I would propose purchasing a couple of solar panels to do the same job. It may be a little bit more expensive, but not by much - PV prices have completely collapsed this year. Granted the solar panels won't work after dark...
It gets better--following their math, 92 minutes a week gives a 14% reduction in mortality from all causes, and every additional 15 minutes gives an additional 4%. there's no point of diminishing returns identified. So, if you exercise 7 hours a week, you become immortal.
I think this is a straw man argument. The authors clearly state that the trend was for comparison between the "inactive" and "low exercise" group. Somebody exercising 7 hours a week would not count towards either group. Indeed the title of the paper makes it clear that they are talking about the benefits of small amount of exercise for those who do little or none.
The diversity amongst humans is not nearly large enough to qualify the introduction of biologically solidly defined races. Local varieties, that's all. 'Race' in humans is a pure social construct.
The "biologically solid" defintion for race you are looking for does not exist. Races are (from wikipeida) "genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small [emphasis mine] morphological and genetic differences". Very fuzzy indeed, but I would submit that the application on humans would be pretty consistent with how the word is used for other species.
For example, if we found a species a bird with a light color in Europe and a dark color in Africa, then biologists would not hesitate to call them different races or subspecies, even if genetically they are very similar and even if there are some interbreeding in the middle east.
an individual's predisposition toward religion is likely to be influenced by genetics
AKA i'm going to deliberately ignore a "nature vs nurture" debate that has raged on for centuries, and go with "nature" in an offhand comment that states a specific behaviour determined by nature is.. likely.
Oh and this is the lynchpin of my entire preposition. I'm a professor.
The previous post wrote "influcenced by genetics" which you transformed to "determined by nature" in an attempt to discredit.
It seems to me like the previous poster was open to both genetic and environmental explanations ("influenced by"), but that you are uncomfortable with anything less than 100% nurture. And indeed, if religiosity even *in part* (say 10%) is driven by genetics then that could still drive evolutionary patterns as suggested by the original article.
Fortunately the answers to the "nature vs nurture debate" have to a large extent been answered by expensive and extensive twin studies in the last decades. The answers are in. Genetics play a huge role in a number of traits, including religiosity:
We can complain all we want about DRM but I think the fact is still that most authors (not just publishers) would be very reluctant to publish electronically without it.
Ironically, I think a universal format with DRM may be the end of the publishers.
Think about it, suppose there was a universial format with at least some mild DRM. It is widely adopted across multiple platforms. If you are an author, what do you need the publishers for?
And it ain't gonna happen
I think there is a chance it might happen because it is a slippery slope to produce devices that only read one format. While every distributor may have a long term goal of a monopoly, there will always be a short term temptation to have your device read more formats (e.g. Kindle started supporting pdf), and to help other devices read content of your format.
Wal-Mart... dominates by offering affordable prices to Middle America... while Amazon... caters mostly to affluent urbanites
Because we all know how there are no Wal-Marts along the East or West Coasts, and those backward "middle Americans" don't have the Internet.
The words you yourself are quoting literally say "dominates by" and "mostly". Why is it that you can't make perfectly accurate demographic statements without somebody feeling the need to refute claims about "all" and "no" which have never been made? It is a good thing not to attribute a demographic average to every member of the group, but rejecting the average trend itself is just silly, and not insightful at all.
A one minute search on google revealed this paper that shows negative income elasticity for Wal-Mart shoppers. I would be shocked if further search would not give more statistical support to the orginal claim.
"The logic is not sound. First, modern humans have been in our current form for something like ten thousand generations; ten generations is trivial."
It is estimated for example that about 50,000 (~2000 generations) years ago Caucasians and Asians split up, and there are more than 2cm difference in average height. Actually there are more than 2 cm difference between populations in different Europan countries or different parts of China.
Haven't read the paper so I'd rather not comment on that particular prediction but it cannot be rejected that easily.
"Just as sick" is subjective. Also, it's not like abusing a child, because an animal is not anything like a child, not legally, physiologically, or in any other significant way. This is an emotion-driven argument.
On the contrary, arguing for the similarities between children and dogs based on their observed mental properties is the least subjective and emotional thing to do.
