Look, this is a strong geographic correlation. If it were much more pronounced, I would choose to raise my family in a high-lithium area. Obviously we need to make sure it doesn't also increase heart attacks or not being a genius, but it's immoral not to normalise levels. Remember, this would only be bringing the deficient areas in line with non-deficient.
Yeah, it's brought in with good intentions - to flag suspicious work for manual review. In practice I imagine it would slip to being used as a lazy shortcut to banhammer students with no recourse or appeal. Other posters will probably fill in the examples.
Don't gun stores have waiting periods? Do you suppose this is a law that would see a gun store punished heavily if it turned out a spree-killer had bought a gun with no waiting period earlier that day?
As you so rightly say, a lot of our desires and impulses are hardwired. Sexual orientation, preference. If you suddenly realised one day that you were sexually attracted to children, would you kill yourself on the spot?
Re:Who gives a shit about twitter?
on
Twitter On Scala
·
· Score: 1
I love how obama's twitter had a bot or a staffer automatically following people who followed him, so that anyone he'd initially handpicked didn't get stalked to oblivion!
If I release a ball and it goes up, the first thing I check for is the helium balloon attached with string. Then, I check to see if the ball itself is full of helium. Then, after a few more checks, I get people in to go "oh yeah, huh, it does go up.", but not before discounting the obvious boring explanations . Failure to do otherwise isn't science.
This is a bit of real science that fell through the cracks because it wasn't exactly repeatable.
Gann's an expert in his field, and yeah, ok, being a music critic could probably lend enough authority in the field of knowledge, expertise, etc. However he holds up UO3 as an example which I also agree with as a professional. I don't see his relevance to your other points, though, because I didn't RTFM.
As for the chicago school of economics, a contributor on the discussion page for the CSE points out that the work was emplaced primarily by the actual school from which it was named and the staff therein, rather than being an example of the outcome of that particular fiscal model. The credibility of this comment is unknown. It also implies that there used to be a small section on chile in the page for the CSE which got removed. Currently, no similar reference exists on the page for the UoChicago. There are a few scattered references to articles calling chile a guinea pig, so why not make the edits yourself? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Chile contains no references to chicago and discusses only a mild recession with plausible causes. Maybe the corruption is endemic. Whenever I read those four words, though, the simpler example always comes to mind...
As for Alex, the version of the article before any edits made after your comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Hamilton&oldid=268770550 follows the usual format of the discussion of the life and works of notable historical characters, in that the first paragraph after the contents panel discusses his birth, the arguments for both dates and the common consensus amongst most historians.
I am a chemist. I have never studied or taken an interest in history or economics. I don't know if what I'm saying is true. Therein lies the danger of wikipedia. It would be easy for me to slip into opinions, rather than sticking to facts. And I just realised I spent 20 minutes researching a counterargument to an AC.
the GGGP is getting a little confused. From a stationary observer's P.O.V, time slows down for someone else going faster and/or falling into a black hole, and if that traveller were ever to reach C (or the event horizon) time would stop. From the traveller's P.O.V, they cover a light year in much less than a year, and the length contraction turns the universe into a paper-thin disk of dust that they promptly slam into and explode. I always found that amusing.
I think the point the GP was trying to make is a valid one - if we made a probe that travelled to a certain star at 0.9c, there's no point doubling its fuel tanks so it can go at 0.95c. From our P.O.V, the probe would take 19 years instead of 20 - clearly not worth it. If it was a manned spaceship, the time dilation would reduce the supply requirements sufficient that it might be worth it.
Lots of other letters on the website have been replaced by the greek equivalents that look like the roman letters. He's "malow" in the page title as well.
This is merely another example of inclusive nerd humour. Or does he write in his blthg about his testimphinials?
Let me be crystal clear. The point I am about to raise is one I only do so in order to bait you. I have selected you as the most likely to be baited by out of all the responses in the thread, it's nothing personal. I don't agree with the point I will raise, and I think anyone who does is paranoid.
All that having been said:
The UK government petition site requires a verifiable email address and a valid name/address pair already known to the government. Thus, citizens can be trivially linked to political leanings and issues that bother them, making it trivial for the corrupt members of the government to abuse power.
I dare someone to miss the point, reply, and agree with me.
I am a chemist, and whilst I don't have the time or inclination to chase references, nothing in this screams crackpot or bullshit. The actual principle they're using is to form aggregate clumps of larger molecules, within a matrix of smaller molecules. This reduces the viscosity to something closer to that of the small molecules.
