...including Abbott Nutrition, CoroWise, General Mills, Kellogg's, Mars, McNeil Nutritionals, Pepsico, SOYJOY, Truvia and Unilever. In addition, the ADA lists Aramark, The CocaCola Company, The National Dairy Council and the Hershey Center for Health and Nutrition as partners.
And what about our teeth says we evolved to eat meat?
They're not all flat grinders. In fact, they're mostly shaped for cutting and tearing. Only 3 out of 8 are grinders.
Please don't say canines because if you look at real canines and then look at a humans canines they are totally different. Same name, but functionally not the same. Real canines tear through flesh a lot easier than the human canines can.
That's because we don't chase down our still living (and running) food and try to bite them to death. We have omniovore canines.
Look no one can predict what we are supposed to eat...
We don't need to _predict_ it, we _know_ what we're supposed to eat. Our teeth, digestive systems and metabolism tell us what we should eat. Our history tells us what we eat. Our pre-history has left us evidence of what we eat and how we evolved to eat it.
...but to assume that being vegan is a stupid diet isn't logic speaking, that's culture speaking.
Veganism is also a cultural artifact, driven by emotion, not logic, and by your logic, stupid. "Aw poor cute animal, I have to kill it to eat it. I'll eat plants instead." Guess what? You have to kill most plant foods to eat them, too.
Not sure why you get offended by veganism, but you should look into it more before you criticize it.
I have looked into it. It's a denial of human nature, an attempt to feel morally superior and an arrogant deceit of one's self. It's like self-flagellation, which is almost as offensive as veganism. The truth is simple: all things that live, eat. And for all living things to eat, something must die. This is the cycle of life.
You should ask a nutritionist about the vegan diet and how healthy it is. Get a professionals point.
So you consulted a professional vegan nutritionist for this objective, balanced point of view?
Like I said, I've been a strict vegan for 12 years (no honey or processed sugars).
Ah yes, avoid the evil animal-based processed sugars to be a strict vegan.
I don't know if it's contributed to my health, but it definitely hasn't hurt it.
Based on your post, I rather doubt both those statements.
I refuted that statement and linked to supporting articles. Not sure if you bothered to read them, but now you want to argue semantics. Following your argument, there really aren't any substances that are poisonous, because we can dilute pretty much anything to the point where it's not toxic.
Dose dependence is part of the definition of toxicity. The first page I linked to explains the toxicity of CO2. It has direct toxic effects at concentrations above 5% that have nothing to do with oxygen displacement. The second link discusses CO2 narcosis. That's also a direct effect that isn't caused by hypoxia. Elsewhere in this thread people have posted on acidosis, yet another direct toxic effect of CO2.
Since you closed with an attempt at reductio ad ridiculum, I'll answer that as well. Dihydrogen monoxide is directly toxic, with an LD50 (median lethal dose) of 90g/kg. It causes hyponatremia, an electrolyte imbalance characterized by low sodium levels. It can lead to water intoxication and a bunch of other nasty things, including pulmonary and cerebral edema. Note that the direct toxic effects of water and CO2 are in addition to any suffocation risk they present. So yeah, they qualify as toxic.
Dilute salt solution isn't toxic, but drinking seawater will kill you. The CO2 you breathed in is at a concentration that your body can tolerate. Try that at 5% or higher CO2, even if you have your 19%-20% O2 in the mix. You'll still suffer toxicity. Here, I don't want to repeat the links.
Unfortunately for your argument, languages are far from information alone with a minimum of original creativity. They take a lot of thinking, planning, and creative thought in order to come up with a structure for others to work in. I completely disagree with Oracle's position here, but you can't claim that creating a programming language is like listing facts in a telephone directory, it takes a lot more work and creativity than that and it is not created based on merely observing the world but on copying the good bits of other languages (so Oracle is crazy to even go down this path). It's more like creating a font, a dictionary, or recipes, all of which have *elements* which are copyrightable, but are in this same murky grey area, precisely because they are used by so many other people to create other stuff, which makes it of questionable value to society to lock them up with copyright.
Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.
I bring up games because the principles are exactly the same. The rulebook which comes with the game, is a written description of the rules. It is *not* the rules, it is a particular expression in literary form, and is therefore subject to copyright. But the actual rules, the principles, mechanics, algorithms and procedures of the game, are mathematical abstractions. They are ideas, not subject to copyright.
A dictionary is not a language. It describes the language. It is an expression which is copyrightable. A grammar book is not language. It is another description, another literary expression, also copyrightable. Language is abstract. It is a set of rules, and rules are not copyrightable. The _description_ of the rules is copyrightable. In the same vein, the API specification document is copyrightable. The API itself is not. This is an important distinction that most people fail to make.
