Well, apparently they planned to launch with the gravity assists and eddies needed, and to intercept the comet's trajectory. That's macro-scale planning: "I'm going to go grocery shopping at Big K-Mart".
They apparently didn't plan back-ups for parts failure (thruster on top), landing anomalies (bounces around), losing track of the probe, or landing in shadow (couldn't make it mobile enough to move to a lighter place). They also didn't consider the cost in delivering a payload, versus the cost in delivering a slightly larger payload--two probes, which is less than two probes and two launchers and two fuel loads. That's micro-scale planning: "I need to carry a second credit card in my wallet in case I run low on cash or the first has a mag strip failure".
It's certainly easier to plan a mission that can get there and do its work if all goes well compared to if things go wrong. Realizing that something can be done and drawing up the plans to point-and-shoot isn't "well thought-out"; risks and contingencies are what make a plan well thought-out.
No she's cute. She was a coworker, so not attractive to me (I have a psychological block in place; my emotions attach to concepts and ideals, not to individual people, and I dislike the concept of polluting a professional relationship), but she had objectively all the surface qualities in behavior, intelligence, and bodily appearance one would find attractive.
The OTA updates they released also wiped the OS. They didn't OTA it because it was too big for their network. The prior updates were 30-ish MB, and this was 130-ish. Motorola spent some 4 months telling us they had an update ready, but didn't know how to roll out something larger than the amount of RAM in the phone.
A ring is a thing you can inspect as well: if it's shiny inside and dirty outside, she's been working it off her finger. This makes no sense in America, as people are prone to bone married women.
You are saying that all the reasons are not reasonable, and your one reason encompasses all perfectly.
Ask yourself this question: why do they behave that way? Even a health nut would eat meat if it were the only healthy food available--they would know that the carbohydrate-based gruel and the apples they can get in prison are not an adequate fat and protein source, and will make them ill, and so they will need meat because nobody is going to give them a bowl of nuts and dried soy beans. What, then, would drive a person to such obsession, if not fear of health issues?
Similarly, animal rights and the issue of supporting the meat industry go out the window in situations where your change in consumption effect no change in society. For example, a wedding planner may cater the wedding such that the 40 pounds of meat and 25 pounds of vegetables are vegan-friendly: the vegetables may involve beans, salads, and some better-spiced vegetable dishes, but they'll still be 25 pounds of vegetables, and you'll still see 40 pounds of meat at the reception. Obviously, the prison system isn't going to reduce its ordering of meat to deal with the vegan population. In both situations, what ties you to adhere to a hollow principle? The "animal rights" and "support of animal torture" considerations are founded on sand, and the sand has shifted away, and yet you still attempt to stand firm on air.
In these situations, when a person experiences any distress at the consideration of consuming the proffered meat, that distress stems not from a violation of the world around them, but from a violation of themselves. There is no other explanation: it damages their image of who they are, which weakens their sense of social position. You offer only peacock feathers and dismiss the idea that the bird may have flesh beneath them; I offer that a peacock is a bird of flesh and fat, and the feathers are only the dressing within which it enshrouds itself.
Vegans are, ostensibly, an issue of morality. Marriage of 12-year-olds to 30-something men are also an issue of morality. There are many other social behaviors which can be said the same of, and they have all changed over time in similar ways, and have been studied to show similar drivers.
You're fixated on this "Vegans are a mystery box, and the way their minds work is deeply personal and does not follow any laws of science" ideal. Problem is their minds do follow the laws of science, and can be approached analytically.
No, it doesn't. You cannot draw conclusions from your results without significant data, because as you just said, your results could be due to random chance.
That's not how statistics works.
With 10 people, a difference of 50% falls within random chance. A difference outside 50% is significant.
With 100 people, a difference of 10% falls within random chance.
Statistically, if you fall within the boundaries of random chance, you can't show that there is a difference between these groups. You can show that there is not a *significant* difference; the measure of significance depends on your sample size, as above (although you'd actually use correct figures, not 50% and 10% arbitrarily; there's math to compute alpha values, but it involves calculus).
Bennett claims there isn't a significant difference: that his small sample size indicates the probable difference between groups is bounded to a range smaller than posited. The range is large, but it's meaningful.
When humans evolved to walk upright, they needed a full frontal display. You would approach a woman from the front, and require something to strongly indicate sexual maturity. Most animals walking on all fours do not naturally expose their breasts prominently, and their breasts remain small to the point that sexing of various animals requires examination of the genitals (and you can see a dog's big nuts hanging down from behind, so you can imagine how cursory of a glance this requires). Many animals also have a heightened sense of smell, and are sensitive to other cues such as coloration (notably contrast and saturation, more than hue).
