Yes, they are true. We've had them for a very long time. The problem was that the Republicans liked the death panels that were for-profit and benefited from killing you, the ones run by the government weren't paid to kill the poor and undesirables, to they were labeled "bad".
Or have you never heard of the HMOs that denied treatment, resulting in the death of a person? Good thing we limited the liability of the private death panels to the value of the treatment denied.
Bottom line your idea/explanation makes no sense at all anyway: burning, what ever you are burning, only depends on the actual usage/need of energy. Regardless what kind of sports you did before, regardless how much energy you burned during that sport, as soon as you are relaxing somewhere your body only needs the 'lying on the couch' amount of energy. So it does not matter at all what sport you did to get to said couch.
People with more body muscle and less body fat burn more calories at rest than someone with less muscle and more fat.
(* facepalm *) where do all that brain dead ideas come from?/quote>I don't know, you tell us.
No, that's not news. Fox News is unbiased. That's an opinion piece designed to look like news. Those taken in confuse editorial opinions for news. But nobody calls that News, not even Fox News. Well, their viewers call it news, but only the dumb ones. We are still struggling to find a non-dumb one, though.
The problem is less about food and thermodynamics and our guts. If you want to lose weight, you have to obey thermodynamics. You have to eat less than you burn, and you need to exercise to be healthy. But if we don't give people the opportunity to do those things, then we can't expect them to lose weight consistently.
And the people that poop 1000+ calories a day are lecturing others about "restraint" while they demonstrate none and don't need to for weight loss. It's about thermodynamics only if people don't poop calories.
If you eat a pound of sugar, this equates to more than a pound of body weight. Your orange is mostly water, so it'll increase your weight less than the sugar.
Not true. I know people who did that (1000 calories) and didn't lose weight. He lost weight by increasing calories. It improved his metabolism more than it increased his caloric intake.
I knew a guy that ate so few calories that he was malnutritioned. He also didn't lose weight. The less he ate, the more efficient his digestion and metabolism got. His energy levels dropped, reducing activity levels, and he maintained weight. "Eat less" is not always the answer. In fact, it's not even usually the answer. Anyone who says it is, is just proving they don't understand the question.
Skinny people poop lots of "usable" calories. They just have a less efficient digestive system. This has been known for a while. People used to deliberately ingest tapeworms to get/keep thin. It isn't what you eat, it's what you absorb.
And the vast differences between people make most of the "just eat less" crowd wrong. Eating less (than someone else) will *never* guarantee weight loss. Bob could eat 1/2 the calories of Carol and still gain weight while Carol is losing weight, for the same activity levels for both. All the fat-haters ignore metabolism and digestive efficiency.
Mains is short for "mains power". This differentiates it from backup power, UPS, generator, solar or other local generation. In the US, you'd specify the non-standard power source, but in the UK, you just call it "mains" if it is connected to the main power grid.
People with "leftist connections" should be rounded up and thrown in jail, right? Why should the reason or background of the person be such a large issue for you? You'd have been OK with it if it were H&K looking to build a mailing list to direct market?
You just sound like a conservative nutjob when you complain about jouranlists that are "sympathetic" to organizations you don't like.
I'm not sure how standing on a street corner looking at people in plain sight is at all equivalent to conducting mass surveillance of people's communications.
It isn't. Do you even remember the article you are replying about?
When I was a kid we lead pipes and lead paint in our houses and the air was filled with tetra-ethyl lead from leaded gasoline. Also a lot of lead solder in those ancient TV's and radios (before integrated circuits). So the 50's and 60's should have been more violent because of all the lead in the environment.
There was actually less lead in the environment in the '60s than the '70s and '80s. The amount of electronics increased greatly, as did the consumption of leaded fuel, and the lead lingered after leaded fuels were restricted.
Citation needed. Intuitively the difference between a digital and analog computer is that the former has two discrete signal levels while the latter has a continuous band.
And if the CPU I/O is digitial, would that prevent the memory from being analog? There may be a strange mix. The trigger of a firing is digital. Whether there's a connection is digital. But when to fire, when to form a new connection is purely analog within the cell.
Most information appears to be transferred based on the rate of firing them, and is not encoded in any special aspect of the spikes themselves.
Other than direction. Disks send information one way. Neurons fire in different ways/manners. They can even change, building new pathways. It takes lots more work to make a static model of a dynamic system.
Nope, none of the "work" behind an API is in question. Essentially the question is about the documentation of the API.
Name - string 3-23 characters, no special characters.
Nobody is saying here that the API variable "name" passes to un-copyrightable code. The assertion by Oracle is that "name" (and the description of it) is copyrightable. Nobody is saying that the implementation of the API can't be protected. But a non-creative description of the API, no more "creative" than the uncopyrightable YellowPages, should be uncopyrightable for the same reasons the YellowPages is uncopyrightable.
Slashdot Mirror
While the utilities have been regulated they have had almost zero innovation.
Bel Labs did more under regulation before the breakup.
Yes, they are true. We've had them for a very long time. The problem was that the Republicans liked the death panels that were for-profit and benefited from killing you, the ones run by the government weren't paid to kill the poor and undesirables, to they were labeled "bad".
Or have you never heard of the HMOs that denied treatment, resulting in the death of a person? Good thing we limited the liability of the private death panels to the value of the treatment denied.