If Google, for example, were to reproduce Java's API documentation verbatim and distribute it with the Android SDK, they would be in violation of copyright. But if anyone merely read the API and re-implemented the language based on the described rules, they wouldn't be violating any copyright. They may have copied the ideas, but ideas cannot be copyrighted.
Apparently, other geeks/nerds find this article worthwhile. They're idiots or ignorant at best.:)
Ah yes, the old "their opinion differs from mine, therefore they must be stupid" line. Ok, you win. You're the smartest, rightest, bestest, geekest nerd on Slashdot. Your mother must be so proud. Have a cookie.</sarcasm>
This non-conversation is going nowhere, which usually happens when one of the participants is incapable of self-criticism and has a need to impose his worldview on others to validate his fragile ego and sense of self worth. Here's a tip. It's actually ok to be wrong sometimes, and it's actually ok to admit it. The world doesn't end, life goes on.
With that, I'll leave you and your boring pocket universe now, where apparently, the only things that interest geeks and nerds are things that interest you.
Considering how insistent you've been about how this article isn't newsworthy, despite 2 posters telling you otherwise, and despite the fact that "interesting" and "newsworthy" are completely subjective, you continue to fire back. The graceful response would have been something along the lines of: "Apparently, other geeks/nerds find this article worthwhile. I stand corrected." Simply not replying would have been just fine. But you seem to have issues about being corrected and just have to have the last say.
Less defensiveness, more objectivity. It's a good thing.
I never purported to speak for anyone else. My point was as stated -- that this isn't really geek nerd news.
Understandably will be interesting to some people,
Geek nerd topics, sure. Just not newsworthy.
This isn't news to you. It is interesting and newsworthy to me, and apparently, to some other people as well. But you replied to that post, apparently not quite comprehending it. I reiterate what he said:
Speak for yourself. For me, this is interesting news that I want to know and would not have otherwise heard about.
I agree with him completely. If you're not interested in this article, why don't you read and comment in another thread, one which you find interesting and newsworthy, instead of trying to convince us that this one isn't so.
But the cells are alive whether they have a brain stem or not <snip> *It is a being (something that exists), it is genetically unique (not just a body part of its mother) and genetically human, whether or not it is legally ascribed personhood.
Cancer cells, specifically the ones caused by an acquired (i.e. not inherited) mutation, are genetically unique, genetically human and not just a body part of the cancer sufferer.
Let's see. AMD, CAD, Pro/ENGINEER, GPU, wireframe rendering... Yup, pretty much spot-on geek nerd news. Or do you think the non-geek world would actually find this interesting?
That's precisely Zontar's point. Most people think there's a "source" or "cause", and if you just remove that source or cause, the depression goes away. Doesn't work that way, at all. Clinical depression is not the same thing as that bad feeling most people call depression. You might not have intended it, but your post is, in a way, just as condescending as the GGPP. Educate yourself, learn the difference and then we can have a real conversation about it.
Three way code merge. Try that with all the code windows maximized and use your virtual desktops to quickly switch back and forth, let's see how fast you can work and how long you can maintain your sanity. Try it with a 1920 or wider, all 3 windows visible, side-by-side and scroll-synced. You will be much, much faster, much more accurate and much more comfortable.
Your use cases are yours, and maybe for your needs, one non-widescreen monitor is more than sufficient. But other people have very different needs, work styles, cognitive habits and preferences. Some of us are far more productive with the extra screen estate.
Because they don't spend the small amounts on routine maintenance, they can allocate huge amounts for major roadwork. It's easier to hide kickbacks when the budget is big.
A parsec (pc) is ~3.26 light-years. It would be amazing if we could even see a non-luminous 10 km rock at that distance, let alone hit it with a laser -- we'd have to aim at where we think it would be 3.26 years later, to begin with. For some scale, Pluto is about 39 AU~=5.5 light hours~=0.000192 pc from the Sun; the Kuiper Belt extends to about 50 AU~=7 lh~=0.000245 pc out; and the heliopause is somewhere between 90 AU~=12.5 lh~=0.000436 pc and 230 AU~=32 lh~=0.00111 pc. The nearest star to the Sun, Proxima Centauri, is about 4.2 light years away, ~1.29 parsecs.
So no, we're not going to be shooting lasers, shark-head-mounted or otherwise, at "distances like a parsec".
Slashdot Mirror
...including Abbott Nutrition, CoroWise, General Mills, Kellogg's, Mars, McNeil Nutritionals, Pepsico, SOYJOY, Truvia and Unilever. In addition, the ADA lists Aramark, The CocaCola Company, The National Dairy Council and the Hershey Center for Health and Nutrition as partners.
