As soon as you use the baking soda in baking a cake or in neutralizing the acidity of ascorbic acid by mixing it with baking soda (2 g ascorbic acid : 1 g baking soda) then the CO2 will be liberated again.
Which people are doing either way - therefore this is a net win. Period.
Baking soda also has a lot of other uses that don't involve being turned back into CO2 and salt - I use it as a prewash in my dishwasher, for example. As a matter of fact, all of the uses on the back of the Arm & Hammer bag are pretty much the same as that.
You can figure that out in the summary alone. They are doing this because it's nearly $1 billion cheaper to invest $700 million instead of $1.6 billion.
Follow the money, always follow the money. The Presidency almost NEVER has any impact on business decisions, although people like to think so and I'm sure Trump will play with his little horn falsely touting how he made this happen.
It's going to W all over again. Blame everything bad they do on the previous administration, and take credit for everything good that happens because of the previous administration's work.
Yep. It's easy to say this isn't because of Trump - and perhaps some single events aren't because of him - but it's obvious that a lot more of these stories are coming out of the woodwork in the last two months.
Saved Hotmail? I'd be embarrassed to attach my name to that POS. Even today, they follow their own standards and muck with mail to break DKIM.
My, how/. has changed.
We saved Hotmail because it was Christmas Day 1999 and that was the primary free email service at the time. We had soldiers overseas who had nothing else to communicate with their families at home.
Dude, I'm not claiming you wouldn't cover it. My first line is "I have no doubt you would have." At this point I believe you're simply trying to deflect attention from the actual point I'm making.
If Clinton was President-Elect, and had said this, we would cover it.
I have no doubt you would have. The point is that you would almost certainly have picked a better quote to put in the headline. The quote given is taken out of context and made to make Trump look bad.
The story here is that Trump is reaching out to people who were against him a couple of months ago, with this being the latest good example. Had Hillary won it's highly doubtful she would be doing the same (President Obama certainly never did). His quote was trying to sound open to input from these people at any time. That's news to me.
Our traffic has been growing since my company acquired Slashdot, regardless of what Alexa says. Also, reporting a direct quote from the President of the United States to tech leaders is not "partisan". Posting NYT revenue stats from the Daily Caller IS. Lastly, we do not do things around here in order to increase traffic. We cover things we think are worth covering. If you're triggered by a direct quote then perhaps you should just scroll past the story.
The choice of quote is meant to reflect negatively on Trump. Had Clinton said any of that, a different quote (or none at all) would have been used.
If you paid attention to CNN over the last year you'll notice that every time they had a picture of Donald Trump it was a raw photo of him - usually taken candidly - that made him look angry or even like he was yelling. Pictures of Clinton were normally either posed or taken when she was relaxed and smiling, and they were heavily photoshopped to make her look literally 20 years younger.
Now, CNN just posted pictures of each of them, right?
Turns out, they need two layers of aides themselves to be able to tell an e-mail scam... Hypocrite scum.
Right. And then I'm supposed to believe that the well-written "answers" from "Hillary Clinton" on Quora are really from Hillary herself - someone who demonstrably is baffled by a fax machine.
If Trump really does manage to turn the whole government into a top-to-bottom herd of bootlicking sycophants that completely reverses policy with every election, he will destroy the stability that makes USD the global currency.
Uh, the problem is that it's already filled with a herd of bootlicking sycophants. In a pre-election poll, 35% of federal workers said they'd consider quitting if Trump won. Hopefully they'll do it - we can easily get by with 65% of the federal government.
Bringing faster Internet to more people in Cuba is not evil, even if only a limited number of government insiders benefits for it. They will be exposed to more freely available information that is not directly controlled by the government, which is good.
The naivety hurts. The whole point of the deal is for the information to be directly controlled by the government, which is bad. It's only for government insiders, anyway. If Google (or anyone else) wants to set up free, uncensored internet cafes there I'd love to see it.
Seriously - any deal to give Cuban government insiders (do you really think any of the little people will benefit from this?) better internet access - or better anything - is evil.
