which is utterly useless since people will typically under-estimate their calorie intake by 20-60%
Wouldn't this be corrected by randomization? Or is it only overweight people who under-report intake and over-report expenditure?
In other words, suppose I had a hypothesis that redheads were 10-15 pounds lighter than the average person. I could do a survey, but I know that everybody under-reports their weight. However, since redheads under-report just as much as everybody else, it all comes out in the wash -- unless *only* redheads *or* everybody else under-reports their weight.
So if everybody is under-estimating intake and over-estimate expenditure, it wouldn't make a different because both groups. In other words, there's error but not necessarily bias.
But then they will need maintenance workers for those robots
But wouldn't the net effect anyway be less demand for human labor? I mean, isn't that the point of making robot/machine anythings? If all we're doing is build robots so we can do a new job for a while, why bother? Instead, aren't we building machines so that we have to work less? And with an Earth that's gaining people, isn't this going to be a problem?
It seems unlikely the hindenburg blew up due to hydrogen. Remember, hydrogen is very light, so if there's any rupture, the hydrogen will escape rather than hang around to explode. Sure, some will, but the vast majority will go straight into the atmosphere.
That's why people buy the idea that the coating was what actually exploded.
I wish it could be banished (along with the Insert/Delete pair) to a hard-to-fumble-upon switch on the bottom of the keyboard or laptop.
The only thing that will change it make it hard to turn off, so that we'll have users going for months with their caps lock on because they can't find where to switch it back.
Why do they have to be young? When I was in middle school, my hero was Einstein.
But, I don't think you're going to find a 20-year-old science hero, like you would a 20-year-old sports hero. To really have a science career, you have to have a PhD, and then some career after that. I think the best you can do is a 30-year-old with promising research, or a 20-year-old whose a promising genius, or made a great invention. Other than that, you're looking for a person who has a PhD + 10 years' work behind them.
I'm focusing on the Atlas 5 because it's the launch vehicle for the X-37, most definitely the most spooky-secret thing the US has (publicly) in the sky. The last time they launched it the world flipped out and lost track of it for a while, but those pesky fuckers at SEESAT-L found it anyway.
Read the rest of the comment for a more detailed analysis.
In our democratic system, you participate through speech and voting. Paying more in taxes doesn't mean you get more political power. That's now how our government is set up. You might think it's a good idea, but that's not how things work.
If a store's policy is to give out $50 to every customer, I might say "that's a bad way to run a business." But I'm still going to line up for my $50.
It's not your responsibility to keep the store running. But, as a democracy of, by, and for the people, you do share some of the blame if the country goes down in flames. You share in responsibility for the government in the US. "We the People," you know. That's who's running the place, really.
Yeah, sure, advertising doesn't work. You see several Coke ads a day. Do you really look at any of them?
In the 1920s, their main rival, Moxie, decided to put their money into buying more sugar, which was becoming more expensive, and cut their advertising budget. Which soda do you drink today?
The idea we sometimes get of these "first scientists" ushering in an era of rational thinking in an age of superstition is revisionist history. Science and reason as we know it today did not exist back then. If you looked at 'scientific' work of the day, you'll find a lot of odd ideas and theories that would strike us as superstitious or mystical. Isaac Newton was an occultist, and alchemist, and dabbled in all kinds of esoteric things. That he made great contributions to math and physics is more or less a bonus for us. Advancing the human body of knowledge or understanding the world through reason was not his project. He was a mystic and an occultist. Science and progress are modern-day inventions.
It wasn't until Einstein & Co. came up with the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics was discovered that the nature of atomic elements really begun to be understood.
A snipple, but the basic structure of an atom, with negatively-charged electrons surrounding a positive core was basically understood by 1896 (the "plum pudding" model), several years before quantum theory and relativity.
That's like arguing that the founding fathers never intended for the first amendment to protect what you write down in a notebook because it says "freedom of the press," not "freedom of the notepad" (which is an inferior means of putting your speech to paper for publication).
Bad metaphor. I think the founders meant to cover freedom to write whatever in your notebooks in Article IV, "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...". The freedom of the press means that the government shall not censor published works. Your private notebook isn't published (or else it wouldn't be private). The freedom of speech is the freedom to communicate.
In fact, the Founders thought that the constitution, with its limited government, was so protecting of the rights of the people in the first place, that they Bill of Rights was an afterthought, brought in as amendments to the original document, when the public to whom they were trying to sell the constitution to rightly recognized there weren't strong enough protections for individual rights in the constitution. They never intended to have the amendments in the first place! They only wrote them after the people demanded it, and wouldn't accept a constitution without explicit guarantees of freedom.
the prick is FORCED to pay for the fire service that he doesn't want." Yeah, sounds like a great plan.
You've got the key point backwards: it turns out this prick wanted the firefighting after all. He said he didn't want it, didn't pay for it, and then when push came to shove, he actually wanted it, and was willing to pay for it.
The original idea isn't bad. Corporations are supposed to exist to shield investors in a company from liability created by its officers.
Actually, in the US, the original idea of a corporation was that they had to serve the public good. Every 20 years, the corporate charter was reviewed by the secretary of state. If the corporation was no longer serving the public good, its charter was revoked and the corporation was no more. See Thom Hartmann's Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights for the whole history.
Slashdot Mirror
which is utterly useless since people will typically under-estimate their calorie intake by 20-60%
Wouldn't this be corrected by randomization? Or is it only overweight people who under-report intake and over-report expenditure?
In other words, suppose I had a hypothesis that redheads were 10-15 pounds lighter than the average person. I could do a survey, but I know that everybody under-reports their weight. However, since redheads under-report just as much as everybody else, it all comes out in the wash -- unless *only* redheads *or* everybody else under-reports their weight.
