfortunately, the world was actually headed into a new ice age and fossil fuel use was all that was holding it off.)
The original poster claimed that presenting contrary data would necessarily result in fame and fortune. I simply pointed out that it could result in persecution instead.
I don't have a Kindle. However, when I go to the page of a Kindle edition on the Amazon website, I am presented with an offer to purchase the book. There's even a button to push to pop up "How Buying Works"... which states "Your _purchase_ will be sent automatically and wirelessly to the Kindle via Amazon Whispernet." (emphasis mine) What then happens is Amazon transmits the book to your Kindle, where a new copy is made. That copy, on your Kindle, is yours.
Indeed, they would, but none of those are copyright law.
So you're saying the theory is carefully constructed so as to be non-disprovable, except by data that only the theory's proponents have... and will not release.
How convenient.
Galileo's probably the closest analog. You do know what happened to him, right?