I wonder what the underlying cause behind this is? Is it just some particular property of fat? Or is it that fat is both high in calories, and hard to digest, meaning your body's got to dedicate more time to digestion and less to cogitation. That'd explain why I feel sort of the same after having a low-fat, high-carb meal - something with a lot of bread, for example.
Reading the article (which may not be an accurate representation of the study), the researchers basically had a bunch of rats on low-fat diets, then switched half to a high-fat diet. It would be also have been good to see rats that been on consistently high-fat diets, and rats that had another dramatic change in food, but with similar fat content.
So if you don't want to send money out of the country, emit less.
No, we'll just send money out of the country, and not cut our emissions. Net result: no decrease in emissions, and free money for India.
but you should do something instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and denying others things you have come to take for granted.
The theory being that doing something - anything - is better than doing nothing? Me, I'm of the opinion that you should take a rational approach that has a conceivable chance of bettering the situation rather than jumping on the first bandwagon to rumble by.
Per capita, the US emits the largest quantity of harmful gases in the world.
Except that China is set to take over the US next year, and Kyoto doesn't bind China to lower their emissions at all.
I can't see how preventing 3rd world countries from reaching even lesser per capita levels helps the US.
If you're talking about the Kyoto protocol, which is what I was discussing, I don't know what you're talking about. If you're talking about this particular bill, then no, it doesn't help the US as a whole. It helps those particular countries that have patents and can sell them at a profit.
If you had any sense, you would develop the green technology then sell it to the third world.
Which is what they're trying to do, and what this bill is attempting to protect. It's a pre-emptive measure to prevent companies with "green technology" having their patents "nationalized" by the world at large.
No, you can't "pollute as much as you want" - that's my air you're fucking up as well as yours.
Well, Kyoto's not going to stop me. You better find a better protocol, because that one's not going to accomplish squat. And if you look at the signatories current emission trends, you'll see that.
Huh? Kyoto wouldn't make anyone ditch their SUV. It'd make them pay extra for fuel, and send that extra money to India/China. Kyoto allows emission trading to offset emission reduction. You can pollute as much as you want, as long as you send money to the Annex A countries.
Yeah, right. My Mum is an amateur photographer. That is, she doesn't do it professionally, but she owns gear worth many thousands, and has done lots of photography courses. She'll still try emailing me twenty multi-megabyte photos, and ring me to ask why the mail isn't going through. Clueless people uploading hi-res photos isn't anything to form conspiracy theories over.
No, a scientific institute shouldn't have to muzzle itself because of a bunch of illiterates who don't understand big words. Pandemic is a technical word. The WHO isn't "pretending" it's a technical term for a worldwide outbreak - it *is*. They define it quite clearly. It's when a disease reaches a certain threshold of infections, in a certain number of continents. Just because a word is of recent origin, doesn't mean it's somehow fake.
If people are panicked by the term, then it should be their government or the media educating them as to the true meaning. As it is, those organs are more likely to fan the flames than educate. But the point of failure is there, not with the WHO.
Most corporate's are fine with open source licenses - licenses like BSD, etc are usually no problem. It's stuff with viral qualities - like the GPL - that lawyers tell people to avoid. And that's partly because there is the possibility that work you do can suddenly get taken away from you due to the license. That's risk, and lawyers will tell people to avoid risk.
Also, the GPL can be vague in some of its terms, and it hasn't had all it's various interpretations thoroughly tested through the courts. Take MySQL for instance, which claims that you fall under the provisions of the GPL if you distribute an application bundled with MySQL that depends on MySQL. As far as I'm concerned, that's an appallingly gross mis-interpretation of the GPL, but until it goes to court and gets lawyered down, that's a great big gaping liability.
The reason they like closed source licenses is that the consideration their clients make is generally purely monetary. That can be quantified, calculated, thrown into spreadsheets and such. With licenses like the GPL, the consideration is IP that you may possibly develop in the future. That's far more nebulous, and lawyers like certainties when they're advising their clients. Even with licenses that require nothing but attribution, that means that an extra level of care has to be taken that ensure everything is properly attribute. That's another thing that can be overlooked, another thing that can expose a company to liability. Lawyers will often choose the safe route of paying a fixed amount of money up front for a commercial license, rather than face the possibility of a suit for an undisclosed amount later on because someone forgot to mention that module 27A was based off code written by Joe Bloggs.