Tits are, in fact, one way of screaming "WOMAN!" at people.
Actually, his sample sizes are small. He says this about your 70% to 77%:
For such a small sample, that's not enough to definitively say whether the small difference is due to random chance, or due to small differences in opinion in the population being surveyed. What it does show, even with such a small sample, is that in the underlying population there's almost certainly no huge gap between people's opinions of black women vs. white women breastfeeding in photos.
This is correct: for around 20 or 30 people, you can expect random chance of e.g. 20% (I don't care to remember how to do the math here). That's 20% of the value: if 70% of group A respond one way, then you would be within random chance if group B's responses fell within 56% and 84%, and not have any conclusion. Bennett says here that groupings of 70% and 77% don't conclude a difference due to random chance, but they DO indicate a small magnitude.
Let's say that the actual numbers are 72% and 71.5%. If you performed a properly controlled experiment with tens of thousands of people on each side, you'd find one group showing 72% and one showing 71.5%. Your alpha value would be around 0.001%, so you'd expect an identical population to show something like 72% and 71.93% A value of 71.5% would be conclusive of a nearly 0.4% difference between populations.
With the small sample size, you'd need a bigger gap. If the numbers were 70% and 20%, you'd have conclusive evidence of a significant difference between populations. At 70% and 77%, you have no evidence for any difference at all; a small difference could exist, but it is exceedingly unlikely that a LARGE difference exists.
Following this logic, 86% and 67% are about the same, and 63% and 79% are about the same. If you want these values to be different from each other, you need bigger sample sizes. Small sample sizes like this are only good for striking divides such as "is your skin more like a banana or chocolate?" surveying black vs white people.
To put this into perspective: out of 14 trials with a deck of 20 red/black cards shuffling 5 times and then predicting the top card, I am 68% likely to predict the correct card drawn from a deck; out of 180 trials, I am 54% likely; out of 700 trials, I am 53.8% likely to correctly predict the card. I did better on early trials, consistently getting 2/3 or more correct. Even hundreds of trials in, I haven't closed on random chance; but we also have about a 5% confidence value at 700 trials, and 53.8% - 5% is less than 50%, so it's quite possible I'm exactly 50% likely to select correctly.
Well, hold on. He made a lot of good points about statistics, sample size, and research into study of surveys; as well as some insightful analysis of credibility of answers. This person clearly has a passable grasp of statistics, at least; having myself gained a perfect score on the AP Statistics and Probability exam, I still evaluate him as having further exposure to structured statistics education than I have. I'm familiar with a few credibility models used in psychology as well; he used a very statistics-based model that shows behavioral correlation as a credibility marker (i.e. a person's responses follow a logical grouping of behaviors similar to other persons's responses, and thus the existence of concentrated groups of thinking indicates that these are real responses).
I find this write-up to cover a lot of interesting and useful information, which I could see some of my Psychology grad student friends putting into practice.
An official-channel manual update wouldn't involve rooting. I had to do that with my Motorola; it had 3 OTA updates, but the last was 130MB and they refused to OTA it at all. In that case, it did wipe my data, but didn't unlock my phone.
Depends on the software. Typically, you have an OS, cache, and data partition. Manual updates of Cyanogenmod through Clockwork have wiped the OS partition, leaving the others in tact. A desktop update using the boot loader shell and instructions might instruct the phone to wipe data and cache, thus performing a factory reset.
It comes down to your phone's boot loader, mostly. The OS image itself is just a file that gets unpacked and dumped onto the OS partition; but if your upgrade software unpacks the OS image, wipes the internal ROM, repartitions, and installs the new OS image, it'll wipe your data. If your upgrade software wipes the OS partition and unpacks, you get an upgrade without a factory reset.
I've had OTA upgrades (Motorola Cliq) wipe the data partition. The only way to know is to find someone else who's done it.
If a non-US business comes into the US and sells a product or service, they're legally required to pay taxes on it. You can't reach across the border, exchange money, and then run away with your profits; the tax man expects you to file your activities, or else you're a smuggling ring.
Plutonium is toxic because it's a heavy metal. It's also radioactive. It will poison you by heavy metal poisoning well before you have enough to suffer toxic radiation exposure.
Low concentrations of low-activity radioisotopes generally follow this pattern. C-137 is a heavy metal, and I would wager it's toxic in its own right; in low concentrations, the radiation is probably benign (as asserted), while the heavy metal toxicity is significant; and in lower concentrations still, the heavy metal toxicity becomes tolerable, and then insignificant.