Rather, it would seem like arguments to keep them separate are based on a human emotional need, and an unwillingness to confront the enormous societal implications it would have.
And more importantly - why do we still have birds? Birds are supposed to be direct decedents of dinosaurs, and they seem to handle disease pretty well (judging by the state of NYC pigeons).
Birds are not just decendants of dinosaurs, they ARE dinosaurs (rather like humans are not just decendants of mammals). So can we please stop with this dinosaur extinction talk already. There are more living species of dinosaurs than there are living species of mammals.
Actually I know a fair number of people who won't fly particular airlines if there's any reasonable alternative available because of the bad service they've gotten from them.
It would be more rational to base personal boycotts on surveys and statistics rather than a single data point of personal experience.
The biggest challenge is that ebooks still cost almost as much as paper books, and distributors still take more than 50% for simply having the files on their servers.
This is to be expected from Amazon, who make most of their money selling paper books, but I think I will wait until some independent alternatives come up selling cheap ebooks, and giving 90%+ to the authors.
I had to look, but China does surprisingly have a version of the "eminent domain" clause in their Constitution - See #6 of "Amendment Fourth" down the page
Although, China has been known, from time to time, not to follow its constitution to the letter. Read on to Article 35:
"Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration."
I agree with everyone else about the waste in Iraq and elsewhere, and the importance of space exploration.
That said, it seems to me that NASA in general, and operating these rovers in particular, is pretty inefficient. The article says that some 300 people are working on these rovers and analyzing the data. If I recall correctly some 20,000 people work on the space shuttle.
Really, how many people does it take to drive around those rovers? If they get funding cuts, could they consider reducing the number of decision-makers and analysts and just dump some of the data online? Or even more drastically, open up the rover operation to competitive bidding or find a suitable NGO to run them?
Fission bombs are easy to build.
The North Koreans probably disagree. After obtaining the necessary material and spending much time and money on research their first attempt to a detonation appears to have been at least a partial failure.
Bear in mind I am not American, but from what I understand it is fairly costly to go to university there, and one of the easiest ways for people not born into money to finance themselves is to join the military for a bit before they go...
I don't think your argument would survive checking some basic relevant numbers, like, for example, what fraction of university students have previously been in the military (I would be very surprised if it is more than 5%).
The satellite is already being slowed down by atmospheric drag.
When it gets blown into many small pieces, the total surface area will increase. Hence, greater drag forces will act upon the same total mass, and the the orbital decay will accelerate.
Article says that 70Bn for maglev is based on construction costs. Surely it excludes the real estate along the way.
Actually for 70Bn profitability does not seem out of the question.
Carnot Efficiency is only a limit on a Carnot Cycle Engine! Carnot Efficiency is a limit to any mechanism that converts heat to energy. Thus it applies to for example steam engines, internal combustion engines, and solar thermal power.
Carnot Efficiency does not apply to for example solar cells (PV), although currently these typically have efficiencies of 20% of less so this new thermal method could still be a big improvement.
And it costs considerably less to retrofit them with spiffy scrubbers such as TFA mentions than it does to rebuild new clean plants. Can you please back this claim up with numbers? Indeed, what is the cost per gallon of fuel from this method?
The problem isn't the violent games, or the violent TV shows, or even the violent peer-groups.
The problem is, quite simply, absent and detached parents.
Neither the parenting nor the video game explanation has much of empirical support. If you actually try to measure the effect of parenting and controlling for genes (for example, by studying maternal twins and adoptive children), the typical result is that parenting style has virtually zero impact.
Of course, one may wonder what "the problem" really is, since there is much less violence and murder in the US today than 20 years ago, and both rates are believed to be much lower than those of our hunter-gather ancestors.
It is not 21% of GDP, it is 21% of the federal government budget. It is more like 3% of GDP, which is a bit higher than the typical European country but not historically extraordinary by any means.
Those of us on the right side of the pond would say it happened when our former colonies broke away and has been getting worse ever since. Depends on how you colour it I guess
Actually, contemporary American English is in many ways closer to what was spoken in Britain before the break-away, than is contemporary British English.
Umm...It is either sold for a profit at 10$US or it is not. If the lower price is subsidized by the higher price in other countries (say it costs 15$US) than it is not being sold for a profit at 10$US.