On individual rolls, probably not. But that's not a particularly good measure of randomness. Over many iterations, you can detect patterns in well-shaken die. Ask any gamer with a "lucky" d20.
Yeah, awesome. How about we stop calling them evolutionists, and start calling them "creationist deniers". Let's turn this into a war of perjorative terminology instead of ideas.
Background: I grew up in a Presbyterian church, currently attend an Anglican church, and discuss theology with friends who have qualifications from both denomination's tertiary institutions. While I can't speak for "Christianity" as a whole (even if there is such a thing - the Christian "brand" today is so diluted the term is almost meaningless), I can speak fairly authoritatively of the doctrine the mainstream protestant denominations (Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Uniting) in Australia.
And generally the interpretation of that passage isn't that God created man to physically look like him; it's that God created man as a spiritual, moral being - in God's likeness - in contrast to the animals created previously.
Right, so which party do I vote for to make a difference again? Downloading mass-produced pop culture won't change again, but then again, neither will voting for the Libertarian party. Despite the cult of the individual that pervades the west, democracy is not the rule of the individual, it's the rule of the mob. Whoever controls the mob, controls the government. And right now, the people who control the mob are the people who control the mass-produced pop-culture shit.
If the entire universe can be expressed in 4 lines of Mathematica, and assuming Wolfram|Alpha is actually a part of the universe, that's some serious bloat.
But it's never that way. You'd think that the people who provide the supermarkets with most of their profits would deserve more, but farmers get paid squat. It's the same in almost every industry - actual production is the lowest level.
Sort of. If 95, 98, etc had had proper user segregation, the proliferation of poorly-written software would never have happened. MS wrote an OS that allowed developers to take insecure shortcuts. Now that they're trying to shore up their system, their previous lack of security is holding them back. Now, it's not MS' fault in that their modern OSes generally try and do the right thing in regards to user privelege. But their old systems don't, and it's their own past actions that are biting them in the backside now.
Even though they guarantee that they don't keep your account details, I'm very leery of a web-based service that requires login details. A bad commit, and suddenly all your credentials could be flying round in the clear.
Perhaps you can help me with something I genuinely don't understand. Why is it that there is such a passionate movement for wanting more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil? Even if you don't agree with the science that shows global warming is manmade, why not work to clean up the environment anyway? I don't understand what motivates you.
There's not. There's just a passionate movement against knee-jerk reactions that involve spending billions of dollars, have wide-spread economic repercussions and involve deceiving large swathes of the population.
Your questions sounds suspiciously like "Why do you hate America?"
I know taking devil's advocate here will probably get me strung out and shot, but...
Doesn't stop the government from altering our contract with intellectual property holders (also known as copyright law) whenever they feel like it though, does it?
No, but it changes the pressures that direct it from our environment, to social pressures - something directly under our control. Instead of our environment dictating our evolution, now we (collectively, as a society) do.
And I say you take too wider view of it. I mean, you could just describe eugenics as natural selection, where the environment happens to include psychotic scientists with delusions of grandeur.
That's a lovely little koan, but like most koans, it doesn't really add anything to the discussion. Evolution by natural selection is predicated on genetics. Certain genes are included or excluded based on their adaptability to the given situation. When behaviours develop that prevent that selection from occurring, the selection is no longer "natural", and is therefore "artificial".
To use your example, yes, fire could be considered a means of artificial selection. If a creature was insufficiently adapted to the cold, and it's fellow creatures had developed fire such that it could survive anyway, it's less than advantageous genes would have been preserved by it's society's action - it was a "social" selection more than a "natural" selection. Eventually, that society may develop to a state whereby they cannot survive without fire. At that stage, they can also practice social selection by exiling members out of the society - without access to fire, that member will die, and (if they haven't reproduced), their genes will die with them. Again, social selection, not natural.
Saying "you set your own standards for artificiality" doesn't really help anything.
Since we developed medicine. It is very rare now that humans as individuals are eliminated from the gene pool due to poor adaptation to their environments. With the aid of modern medicine, people with genetic disabilities are able to often live relatively normal lives, and reproduce. Birth control means that being succesfully sexually doesn't necessitate being successfully reproductively. The human gene pool is not being filtered by adaptiveness to the environment anymore.