I've had people tell me for years the same thing: "If I had Bill Gates' money I'd quit working". Okay, then you would *never* get Bill Gates' money because you would quit long before you had billions of dollars.
meanwhile back in reality: -the economy is in its best shape, basically ever -the rate of premium increase is actually lower than it was pre-obamacare*
(*yes, your individual plan may have gone up a lot, but when you've got a super plan for super cheap, that's called a market correction. the fact remains, that on the aggregate, while premiums have always increased year to year, the increases under obamacare were smaller than they were before obamacare)
This is why you keep losing, by the way. The economy sucks for large parts of America. My home town has been devastated - it looks like a war zone. There are no jobs.
Now, yes, the GDP still looks good. It's because more money has been going to federal workers and the top 10% (of which I'm included), so from our standpoint it looks great.
If you have 100 people and each makes $100, everybody made $10,000 and they're happy. 5 years later 90 of the people made $60 while 10 of the people made $500. Wow, they're doing better, they all made $10,400! Yay!
Wait.
That's the situation we're in right now. I'm one of those 10. But I know a lot of the other 90, and their life sucks. Democrats like you (how'd I guess) tend to also be in the 10, so you have no idea what's going on in this country. You're being fed the aggregate number and believing it means everything is good and getting better. Or maybe you don't care, as in the case of Hillary. After all, those 90 people don't "donate" to the Clinton Foundation.
As for health insurance, you're delusional. I used to have a policy for my family through the Farm Bureau here in TN. It cost us $250/month, which is lower than what we pay for my wife's group plan at her work. Those policies went away under Obamacare and were replaced with policies costing many times that much. That's not a market correction. It's because of the screwed up law that was made to not fully kick in until next year when Obama is out. Remember how the Democrats in congress exempted themselves from Obamacare? Doesn't make sense given how great it is, right?
It's sure to drop further once he repeals health care.
It's amazing how someone's already dragged Trump into this. Basically, with the crappy Obama economy depressing people plus Obamacare destroying health insurance for a vast swath of self-employed America we've seen death rates go up. So the reaction from the left is to try to change the topic to Donald Trump. Pathetic, really.
He can't repeal health care. He can repeal Obamacare. Rates went up 125% in Arizona for next year - do you really think this is sustainable long term?
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
It's so sad reading bullshit like this. The "general welfare" there was never interpreted to give them the power to do *anything*, which is what confused people like you believe. It also doesn't give the federal government the ability to get into healthcare, and not even the left-wingers on the current SCOTUS believe that.
The federal government literally has no legal authority to do anything with education. The Department of Education was created during the Carter presidency int he late 1970s - 180 years after the Constitution was put into place. Every other actual legal function of the US government was put into place immediately after the Constitution was ratified.
Though you may think your opinion is final, it's SCOTUS that decides such matters - so far no challenges. You may think that the DoED was created in the Carter Admin, but it dates WAY back before that. You are aware that Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, which dates back to 1939? That was created from the Dept of Education which Congress created in 1867. And land was set aside for public schools by the Congress of the Confederation in 1785. Oh, now your 180 years claim vaporized.
No it didn't. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. Public schools are a function of the states. I don't know how it was handled here in TN, but where I'm from in Indiana the counties are made up of townships, each being 36 square miles. Of those, 1 was set aside for schools with part of the land sold to raise money.
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
It's so sad reading bullshit like this. The "general welfare" there was never interpreted to give them the power to do *anything*, which is what confused people like you believe. It also doesn't give the federal government the ability to get into healthcare, and not even the left-wingers on the current SCOTUS believe that.
The federal government literally has no legal authority to do anything with education. The Department of Education was created during the Carter presidency int he late 1970s - 180 years after the Constitution was put into place. Every other actual legal function of the US government was put into place immediately after the Constitution was ratified.
I have high school kids tell me all the time they want to be programmers. My response is bluntly "no you don't". That usually surprises them, but I explain that everything they need to be a programmer is available to them, so if they actually wanted to do it they would simply do it. It's not like getting into medicine where you have to go to medical school and take the boards. (Bad example, by the way - I know a young lady who wants to be a neurosurgeon - when she was in high school I'd often find her sitting alone at parties watching neurosurgery videos on youtube)
I know very few professional programmers who learned it in college without doing it beforehand. I actually can't even think of one off the top of my head - everybody I know who's a successful, high-level programmer started on their own.