Cereals, soda and chocolate, nice.
And what about our teeth says we evolved to eat meat?
They're not all flat grinders. In fact, they're mostly shaped for cutting and tearing. Only 3 out of 8 are grinders.
Please don't say canines because if you look at real canines and then look at a humans canines they are totally different. Same name, but functionally not the same. Real canines tear through flesh a lot easier than the human canines can.
That's because we don't chase down our still living (and running) food and try to bite them to death. We have omniovore canines.
Look no one can predict what we are supposed to eat...
We don't need to _predict_ it, we _know_ what we're supposed to eat. Our teeth, digestive systems and metabolism tell us what we should eat. Our history tells us what we eat. Our pre-history has left us evidence of what we eat and how we evolved to eat it.
...but to assume that being vegan is a stupid diet isn't logic speaking, that's culture speaking.
Veganism is also a cultural artifact, driven by emotion, not logic, and by your logic, stupid. "Aw poor cute animal, I have to kill it to eat it. I'll eat plants instead." Guess what? You have to kill most plant foods to eat them, too.
Not sure why you get offended by veganism, but you should look into it more before you criticize it.
I have looked into it. It's a denial of human nature, an attempt to feel morally superior and an arrogant deceit of one's self. It's like self-flagellation, which is almost as offensive as veganism. The truth is simple: all things that live, eat. And for all living things to eat, something must die. This is the cycle of life.
You should ask a nutritionist about the vegan diet and how healthy it is. Get a professionals point.
So you consulted a professional vegan nutritionist for this objective, balanced point of view?
Like I said, I've been a strict vegan for 12 years (no honey or processed sugars).
Ah yes, avoid the evil animal-based processed sugars to be a strict vegan.
I don't know if it's contributed to my health, but it definitely hasn't hurt it.
Based on your post, I rather doubt both those statements.
Read the post I was replying to. He said:
Also, CO2 is not a poison.
I refuted that statement and linked to supporting articles. Not sure if you bothered to read them, but now you want to argue semantics. Following your argument, there really aren't any substances that are poisonous, because we can dilute pretty much anything to the point where it's not toxic.
Dose dependence is part of the definition of toxicity. The first page I linked to explains the toxicity of CO2. It has direct toxic effects at concentrations above 5% that have nothing to do with oxygen displacement. The second link discusses CO2 narcosis. That's also a direct effect that isn't caused by hypoxia. Elsewhere in this thread people have posted on acidosis, yet another direct toxic effect of CO2.
Since you closed with an attempt at reductio ad ridiculum, I'll answer that as well. Dihydrogen monoxide is directly toxic, with an LD50 (median lethal dose) of 90g/kg. It causes hyponatremia, an electrolyte imbalance characterized by low sodium levels. It can lead to water intoxication and a bunch of other nasty things, including pulmonary and cerebral edema. Note that the direct toxic effects of water and CO2 are in addition to any suffocation risk they present. So yeah, they qualify as toxic.
Yes, most are, since they're made of lead. If you get shot, survive the trauma and not have the bullet removed, you'll suffer lead poisoning.
Dilute salt solution isn't toxic, but drinking seawater will kill you. The CO2 you breathed in is at a concentration that your body can tolerate. Try that at 5% or higher CO2, even if you have your 19%-20% O2 in the mix. You'll still suffer toxicity. Here, I don't want to repeat the links.
Wrong. CO2 is directly toxic. Learn something new.
A link might be helpful...
Unfortunately for your argument, languages are far from information alone with a minimum of original creativity. They take a lot of thinking, planning, and creative thought in order to come up with a structure for others to work in. I completely disagree with Oracle's position here, but you can't claim that creating a programming language is like listing facts in a telephone directory, it takes a lot more work and creativity than that and it is not created based on merely observing the world but on copying the good bits of other languages (so Oracle is crazy to even go down this path). It's more like creating a font, a dictionary, or recipes, all of which have *elements* which are copyrightable, but are in this same murky grey area, precisely because they are used by so many other people to create other stuff, which makes it of questionable value to society to lock them up with copyright.
The amount of effort requires to come up with a language has nothing to do with what is copyrightable. As a direct analogue, here's the US Copyright Office's page on games. Notice:
Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.
I bring up games because the principles are exactly the same. The rulebook which comes with the game, is a written description of the rules. It is *not* the rules, it is a particular expression in literary form, and is therefore subject to copyright. But the actual rules, the principles, mechanics, algorithms and procedures of the game, are mathematical abstractions. They are ideas, not subject to copyright.