You fail to separate between gross profit per unit and total profit on the project; whether the units sold cover just their variable costs or the fixed costs as well.
For software it is very cheap to make an additional unit, so surely the are making a gross profit per unit sold, even at the lower price charged in poorer countries. For example, if the marginal cost per unit is $4 they make a marginal profit of $6 per unit sold at $10.
That does not necessarily mean will sell enough units with $6 gross margin to cover all the fixed programming costs of the project.
Slashdot Mirror
I would propose purchasing a couple of solar panels to do the same job. It may be a little bit more expensive, but not by much - PV prices have completely collapsed this year. Granted the solar panels won't work after dark...
It gets better--following their math, 92 minutes a week gives a 14% reduction in mortality from all causes, and every additional 15 minutes gives an additional 4%. there's no point of diminishing returns identified. So, if you exercise 7 hours a week, you become immortal.
I think this is a straw man argument. The authors clearly state that the trend was for comparison between the "inactive" and "low exercise" group. Somebody exercising 7 hours a week would not count towards either group. Indeed the title of the paper makes it clear that they are talking about the benefits of small amount of exercise for those who do little or none.
The diversity amongst humans is not nearly large enough to qualify the introduction of biologically solidly defined races. Local varieties, that's all. 'Race' in humans is a pure social construct.
The "biologically solid" defintion for race you are looking for does not exist. Races are (from wikipeida) "genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small [emphasis mine] morphological and genetic differences". Very fuzzy indeed, but I would submit that the application on humans would be pretty consistent with how the word is used for other species.
For example, if we found a species a bird with a light color in Europe and a dark color in Africa, then biologists would not hesitate to call them different races or subspecies, even if genetically they are very similar and even if there are some interbreeding in the middle east.
AKA i'm going to deliberately ignore a "nature vs nurture" debate that has raged on for centuries, and go with "nature" in an offhand comment that states a specific behaviour determined by nature is.. likely.
Oh and this is the lynchpin of my entire preposition. I'm a professor.
The previous post wrote "influcenced by genetics" which you transformed to "determined by nature" in an attempt to discredit. It seems to me like the previous poster was open to both genetic and environmental explanations ("influenced by"), but that you are uncomfortable with anything less than 100% nurture. And indeed, if religiosity even *in part* (say 10%) is driven by genetics then that could still drive evolutionary patterns as suggested by the original article.
Fortunately the answers to the "nature vs nurture debate" have to a large extent been answered by expensive and extensive twin studies in the last decades. The answers are in. Genetics play a huge role in a number of traits, including religiosity:
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002666.html
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/1532/
And it ain't gonna happen
I think there is a chance it might happen because it is a slippery slope to produce devices that only read one format. While every distributor may have a long term goal of a monopoly, there will always be a short term temptation to have your device read more formats (e.g. Kindle started supporting pdf), and to help other devices read content of your format.
Wal-Mart ... dominates by offering affordable prices to Middle America... while Amazon ... caters mostly to affluent urbanites
Because we all know how there are no Wal-Marts along the East or West Coasts, and those backward "middle Americans" don't have the Internet.
The words you yourself are quoting literally say "dominates by" and "mostly". Why is it that you can't make perfectly accurate demographic statements without somebody feeling the need to refute claims about "all" and "no" which have never been made? It is a good thing not to attribute a demographic average to every member of the group, but rejecting the average trend itself is just silly, and not insightful at all.
A one minute search on google revealed this paper that shows negative income elasticity for Wal-Mart shoppers. I would be shocked if further search would not give more statistical support to the orginal claim.
http://economics.missouri.edu/working-papers/2008/WP0805_basker.pdf
"The logic is not sound. First, modern humans have been in our current form for something like ten thousand generations; ten generations is trivial."
It is estimated for example that about 50,000 (~2000 generations) years ago Caucasians and Asians split up, and there are more than 2cm difference in average height. Actually there are more than 2 cm difference between populations in different Europan countries or different parts of China.
Haven't read the paper so I'd rather not comment on that particular prediction but it cannot be rejected that easily.