The bottom line is that the typical middle and upper-middle class teenager has everything necessary to program computers at home simply by virtue of having a computer and an internet connection. A bigger difference could be made in inner city areas where kids don't have that at home. I know a guy who builds community centers in inner city areas. Connecting with folks like him would really make the $s go a long way.
But my guess is that this is also a present for teachers' unions, so actually trying to figure out how to maximize returns for the money isn't relevant.
I know at least 10s of nurses and two doctors (one of whom is a high-paid specialist, the other of whom is an *extremely* high-paid specialist and researcher) who are outright creationists. It doesn't affect their work quality in any way. If anything, their strong Christian beliefs probably make their work better.
I'm an evolutionist, so I think they're wrong. I *know* they're wrong. But the fact is that it doesn't matter for the work that they do.
I agree with you that many researchers need to understand evolution, but that's very very few people. And I'm not saying it shouldn't be taught. I'm just saying that for the vast majority of people - including health-care professionals - it doesn't matter.
The same goes for advanced math, most of science, literature, etc. Most people don't use most of their education in their day-to-day jobs.
...is lower now than at any time since Jimmy Carter was President.
"Unemployment is low!"
"What about all of those people who have been out of work for over a year, and stopped looking?"
"They don't exist. Shut up."
Don't worry - on January 21st 2017 the media is suddenly going to be interested in the facts surrounding the employment numbers. You can bet they'll be inexplicably bad next year compared to the last 8 years.
Slashdot Mirror
As soon as you use the baking soda in baking a cake or in neutralizing the acidity of ascorbic acid by mixing it with baking soda (2 g ascorbic acid : 1 g baking soda) then the CO2 will be liberated again.
Which people are doing either way - therefore this is a net win. Period.
Baking soda also has a lot of other uses that don't involve being turned back into CO2 and salt - I use it as a prewash in my dishwasher, for example. As a matter of fact, all of the uses on the back of the Arm & Hammer bag are pretty much the same as that.
You can figure that out in the summary alone. They are doing this because it's nearly $1 billion cheaper to invest $700 million instead of $1.6 billion.
Follow the money, always follow the money. The Presidency almost NEVER has any impact on business decisions, although people like to think so and I'm sure Trump will play with his little horn falsely touting how he made this happen.
It's going to W all over again. Blame everything bad they do on the previous administration, and take credit for everything good that happens because of the previous administration's work.
Yep. It's easy to say this isn't because of Trump - and perhaps some single events aren't because of him - but it's obvious that a lot more of these stories are coming out of the woodwork in the last two months.
But, let me guess: Democrats screeching "The Russians haxored us and stole the election for Trump" aren't conspiracy loons, right?
Wrong (in case you're still scratching your head).
I can buy a different computer. It's hard to buy a different NSA.
See the difference?
Any chance these are the same hackers who stole the election for Trump?
Saved Hotmail? I'd be embarrassed to attach my name to that POS. Even today, they follow their own standards and muck with mail to break DKIM.
My, how /. has changed.
We saved Hotmail because it was Christmas Day 1999 and that was the primary free email service at the time. We had soldiers overseas who had nothing else to communicate with their families at home.
I mean, it seems like pissing off anti-matter isn't the brightest of ideas.
My oldest's 17th birthday is today - I promise you this lasts at least 17 years. Ugh.
I think grandkids cause their brain to just melt or something.
By the way, for the old-timers - the 17 year old was 5 days old when we saved Hotmail.
If she said it we'd cover it.
Dude, I'm not claiming you wouldn't cover it. My first line is "I have no doubt you would have." At this point I believe you're simply trying to deflect attention from the actual point I'm making.
If Clinton was President-Elect, and had said this, we would cover it.
I have no doubt you would have. The point is that you would almost certainly have picked a better quote to put in the headline. The quote given is taken out of context and made to make Trump look bad.
The story here is that Trump is reaching out to people who were against him a couple of months ago, with this being the latest good example. Had Hillary won it's highly doubtful she would be doing the same (President Obama certainly never did). His quote was trying to sound open to input from these people at any time. That's news to me.