All these things are good, mind. It just means that we're not evolving due to natural selection. We're guiding our own progress. Which is good, cause the old way is slow as hell.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what the underlying cause behind this is? Is it just some particular property of fat? Or is it that fat is both high in calories, and hard to digest, meaning your body's got to dedicate more time to digestion and less to cogitation. That'd explain why I feel sort of the same after having a low-fat, high-carb meal - something with a lot of bread, for example. Reading the article (which may not be an accurate representation of the study), the researchers basically had a bunch of rats on low-fat diets, then switched half to a high-fat diet. It would be also have been good to see rats that been on consistently high-fat diets, and rats that had another dramatic change in food, but with similar fat content.
Have you seen the US' national debt?
You'd be surprised how few of those beliefs are held by Christians not in America.
So if you don't want to send money out of the country, emit less.
No, we'll just send money out of the country, and not cut our emissions. Net result: no decrease in emissions, and free money for India.
but you should do something instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and denying others things you have come to take for granted.
The theory being that doing something - anything - is better than doing nothing? Me, I'm of the opinion that you should take a rational approach that has a conceivable chance of bettering the situation rather than jumping on the first bandwagon to rumble by.
Per capita, the US emits the largest quantity of harmful gases in the world.
Except that China is set to take over the US next year, and Kyoto doesn't bind China to lower their emissions at all.
I can't see how preventing 3rd world countries from reaching even lesser per capita levels helps the US.
If you're talking about the Kyoto protocol, which is what I was discussing, I don't know what you're talking about. If you're talking about this particular bill, then no, it doesn't help the US as a whole. It helps those particular countries that have patents and can sell them at a profit.
If you had any sense, you would develop the green technology then sell it to the third world.
Which is what they're trying to do, and what this bill is attempting to protect. It's a pre-emptive measure to prevent companies with "green technology" having their patents "nationalized" by the world at large.
No, you can't "pollute as much as you want" - that's my air you're fucking up as well as yours.
Well, Kyoto's not going to stop me. You better find a better protocol, because that one's not going to accomplish squat. And if you look at the signatories current emission trends, you'll see that.
Huh? Kyoto wouldn't make anyone ditch their SUV. It'd make them pay extra for fuel, and send that extra money to India/China. Kyoto allows emission trading to offset emission reduction. You can pollute as much as you want, as long as you send money to the Annex A countries.
Yeah, right. My Mum is an amateur photographer. That is, she doesn't do it professionally, but she owns gear worth many thousands, and has done lots of photography courses. She'll still try emailing me twenty multi-megabyte photos, and ring me to ask why the mail isn't going through. Clueless people uploading hi-res photos isn't anything to form conspiracy theories over.
No, a scientific institute shouldn't have to muzzle itself because of a bunch of illiterates who don't understand big words. Pandemic is a technical word. The WHO isn't "pretending" it's a technical term for a worldwide outbreak - it *is*. They define it quite clearly. It's when a disease reaches a certain threshold of infections, in a certain number of continents. Just because a word is of recent origin, doesn't mean it's somehow fake.
If people are panicked by the term, then it should be their government or the media educating them as to the true meaning. As it is, those organs are more likely to fan the flames than educate. But the point of failure is there, not with the WHO.
Most corporate's are fine with open source licenses - licenses like BSD, etc are usually no problem. It's stuff with viral qualities - like the GPL - that lawyers tell people to avoid. And that's partly because there is the possibility that work you do can suddenly get taken away from you due to the license. That's risk, and lawyers will tell people to avoid risk.
Also, the GPL can be vague in some of its terms, and it hasn't had all it's various interpretations thoroughly tested through the courts. Take MySQL for instance, which claims that you fall under the provisions of the GPL if you distribute an application bundled with MySQL that depends on MySQL. As far as I'm concerned, that's an appallingly gross mis-interpretation of the GPL, but until it goes to court and gets lawyered down, that's a great big gaping liability.
The reason they like closed source licenses is that the consideration their clients make is generally purely monetary. That can be quantified, calculated, thrown into spreadsheets and such. With licenses like the GPL, the consideration is IP that you may possibly develop in the future. That's far more nebulous, and lawyers like certainties when they're advising their clients. Even with licenses that require nothing but attribution, that means that an extra level of care has to be taken that ensure everything is properly attribute. That's another thing that can be overlooked, another thing that can expose a company to liability. Lawyers will often choose the safe route of paying a fixed amount of money up front for a commercial license, rather than face the possibility of a suit for an undisclosed amount later on because someone forgot to mention that module 27A was based off code written by Joe Bloggs.
On individual rolls, probably not. But that's not a particularly good measure of randomness. Over many iterations, you can detect patterns in well-shaken die. Ask any gamer with a "lucky" d20.