"Just as sick" is subjective. Also, it's not like abusing a child, because an animal is not anything like a child, not legally, physiologically, or in any other significant way. This is an emotion-driven argument.
On the contrary, arguing for the similarities between children and dogs based on their observed mental properties is the least subjective and emotional thing to do.
Rather, it would seem like arguments to keep them separate are based on a human emotional need, and an unwillingness to confront the enormous societal implications it would have.
And more importantly - why do we still have birds? Birds are supposed to be direct decedents of dinosaurs, and they seem to handle disease pretty well (judging by the state of NYC pigeons).
Birds are not just decendants of dinosaurs, they ARE dinosaurs (rather like humans are not just decendants of mammals). So can we please stop with this dinosaur extinction talk already. There are more living species of dinosaurs than there are living species of mammals.
Actually I know a fair number of people who won't fly particular airlines if there's any reasonable alternative available because of the bad service they've gotten from them.
It would be more rational to base personal boycotts on surveys and statistics rather than a single data point of personal experience.
The biggest challenge is that ebooks still cost almost as much as paper books, and distributors still take more than 50% for simply having the files on their servers. This is to be expected from Amazon, who make most of their money selling paper books, but I think I will wait until some independent alternatives come up selling cheap ebooks, and giving 90%+ to the authors.
Although, China has been known, from time to time, not to follow its constitution to the letter. Read on to Article 35:
"Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration."
I agree with everyone else about the waste in Iraq and elsewhere, and the importance of space exploration. That said, it seems to me that NASA in general, and operating these rovers in particular, is pretty inefficient. The article says that some 300 people are working on these rovers and analyzing the data. If I recall correctly some 20,000 people work on the space shuttle. Really, how many people does it take to drive around those rovers? If they get funding cuts, could they consider reducing the number of decision-makers and analysts and just dump some of the data online? Or even more drastically, open up the rover operation to competitive bidding or find a suitable NGO to run them?
The North Koreans probably disagree. After obtaining the necessary material and spending much time and money on research their first attempt to a detonation appears to have been at least a partial failure.
22/7 is a better approximation than 3.14
Bear in mind I am not American, but from what I understand it is fairly costly to go to university there, and one of the easiest ways for people not born into money to finance themselves is to join the military for a bit before they go...
I don't think your argument would survive checking some basic relevant numbers, like, for example, what fraction of university students have previously been in the military (I would be very surprised if it is more than 5%).
The satellite is already being slowed down by atmospheric drag.
When it gets blown into many small pieces, the total surface area will increase. Hence, greater drag forces will act upon the same total mass, and the the orbital decay will accelerate.
Article says that 70Bn for maglev is based on construction costs. Surely it excludes the real estate along the way. Actually for 70Bn profitability does not seem out of the question.
The problem is, quite simply, absent and detached parents.
Neither the parenting nor the video game explanation has much of empirical support. If you actually try to measure the effect of parenting and controlling for genes (for example, by studying maternal twins and adoptive children), the typical result is that parenting style has virtually zero impact.
Of course, one may wonder what "the problem" really is, since there is much less violence and murder in the US today than 20 years ago, and both rates are believed to be much lower than those of our hunter-gather ancestors.
It is not 21% of GDP, it is 21% of the federal government budget. It is more like 3% of GDP, which is a bit higher than the typical European country but not historically extraordinary by any means.
Why do you need 14 drivers for 2 rovers?
Those of us on the right side of the pond would say it happened when our former colonies broke away and has been getting worse ever since. Depends on how you colour it I guess
Actually, contemporary American English is in many ways closer to what was spoken in Britain before the break-away, than is contemporary British English.
Umm...It is either sold for a profit at 10$US or it is not. If the lower price is subsidized by the higher price in other countries (say it costs 15$US) than it is not being sold for a profit at 10$US.
You fail to separate between gross profit per unit and total profit on the project; whether the units sold cover just their variable costs or the fixed costs as well.
For software it is very cheap to make an additional unit, so surely the are making a gross profit per unit sold, even at the lower price charged in poorer countries. For example, if the marginal cost per unit is $4 they make a marginal profit of $6 per unit sold at $10.
That does not necessarily mean will sell enough units with $6 gross margin to cover all the fixed programming costs of the project.