So if everybody is under-estimating intake and over-estimate expenditure, it wouldn't make a different because both groups. In other words, there's error but not necessarily bias.
But then they will need maintenance workers for those robots
But wouldn't the net effect anyway be less demand for human labor? I mean, isn't that the point of making robot/machine anythings? If all we're doing is build robots so we can do a new job for a while, why bother? Instead, aren't we building machines so that we have to work less? And with an Earth that's gaining people, isn't this going to be a problem?
That's why people buy the idea that the coating was what actually exploded.
There are a lot of them out there.
:)
You can also write your own.
I wish it could be banished (along with the Insert/Delete pair) to a hard-to-fumble-upon switch on the bottom of the keyboard or laptop.
The only thing that will change it make it hard to turn off, so that we'll have users going for months with their caps lock on because they can't find where to switch it back.
You photocopied all of the tests you graded? Or just his?
Why do they have to be young? When I was in middle school, my hero was Einstein.
But, I don't think you're going to find a 20-year-old science hero, like you would a 20-year-old sports hero. To really have a science career, you have to have a PhD, and then some career after that. I think the best you can do is a 30-year-old with promising research, or a 20-year-old whose a promising genius, or made a great invention. Other than that, you're looking for a person who has a PhD + 10 years' work behind them.
2. apple loves it, and the apple was the fobidden fruit in the garden of evil.
The first apple computer sold for $666.66.
I'm focusing on the Atlas 5 because it's the launch vehicle for the X-37, most definitely the most spooky-secret thing the US has (publicly) in the sky. The last time they launched it the world flipped out and lost track of it for a while, but those pesky fuckers at SEESAT-L found it anyway.
Read the rest of the comment for a more detailed analysis.
:(
Slashdot, I am dissapoint
Sad but true.
In our democratic system, you participate through speech and voting. Paying more in taxes doesn't mean you get more political power. That's now how our government is set up. You might think it's a good idea, but that's not how things work.
I don't necessarily see the cognitive dissonance.
If a store's policy is to give out $50 to every customer, I might say "that's a bad way to run a business." But I'm still going to line up for my $50.
It's not your responsibility to keep the store running. But, as a democracy of, by, and for the people, you do share some of the blame if the country goes down in flames. You share in responsibility for the government in the US. "We the People," you know. That's who's running the place, really.
So they can send a person back in time, but yet can't connect a cell phone signal through said time travel mechanism?
Joe McBlow, Lead Protoss Engineer.
He's got an incredible background in khaydarin crystals and Warp Gates. Blizzard really lucked out in getting that guy.
You know what? They're surprisingly unreceptive to my offers of help. I keep writing them longer and longer emails, to no avail.
Yeah, sure, advertising doesn't work. You see several Coke ads a day. Do you really look at any of them?
In the 1920s, their main rival, Moxie, decided to put their money into buying more sugar, which was becoming more expensive, and cut their advertising budget. Which soda do you drink today?
And why haven't we had a Men in Black reference yet??
The archon plays with multicolored spheres. (Skip to about 0:40)
This was the thesis put forward in Issac Newton: the Last Sorcerer.
The idea we sometimes get of these "first scientists" ushering in an era of rational thinking in an age of superstition is revisionist history. Science and reason as we know it today did not exist back then. If you looked at 'scientific' work of the day, you'll find a lot of odd ideas and theories that would strike us as superstitious or mystical. Isaac Newton was an occultist, and alchemist, and dabbled in all kinds of esoteric things. That he made great contributions to math and physics is more or less a bonus for us. Advancing the human body of knowledge or understanding the world through reason was not his project. He was a mystic and an occultist. Science and progress are modern-day inventions.
It wasn't until Einstein & Co. came up with the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics was discovered that the nature of atomic elements really begun to be understood.
A snipple, but the basic structure of an atom, with negatively-charged electrons surrounding a positive core was basically understood by 1896 (the "plum pudding" model), several years before quantum theory and relativity.
That's like arguing that the founding fathers never intended for the first amendment to protect what you write down in a notebook because it says "freedom of the press," not "freedom of the notepad" (which is an inferior means of putting your speech to paper for publication).
Bad metaphor. I think the founders meant to cover freedom to write whatever in your notebooks in Article IV, "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...". The freedom of the press means that the government shall not censor published works. Your private notebook isn't published (or else it wouldn't be private). The freedom of speech is the freedom to communicate.
In fact, the Founders thought that the constitution, with its limited government, was so protecting of the rights of the people in the first place, that they Bill of Rights was an afterthought, brought in as amendments to the original document, when the public to whom they were trying to sell the constitution to rightly recognized there weren't strong enough protections for individual rights in the constitution. They never intended to have the amendments in the first place! They only wrote them after the people demanded it, and wouldn't accept a constitution without explicit guarantees of freedom.
And you also have a real good ideas of the capabilities of the enemy whom you sold weapons to.
the prick is FORCED to pay for the fire service that he doesn't want." Yeah, sounds like a great plan.
You've got the key point backwards: it turns out this prick wanted the firefighting after all. He said he didn't want it, didn't pay for it, and then when push came to shove, he actually wanted it, and was willing to pay for it.
The county does, though. And they should have been collecting that $75.
Who do you think voted for those county commissioners? That's where the buck stops -- voters like this jackass.
The original idea isn't bad. Corporations are supposed to exist to shield investors in a company from liability created by its officers.
Actually, in the US, the original idea of a corporation was that they had to serve the public good. Every 20 years, the corporate charter was reviewed by the secretary of state. If the corporation was no longer serving the public good, its charter was revoked and the corporation was no more. See Thom Hartmann's Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights for the whole history.
This just goes to show you the difference in difficulty between finding a Jupiter-sized planet and an Earth-sized planet.
Or the difference between stargazing with naked eyes versus using a telescope of any kind.