Plutonium is exceedingly toxic. Its slow radioactive decay is distressing because dilution in the environment isn't sufficient to reduce its toxicity to any sane level: we have to warehouse spent nuclear waste forever, or we'll destroy everything. This is why nuclear warfare is the stupidest thing humanity has ever invented.
Yes, they all self-selected for that group, but that doesn't mean their reason for doing so are all the same.
No, their "reason" for doing so is largely all the same; their "reasoning" is different.
Reason, the root cause, is as I stated. Reasoning is something else. This is confusing because "reason" is a noun, and "reason" is also a verb. A person reasoning is a person who reasons; but a person has a reason, and also has a reasoning (gerund).
In any case, the rational mind can decorate behaviors with social constructs. Men largely only fall in love with women whom they are attracted to physically, and straight men never fall in love with other men (and gay men don't fall in love with women, and bisexuals who prefer one sex over the other only fall for that sex). Their reasoning for a relationship is that they have an emotional or spiritual connection, but a cursory observation suggests love is a sexual behavior; scientifically, love is understood as a pair bonding phenomena, with familial love as a strong pair bonding and a social survival trait, and romantic love as a sexual attraction combined with a strong pair bonding. When someone says, "She's such a great person," "He's so driven," and so on, they're largely focusing on traits a lot of people they've met have, but which stand out to them due to this pair bonding: none of these things are actually why they have feelings for this person.
You assert that vegans are different from this: that they have nothing but an arbitrary, foundationless moral belief about eating meat. There's no such thing; it doesn't exist, and cannot. Two hundred years ago, 30-year-old men routinely selected 12-year-old girls they wanted to fuck, and got married, and then you had a pregnant 13-year-old having a baby at 14; today, any suggestion of attraction to someone under the age of 18 is considered morally reprehensible. One hundred years ago, it was not considered without virtue to hang a black man without trial; today, it's considered one of the worst atrocities of humanity. Fifty years ago, gay people were routinely arrested or executed for the crime of being homosexual. These were all, at some time, a moral imperative of society, and then became different moral imperatives.
Once a person assimilates into a social position, they must protect it. Deviation from that stance is distressing. Veganism is no different: they can't eat meat because it would harm them psychologically by damaging their self-image.
Actually, by what I have been hearing lately they want to have a British operation doing their European business so they'll be in the EU common market, then they want to route all their $10 million of product sales though a shell company in Luxembourg where they make a secret tax agreement with the authorities to pay taxes of less than 1% while nominally paying the much higher Luxembourg corporate tax and VAT.
Which doesn't work, because walking into a country and selling products or services subjects you to that country's taxes. The moment they set foot in France or China and perform a business operation, that operation is taxed by France or China. If their HQ is in the US, their Chinese and French operations are taxed in China AND in the US.
If you didn't pay taxes on business performed within a country, foreign services would always be less expensive than local services.
Why that for salt? Did early man drink salt water, or otherwise eat salt? Salt as a spice is relatively new. Spices at all, and cooking are new-ish as well.
Not sure. I've seen some studies that suggest salt in high concentrations is not harmful. Likely, man has occasionally encountered brackish water, and drunk it; whether high tolerance for salt is a result of evolution to deal with significant brackish water intake or just the simple fact of the kidneys being that adaptable by chance is beyond my ken. I do know that this doesn't work if you don't have a lot of potassium intake, as you would if you were a wild caveman foraging for food from the potassium-rich sources of nature.
And none of the studies really treat individuals as individuals. As you've said, you are near-unique, with a bizarre addiction to animal fat. I've gone years with no animal fat or protein with no effect on my immune system.
I'm rather strange. I also had a friend who could not eat meat at all; it would make her violently ill, and could become life threatening. Some people do manage a vegetarian diet, and a few are healthier on it; as I said, many who are healthy on veganism are even healthier with some meat in their diet; and plenty of people become weak and sickly, but not catastrophically ill, enough to be discouraged from the whole thing. It's a big spectrum, and a significant chunk of it is better off with meat.
Chinese diet (which contains no Chinese food, as known in the US) is very healthy. That's why you see lots of short, skinny Chinese people. Low protein, so low growth, and healthy, so fewer fat people.
The Chinese don't seem a very healthy people to me. They have historically come in great numbers to win wars, built great things by exploitation of labor until death (the Great Wall has dead bodies as filler, where the workers died from exertion), and generally not shown prowess as the strongest and healthiest in the world. Up through the 1970s, the average life expectancy in China was 30-40 years, and the mortality rate under 5 years old was nearly the highest in the world. What happened after the 1970s?