Well, my understanding is that the ordered state is less entropic than the disordered state. Conversion between the two traps and releases heat, and this can be exploited in the same way as other fridge designs. You're right in that there's a finite energy range and several stages might need to be used. Unlike peltier stacking, though, each stage is actually quite efficient.
Well, if evidence of it actually happening was observed, it would be another tally on the chalkboard of "quantum mechanics has been proved again". Not that we need another, it's the most robust scientific theory except possibly thermodynamics, and certainly the most well-tested.
We're talking ten-sig-fig accuracy of spectroscopic predictions. Like Relativity simplifying to Newtonian mechanics, any replacing theory HAS to simplify to quantum mechanics under normal conditions. This is why I feel free to dismiss out of hand and subsequently ignore anyone who tries to claim they've developed a replacement or found a flaw, until they end up on the front page of Nature or stand up to peer review.
The problem is not getting blacklisted as a wackjob for discovering something amazing, it's when you provide absolutely no proof whatsoever. Don't be so bitter that your paper got rejected!
Ah yes, technical information about something that gives you 5 pages of crap, even with "technical manual" specified in the search, is a problem. quite right. Of course, if the manufacturer hasn't released it in the first place, it might just not be on the internet.
It's almost like google stopped bothering about returning relevant commercial sites in the main search, and farmed it off to some subsidy. I mean, talk about saving money, that's a very froogle thing to do.
Please then allow me to bludgeon you with the point, which is google's most excellent product search at www.froogle.com . If it's buyable on the internet, it's there.
Sorry, layification of equilibrium constants got a bit screwy. And as others rightly point, changing the pH of the oceans is generally a bad idea. However, as others point out, the current (small) fraction of CO2 in the air is a delicate sliver of a transitory volume in the carbon cycle - increasing the percentage of CO2 the ocean can hold by a few percent may pull a lot more than that fraction out of the air - not that we need more than a few percent reduction. The overall pH drop of the ocean in order to increase CO2 capacity slightly may then be something on the order of 0.01 units or less.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, this is a strong geographic correlation. If it were much more pronounced, I would choose to raise my family in a high-lithium area. Obviously we need to make sure it doesn't also increase heart attacks or not being a genius, but it's immoral not to normalise levels. Remember, this would only be bringing the deficient areas in line with non-deficient.
And I refer phorm to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.
He's coughing! It's already too late!
Yeah, it's brought in with good intentions - to flag suspicious work for manual review. In practice I imagine it would slip to being used as a lazy shortcut to banhammer students with no recourse or appeal. Other posters will probably fill in the examples.
Don't gun stores have waiting periods? Do you suppose this is a law that would see a gun store punished heavily if it turned out a spree-killer had bought a gun with no waiting period earlier that day?
As you so rightly say, a lot of our desires and impulses are hardwired. Sexual orientation, preference. If you suddenly realised one day that you were sexually attracted to children, would you kill yourself on the spot?
I love how obama's twitter had a bot or a staffer automatically following people who followed him, so that anyone he'd initially handpicked didn't get stalked to oblivion!
wouldn't trust them any further than I can throw them
Given the reliability, it's likely that someone has already measured that particular parameter for you. Have you checked the data sheets?
BUMP
Utterly typical US groupthink that the rest of the world thinks alike. The US is a pretty small country.
If I release a ball and it goes up, the first thing I check for is the helium balloon attached with string. Then, I check to see if the ball itself is full of helium. Then, after a few more checks, I get people in to go "oh yeah, huh, it does go up.", but not before discounting the obvious boring explanations . Failure to do otherwise isn't science.
This is a bit of real science that fell through the cracks because it wasn't exactly repeatable.
Gann's an expert in his field, and yeah, ok, being a music critic could probably lend enough authority in the field of knowledge, expertise, etc. However he holds up UO3 as an example which I also agree with as a professional. I don't see his relevance to your other points, though, because I didn't RTFM.
As for the chicago school of economics, a contributor on the discussion page for the CSE points out that the work was emplaced primarily by the actual school from which it was named and the staff therein, rather than being an example of the outcome of that particular fiscal model. The credibility of this comment is unknown. It also implies that there used to be a small section on chile in the page for the CSE which got removed. Currently, no similar reference exists on the page for the UoChicago. There are a few scattered references to articles calling chile a guinea pig, so why not make the edits yourself?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Chile contains no references to chicago and discusses only a mild recession with plausible causes. Maybe the corruption is endemic. Whenever I read those four words, though, the simpler example always comes to mind...