A dictionary is not a language. It describes the language. It is an expression which is copyrightable. A grammar book is not language. It is another description, another literary expression, also copyrightable. Language is abstract. It is a set of rules, and rules are not copyrightable. The _description_ of the rules is copyrightable. In the same vein, the API specification document is copyrightable. The API itself is not. This is an important distinction that most people fail to make.
If Google, for example, were to reproduce Java's API documentation verbatim and distribute it with the Android SDK, they would be in violation of copyright. But if anyone merely read the API and re-implemented the language based on the described rules, they wouldn't be violating any copyright. They may have copied the ideas, but ideas cannot be copyrighted.
The standard deviation of most IQ tests is 15, at least one uses 16. The standard error of measurement is around 3.
I prefer lasers, myself. Shark-head-laser-toast is awesome. :)
Apparently, other geeks/nerds find this article worthwhile. They're idiots or ignorant at best. :)
Ah yes, the old "their opinion differs from mine, therefore they must be stupid" line. Ok, you win. You're the smartest, rightest, bestest, geekest nerd on Slashdot. Your mother must be so proud. Have a cookie.</sarcasm>
This non-conversation is going nowhere, which usually happens when one of the participants is incapable of self-criticism and has a need to impose his worldview on others to validate his fragile ego and sense of self worth. Here's a tip. It's actually ok to be wrong sometimes, and it's actually ok to admit it. The world doesn't end, life goes on.
With that, I'll leave you and your boring pocket universe now, where apparently, the only things that interest geeks and nerds are things that interest you.
I love the smell of napalm in the morning... oh wait, that's my vid card melting!
Less defensiveness, more objectivity. It's a good thing.
How about you practice what you preach?
I never purported to speak for anyone else. My point was as stated -- that this isn't really geek nerd news.
Understandably will be interesting to some people,
Geek nerd topics, sure. Just not newsworthy.
This isn't news to you. It is interesting and newsworthy to me, and apparently, to some other people as well. But you replied to that post, apparently not quite comprehending it. I reiterate what he said:
Speak for yourself. For me, this is interesting news that I want to know and would not have otherwise heard about.
I agree with him completely. If you're not interested in this article, why don't you read and comment in another thread, one which you find interesting and newsworthy, instead of trying to convince us that this one isn't so.
But the cells are alive whether they have a brain stem or not
<snip>
*It is a being (something that exists), it is genetically unique (not just a body part of its mother) and genetically human, whether or not it is legally ascribed personhood.
Cancer cells, specifically the ones caused by an acquired (i.e. not inherited) mutation, are genetically unique, genetically human and not just a body part of the cancer sufferer.
Let's see. AMD, CAD, Pro/ENGINEER, GPU, wireframe rendering... Yup, pretty much spot-on geek nerd news. Or do you think the non-geek world would actually find this interesting?
That's precisely Zontar's point. Most people think there's a "source" or "cause", and if you just remove that source or cause, the depression goes away. Doesn't work that way, at all. Clinical depression is not the same thing as that bad feeling most people call depression. You might not have intended it, but your post is, in a way, just as condescending as the GGPP. Educate yourself, learn the difference and then we can have a real conversation about it.
My best guess, he means Trans-dermal Cranial Stimulation. YMMV
And why would that would be bad, exactly?
Maybe he's a lumberjack's assistant?
Three way code merge. Try that with all the code windows maximized and use your virtual desktops to quickly switch back and forth, let's see how fast you can work and how long you can maintain your sanity. Try it with a 1920 or wider, all 3 windows visible, side-by-side and scroll-synced. You will be much, much faster, much more accurate and much more comfortable.
Your use cases are yours, and maybe for your needs, one non-widescreen monitor is more than sufficient. But other people have very different needs, work styles, cognitive habits and preferences. Some of us are far more productive with the extra screen estate.
Because they don't spend the small amounts on routine maintenance, they can allocate huge amounts for major roadwork. It's easier to hide kickbacks when the budget is big.
Actually, no. Not even back then.
A parsec (pc) is ~3.26 light-years . It would be amazing if we could even see a non-luminous 10 km rock at that distance, let alone hit it with a laser -- we'd have to aim at where we think it would be 3.26 years later, to begin with. For some scale, Pluto is about 39 AU~=5.5 light hours ~=0.000192 pc from the Sun; the Kuiper Belt extends to about 50 AU~=7 lh~=0.000245 pc out; and the heliopause is somewhere between 90 AU~=12.5 lh~=0.000436 pc and 230 AU~=32 lh~=0.00111 pc. The nearest star to the Sun, Proxima Centauri, is about 4.2 light years away, ~1.29 parsecs.
So no, we're not going to be shooting lasers, shark-head-mounted or otherwise, at "distances like a parsec".
at distances like a parsec
I do not think it means what you think it means...