Yeah, awesome. How about we stop calling them evolutionists, and start calling them "creationist deniers". Let's turn this into a war of perjorative terminology instead of ideas.
God created man in his image.
Background: I grew up in a Presbyterian church, currently attend an Anglican church, and discuss theology with friends who have qualifications from both denomination's tertiary institutions. While I can't speak for "Christianity" as a whole (even if there is such a thing - the Christian "brand" today is so diluted the term is almost meaningless), I can speak fairly authoritatively of the doctrine the mainstream protestant denominations (Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Uniting) in Australia.
And generally the interpretation of that passage isn't that God created man to physically look like him; it's that God created man as a spiritual, moral being - in God's likeness - in contrast to the animals created previously.
Right, so which party do I vote for to make a difference again? Downloading mass-produced pop culture won't change again, but then again, neither will voting for the Libertarian party. Despite the cult of the individual that pervades the west, democracy is not the rule of the individual, it's the rule of the mob. Whoever controls the mob, controls the government. And right now, the people who control the mob are the people who control the mass-produced pop-culture shit.
If the entire universe can be expressed in 4 lines of Mathematica, and assuming Wolfram|Alpha is actually a part of the universe, that's some serious bloat.
But it's never that way. You'd think that the people who provide the supermarkets with most of their profits would deserve more, but farmers get paid squat. It's the same in almost every industry - actual production is the lowest level.
Sort of. If 95, 98, etc had had proper user segregation, the proliferation of poorly-written software would never have happened. MS wrote an OS that allowed developers to take insecure shortcuts. Now that they're trying to shore up their system, their previous lack of security is holding them back. Now, it's not MS' fault in that their modern OSes generally try and do the right thing in regards to user privelege. But their old systems don't, and it's their own past actions that are biting them in the backside now.
Professional white hat. See Sneakers
You think Mordor would give you trouble? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AIppqNePdM&feature=related
The people who can afford to pay engineers and the material used to make said weapons? (AKA, lawyers)
Even though they guarantee that they don't keep your account details, I'm very leery of a web-based service that requires login details. A bad commit, and suddenly all your credentials could be flying round in the clear.
Perhaps you can help me with something I genuinely don't understand. Why is it that there is such a passionate movement for wanting more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil? Even if you don't agree with the science that shows global warming is manmade, why not work to clean up the environment anyway? I don't understand what motivates you.
There's not. There's just a passionate movement against knee-jerk reactions that involve spending billions of dollars, have wide-spread economic repercussions and involve deceiving large swathes of the population.
Your questions sounds suspiciously like "Why do you hate America?"
I know taking devil's advocate here will probably get me strung out and shot, but...
Doesn't stop the government from altering our contract with intellectual property holders (also known as copyright law) whenever they feel like it though, does it?
No, but it changes the pressures that direct it from our environment, to social pressures - something directly under our control. Instead of our environment dictating our evolution, now we (collectively, as a society) do.
And I say you take too wider view of it. I mean, you could just describe eugenics as natural selection, where the environment happens to include psychotic scientists with delusions of grandeur.
That's a lovely little koan, but like most koans, it doesn't really add anything to the discussion. Evolution by natural selection is predicated on genetics. Certain genes are included or excluded based on their adaptability to the given situation. When behaviours develop that prevent that selection from occurring, the selection is no longer "natural", and is therefore "artificial".
To use your example, yes, fire could be considered a means of artificial selection. If a creature was insufficiently adapted to the cold, and it's fellow creatures had developed fire such that it could survive anyway, it's less than advantageous genes would have been preserved by it's society's action - it was a "social" selection more than a "natural" selection. Eventually, that society may develop to a state whereby they cannot survive without fire. At that stage, they can also practice social selection by exiling members out of the society - without access to fire, that member will die, and (if they haven't reproduced), their genes will die with them. Again, social selection, not natural.
Saying "you set your own standards for artificiality" doesn't really help anything.
Since we developed medicine. It is very rare now that humans as individuals are eliminated from the gene pool due to poor adaptation to their environments. With the aid of modern medicine, people with genetic disabilities are able to often live relatively normal lives, and reproduce. Birth control means that being succesfully sexually doesn't necessitate being successfully reproductively. The human gene pool is not being filtered by adaptiveness to the environment anymore.
All these things are good, mind. It just means that we're not evolving due to natural selection. We're guiding our own progress. Which is good, cause the old way is slow as hell.