As for Alex, the version of the article before any edits made after your comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Hamilton&oldid=268770550 follows the usual format of the discussion of the life and works of notable historical characters, in that the first paragraph after the contents panel discusses his birth, the arguments for both dates and the common consensus amongst most historians.
I am a chemist. I have never studied or taken an interest in history or economics. I don't know if what I'm saying is true. Therein lies the danger of wikipedia. It would be easy for me to slip into opinions, rather than sticking to facts. And I just realised I spent 20 minutes researching a counterargument to an AC.
HIV research is in danger of being halted because it's not seen as profitable; now that *would* be a major health catastrophe.
the GGGP is getting a little confused. From a stationary observer's P.O.V, time slows down for someone else going faster and/or falling into a black hole, and if that traveller were ever to reach C (or the event horizon) time would stop. From the traveller's P.O.V, they cover a light year in much less than a year, and the length contraction turns the universe into a paper-thin disk of dust that they promptly slam into and explode. I always found that amusing.
I think the point the GP was trying to make is a valid one - if we made a probe that travelled to a certain star at 0.9c, there's no point doubling its fuel tanks so it can go at 0.95c. From our P.O.V, the probe would take 19 years instead of 20 - clearly not worth it. If it was a manned spaceship, the time dilation would reduce the supply requirements sufficient that it might be worth it.
Lots of other letters on the website have been replaced by the greek equivalents that look like the roman letters. He's "malow" in the page title as well.
This is merely another example of inclusive nerd humour. Or does he write in his blthg about his testimphinials?
http://www.sciencecomedian.com/
Let me be crystal clear. The point I am about to raise is one I only do so in order to bait you. I have selected you as the most likely to be baited by out of all the responses in the thread, it's nothing personal. I don't agree with the point I will raise, and I think anyone who does is paranoid.
All that having been said:
The UK government petition site requires a verifiable email address and a valid name/address pair already known to the government. Thus, citizens can be trivially linked to political leanings and issues that bother them, making it trivial for the corrupt members of the government to abuse power.
I dare someone to miss the point, reply, and agree with me.
I am a chemist, and whilst I don't have the time or inclination to chase references, nothing in this screams crackpot or bullshit. The actual principle they're using is to form aggregate clumps of larger molecules, within a matrix of smaller molecules. This reduces the viscosity to something closer to that of the small molecules.
Well, my understanding is that the ordered state is less entropic than the disordered state. Conversion between the two traps and releases heat, and this can be exploited in the same way as other fridge designs. You're right in that there's a finite energy range and several stages might need to be used. Unlike peltier stacking, though, each stage is actually quite efficient.
Like many others, I thought this meant the LHC had finally come online. It's just fermilab enjoying its last two days of relevancy ^_^
Well, if evidence of it actually happening was observed, it would be another tally on the chalkboard of "quantum mechanics has been proved again". Not that we need another, it's the most robust scientific theory except possibly thermodynamics, and certainly the most well-tested.
We're talking ten-sig-fig accuracy of spectroscopic predictions. Like Relativity simplifying to Newtonian mechanics, any replacing theory HAS to simplify to quantum mechanics under normal conditions. This is why I feel free to dismiss out of hand and subsequently ignore anyone who tries to claim they've developed a replacement or found a flaw, until they end up on the front page of Nature or stand up to peer review.
The problem is not getting blacklisted as a wackjob for discovering something amazing, it's when you provide absolutely no proof whatsoever. Don't be so bitter that your paper got rejected!
Ah yes, technical information about something that gives you 5 pages of crap, even with "technical manual" specified in the search, is a problem. quite right. Of course, if the manufacturer hasn't released it in the first place, it might just not be on the internet.
It's almost like google stopped bothering about returning relevant commercial sites in the main search, and farmed it off to some subsidy. I mean, talk about saving money, that's a very froogle thing to do.
Please then allow me to bludgeon you with the point, which is google's most excellent product search at www.froogle.com . If it's buyable on the internet, it's there.
Sorry, layification of equilibrium constants got a bit screwy. And as others rightly point, changing the pH of the oceans is generally a bad idea. However, as others point out, the current (small) fraction of CO2 in the air is a delicate sliver of a transitory volume in the carbon cycle - increasing the percentage of CO2 the ocean can hold by a few percent may pull a lot more than that fraction out of the air - not that we need more than a few percent reduction. The overall pH drop of the ocean in order to increase CO2 capacity slightly may then be something on the order of 0.01 units or less.