Our traffic has been growing since my company acquired Slashdot, regardless of what Alexa says. Also, reporting a direct quote from the President of the United States to tech leaders is not "partisan". Posting NYT revenue stats from the Daily Caller IS. Lastly, we do not do things around here in order to increase traffic. We cover things we think are worth covering. If you're triggered by a direct quote then perhaps you should just scroll past the story.
The choice of quote is meant to reflect negatively on Trump. Had Clinton said any of that, a different quote (or none at all) would have been used.
If you paid attention to CNN over the last year you'll notice that every time they had a picture of Donald Trump it was a raw photo of him - usually taken candidly - that made him look angry or even like he was yelling. Pictures of Clinton were normally either posed or taken when she was relaxed and smiling, and they were heavily photoshopped to make her look literally 20 years younger.
Now, CNN just posted pictures of each of them, right?
we can easily get by with 65% of the federal government
More like 10%, although that 10% doesn't include people Obama, Trump or Hillary would hire.
I agree, but 65% is a good start toward getting down to 10%.
Eight years ago these people mocked McCain as "out of touch" for his reluctance to use a computer...
Turns out, they need two layers of aides themselves to be able to tell an e-mail scam... Hypocrite scum.
Right. And then I'm supposed to believe that the well-written "answers" from "Hillary Clinton" on Quora are really from Hillary herself - someone who demonstrably is baffled by a fax machine.
If Trump really does manage to turn the whole government into a top-to-bottom herd of bootlicking sycophants that completely reverses policy with every election, he will destroy the stability that makes USD the global currency.
Uh, the problem is that it's already filled with a herd of bootlicking sycophants. In a pre-election poll, 35% of federal workers said they'd consider quitting if Trump won. Hopefully they'll do it - we can easily get by with 65% of the federal government.
Bringing faster Internet to more people in Cuba is not evil, even if only a limited number of government insiders benefits for it. They will be exposed to more freely available information that is not directly controlled by the government, which is good.
The naivety hurts. The whole point of the deal is for the information to be directly controlled by the government, which is bad. It's only for government insiders, anyway. If Google (or anyone else) wants to set up free, uncensored internet cafes there I'd love to see it.
Seriously - any deal to give Cuban government insiders (do you really think any of the little people will benefit from this?) better internet access - or better anything - is evil.
I've had people tell me for years the same thing: "If I had Bill Gates' money I'd quit working". Okay, then you would *never* get Bill Gates' money because you would quit long before you had billions of dollars.
meanwhile back in reality:
-the economy is in its best shape, basically ever
-the rate of premium increase is actually lower than it was pre-obamacare*
(*yes, your individual plan may have gone up a lot, but when you've got a super plan for super cheap, that's called a market correction. the fact remains, that on the aggregate, while premiums have always increased year to year, the increases under obamacare were smaller than they were before obamacare)
This is why you keep losing, by the way. The economy sucks for large parts of America. My home town has been devastated - it looks like a war zone. There are no jobs.
Now, yes, the GDP still looks good. It's because more money has been going to federal workers and the top 10% (of which I'm included), so from our standpoint it looks great.
If you have 100 people and each makes $100, everybody made $10,000 and they're happy. 5 years later 90 of the people made $60 while 10 of the people made $500. Wow, they're doing better, they all made $10,400! Yay!
Wait.
That's the situation we're in right now. I'm one of those 10. But I know a lot of the other 90, and their life sucks. Democrats like you (how'd I guess) tend to also be in the 10, so you have no idea what's going on in this country. You're being fed the aggregate number and believing it means everything is good and getting better. Or maybe you don't care, as in the case of Hillary. After all, those 90 people don't "donate" to the Clinton Foundation.
As for health insurance, you're delusional. I used to have a policy for my family through the Farm Bureau here in TN. It cost us $250/month, which is lower than what we pay for my wife's group plan at her work. Those policies went away under Obamacare and were replaced with policies costing many times that much. That's not a market correction. It's because of the screwed up law that was made to not fully kick in until next year when Obama is out. Remember how the Democrats in congress exempted themselves from Obamacare? Doesn't make sense given how great it is, right?
Wrong.
It's sure to drop further once he repeals health care.