Bottom line your idea/explanation makes no sense at all anyway: burning, what ever you are burning, only depends on the actual usage/need of energy. Regardless what kind of sports you did before, regardless how much energy you burned during that sport, as soon as you are relaxing somewhere your body only needs the 'lying on the couch' amount of energy. So it does not matter at all what sport you did to get to said couch.
People with more body muscle and less body fat burn more calories at rest than someone with less muscle and more fat.
(* facepalm *) where do all that brain dead ideas come from?/quote>I don't know, you tell us.
No, that's not news. Fox News is unbiased. That's an opinion piece designed to look like news. Those taken in confuse editorial opinions for news. But nobody calls that News, not even Fox News. Well, their viewers call it news, but only the dumb ones. We are still struggling to find a non-dumb one, though.
I know people who ate malnutrition-level low calories and didn't lose weight.
The problem is less about food and thermodynamics and our guts. If you want to lose weight, you have to obey thermodynamics. You have to eat less than you burn, and you need to exercise to be healthy. But if we don't give people the opportunity to do those things, then we can't expect them to lose weight consistently.
And the people that poop 1000+ calories a day are lecturing others about "restraint" while they demonstrate none and don't need to for weight loss. It's about thermodynamics only if people don't poop calories.
You don't burn any fat lifting. But you burn more in the 24 hours after you lift than in the 24 hours after you run.
If you eat a pound of sugar, this equates to more than a pound of body weight. Your orange is mostly water, so it'll increase your weight less than the sugar.
Not true. I know people who did that (1000 calories) and didn't lose weight. He lost weight by increasing calories. It improved his metabolism more than it increased his caloric intake.
I knew a guy that ate so few calories that he was malnutritioned. He also didn't lose weight. The less he ate, the more efficient his digestion and metabolism got. His energy levels dropped, reducing activity levels, and he maintained weight. "Eat less" is not always the answer. In fact, it's not even usually the answer. Anyone who says it is, is just proving they don't understand the question.
Skinny people poop lots of "usable" calories. They just have a less efficient digestive system. This has been known for a while. People used to deliberately ingest tapeworms to get/keep thin. It isn't what you eat, it's what you absorb.
And the vast differences between people make most of the "just eat less" crowd wrong. Eating less (than someone else) will *never* guarantee weight loss. Bob could eat 1/2 the calories of Carol and still gain weight while Carol is losing weight, for the same activity levels for both. All the fat-haters ignore metabolism and digestive efficiency.
Mains is short for "mains power". This differentiates it from backup power, UPS, generator, solar or other local generation. In the US, you'd specify the non-standard power source, but in the UK, you just call it "mains" if it is connected to the main power grid.
And you pointed out the obvious, as if everyone else didn't see it. Would you like a medal, or is your smug sense of self-satisfaction sufficient?
People with "leftist connections" should be rounded up and thrown in jail, right? Why should the reason or background of the person be such a large issue for you? You'd have been OK with it if it were H&K looking to build a mailing list to direct market?
You just sound like a conservative nutjob when you complain about jouranlists that are "sympathetic" to organizations you don't like.
I would say they have no right to privacy, because they are doing this in public.
You use "public" differently than I do.
Are those the only two answers for a teen runaway?
I'm not sure how standing on a street corner looking at people in plain sight is at all equivalent to conducting mass surveillance of people's communications.
It isn't. Do you even remember the article you are replying about?
Nah, you started Lawful Evil and ended up Chaotic Good.
The violence I've read about most frequently seems to be motivated by greed, personal revenge or jihadism.
I thought you were talking about civil unrest, not aggression by the USA.
I don't recall any lead-poisoned or desperately poor criminals involved. Can you list some specific examples?
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
When I was a kid we lead pipes and lead paint in our houses and the air was filled with tetra-ethyl lead from leaded gasoline. Also a lot of lead solder in those ancient TV's and radios (before integrated circuits). So the 50's and 60's should have been more violent because of all the lead in the environment.
There was actually less lead in the environment in the '60s than the '70s and '80s. The amount of electronics increased greatly, as did the consumption of leaded fuel, and the lead lingered after leaded fuels were restricted.
What other variables, spanning the past 50 years or so, are relevant in explaining the increase in civil violence over the years?
Lead. Lead has been linked to civil violence. And don't forget the distribution of wealth. Desperate people are more desperate.
Citation needed. Intuitively the difference between a digital and analog computer is that the former has two discrete signal levels while the latter has a continuous band.
And if the CPU I/O is digitial, would that prevent the memory from being analog? There may be a strange mix. The trigger of a firing is digital. Whether there's a connection is digital. But when to fire, when to form a new connection is purely analog within the cell.
Most information appears to be transferred based on the rate of firing them, and is not encoded in any special aspect of the spikes themselves.
Other than direction. Disks send information one way. Neurons fire in different ways/manners. They can even change, building new pathways. It takes lots more work to make a static model of a dynamic system.
Nope, none of the "work" behind an API is in question. Essentially the question is about the documentation of the API.
Name - string 3-23 characters, no special characters.
Nobody is saying here that the API variable "name" passes to un-copyrightable code. The assertion by Oracle is that "name" (and the description of it) is copyrightable. Nobody is saying that the implementation of the API can't be protected. But a non-creative description of the API, no more "creative" than the uncopyrightable YellowPages, should be uncopyrightable for the same reasons the YellowPages is uncopyrightable.
Cell phones have uplinks. Do you have those problems with them? No? Satellite doesn't either. Iridium works just fine without killing people.
Nope. LEO uses omnis on the ground, no tracking, no second antenna. Works more like a GPS receiver, but 2-way.