It's amazing how someone's already dragged Trump into this. Basically, with the crappy Obama economy depressing people plus Obamacare destroying health insurance for a vast swath of self-employed America we've seen death rates go up. So the reaction from the left is to try to change the topic to Donald Trump. Pathetic, really.
He can't repeal health care. He can repeal Obamacare. Rates went up 125% in Arizona for next year - do you really think this is sustainable long term?
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
It's so sad reading bullshit like this. The "general welfare" there was never interpreted to give them the power to do *anything*, which is what confused people like you believe. It also doesn't give the federal government the ability to get into healthcare, and not even the left-wingers on the current SCOTUS believe that.
The federal government literally has no legal authority to do anything with education. The Department of Education was created during the Carter presidency int he late 1970s - 180 years after the Constitution was put into place. Every other actual legal function of the US government was put into place immediately after the Constitution was ratified.
Though you may think your opinion is final, it's SCOTUS that decides such matters - so far no challenges. You may think that the DoED was created in the Carter Admin, but it dates WAY back before that. You are aware that Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, which dates back to 1939? That was created from the Dept of Education which Congress created in 1867. And land was set aside for public schools by the Congress of the Confederation in 1785. Oh, now your 180 years claim vaporized.
No it didn't. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. Public schools are a function of the states. I don't know how it was handled here in TN, but where I'm from in Indiana the counties are made up of townships, each being 36 square miles. Of those, 1 was set aside for schools with part of the land sold to raise money.
It's not a federal issue, and never was.
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
It's so sad reading bullshit like this. The "general welfare" there was never interpreted to give them the power to do *anything*, which is what confused people like you believe. It also doesn't give the federal government the ability to get into healthcare, and not even the left-wingers on the current SCOTUS believe that.
The federal government literally has no legal authority to do anything with education. The Department of Education was created during the Carter presidency int he late 1970s - 180 years after the Constitution was put into place. Every other actual legal function of the US government was put into place immediately after the Constitution was ratified.
Preach it, brother!
I have high school kids tell me all the time they want to be programmers. My response is bluntly "no you don't". That usually surprises them, but I explain that everything they need to be a programmer is available to them, so if they actually wanted to do it they would simply do it. It's not like getting into medicine where you have to go to medical school and take the boards. (Bad example, by the way - I know a young lady who wants to be a neurosurgeon - when she was in high school I'd often find her sitting alone at parties watching neurosurgery videos on youtube)
I know very few professional programmers who learned it in college without doing it beforehand. I actually can't even think of one off the top of my head - everybody I know who's a successful, high-level programmer started on their own.
The bottom line is that the typical middle and upper-middle class teenager has everything necessary to program computers at home simply by virtue of having a computer and an internet connection. A bigger difference could be made in inner city areas where kids don't have that at home. I know a guy who builds community centers in inner city areas. Connecting with folks like him would really make the $s go a long way.
But my guess is that this is also a present for teachers' unions, so actually trying to figure out how to maximize returns for the money isn't relevant.
I know at least 10s of nurses and two doctors (one of whom is a high-paid specialist, the other of whom is an *extremely* high-paid specialist and researcher) who are outright creationists. It doesn't affect their work quality in any way. If anything, their strong Christian beliefs probably make their work better.
I'm an evolutionist, so I think they're wrong. I *know* they're wrong. But the fact is that it doesn't matter for the work that they do.
I agree with you that many researchers need to understand evolution, but that's very very few people. And I'm not saying it shouldn't be taught. I'm just saying that for the vast majority of people - including health-care professionals - it doesn't matter.
The same goes for advanced math, most of science, literature, etc. Most people don't use most of their education in their day-to-day jobs.
...is lower now than at any time since Jimmy Carter was President.
"Unemployment is low!"
"What about all of those people who have been out of work for over a year, and stopped looking?"
"They don't exist. Shut up."
Don't worry - on January 21st 2017 the media is suddenly going to be interested in the facts surrounding the employment numbers. You can bet they'll be inexplicably bad next year compared to the last 8 years.
Time to short the stock, picking up a political fight with POTUS is extremely unwise.
LOL - good luck finding any Twitter stock to be shorted at this point.