Before China’s economic reforms of the late 1970s, the typical Chinese diet consisted primarily of grain products and starchy roots, with few animal source foods, caloric sweeteners, or fruits and vegetables. Since the 1980s, Chinese people have experienced drastic changes in their food consumption behavior and nutritional status as a result of rapid economic development, expansion of agricultural production, globalization, urbanization, and technological improvement. These social and economic changes have helped shift the Chinese dietary structure toward increased consumption of energy-dense foods that are high in fat, particularly saturated fat, and low in carbohydrates. Dietary changes have been accompanied by a decline in energy expenditure associated with sedentary lifestyles, motorized transportation, labor-saving devices at home and at work, and physically undemanding leisure activities.
Massive health improvements due to a shift from 95% grain and vegetables to a large proportion of fatty meats.
Yes. Prions can be passed by consumption of human meat, and are difficult to eradicate. They can pass fatal familial insomnia, CJD, and other diseases. Deer can pass Chronic Wasting Disease to humans, and so the nervous tissue is quickly discarded; eating human flesh infected by CWD can also pass CWD to humans, although human-to-human transmission otherwise is more difficult. Mad cow disease is also a prion, and the central reason why it is illegal to mix beef parts into beef feed.
I wouldn't have any sort of moral issues consuming human meat that was offered. I'd have issues with the acquisition and preparation (murder), the health issues, and personal squeamishness; the actual consumption of meat isn't a moral or ethical issue, and I see no crime in what is called defiling a corpse--dead people don't give a shit. If I were captive in some way which this was a primary form of sustenance, avoidance behavior would largely revolve around health issues in the same way that unprotected sex with anyone I meet is avoided for health issues.
Actually, meat is digested by stomach acid and enzymes such as pepsin and trypsin. Gut flora are more useful in digesting carbohydrates (e.g. lactose) and processing certain minerals into useful vitamins. Fats and proteins are much less affected. Likewise, the facilities required for digesting meat are also required for digesting proteins in grains, plants, and nuts.
You pretty much just asserted that vegans are an enigmatic mystery not understood by man. Possibly, you just asserted that anything dealing with human psychology is invalid, which carries the implication that human interactions are wholly random and be neither understood nor manipulated, which further implies that people don't actually have things they do and don't like or believe.
All such things are illogical. You make a hollow assertion, while also trying to shroud it in incorrect language. There are no opinions, only facts; we label as opinions certain facts which are complex due to the nature of personal preference. For example: a preference for pizza over tacos is an opinion--that pizza tastes better--and is largely formed by the facts of what a person has eaten before, what his palate has been trained for, and thus what appeals to him more. An assertion that pizza has more calories than tacos is a fact--it may be incorrect, but it's a simple data point which cannot change without physical changes to the medium. Disposition--the opinion that pizza tastes better--is also a fact, although its scope is limited to the person's preferences, and this scope is implicit.
What I pass off is an analysis of behavior. Vegans, when faced with a situation whereby there is no harm done by eating meat products placed in front of them, will reject meat; attempting to override this induces stress in the vegan. This cannot be for any reason other than a person's self-image: if a person is lead to believe that performing an action will cause no harm, but still finds great distress in performing the action, it is because they cannot reconcile their self-image with the ideal of themselves performing the action. In many such situations, the person refuses to accept any such assertion that performing the action would cause no harm, as it is equally distressing to view their own behavior as not carrying the meaning they've attached to it: they're more likely to just reject any physical considerations and apply the same viewpoint in all situations.
Facts. Facts facts facts. Facts. Facts facts. Facts. Gettin' in ur way.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, apparently they planned to launch with the gravity assists and eddies needed, and to intercept the comet's trajectory. That's macro-scale planning: "I'm going to go grocery shopping at Big K-Mart".
They apparently didn't plan back-ups for parts failure (thruster on top), landing anomalies (bounces around), losing track of the probe, or landing in shadow (couldn't make it mobile enough to move to a lighter place). They also didn't consider the cost in delivering a payload, versus the cost in delivering a slightly larger payload--two probes, which is less than two probes and two launchers and two fuel loads. That's micro-scale planning: "I need to carry a second credit card in my wallet in case I run low on cash or the first has a mag strip failure".
It's certainly easier to plan a mission that can get there and do its work if all goes well compared to if things go wrong. Realizing that something can be done and drawing up the plans to point-and-shoot isn't "well thought-out"; risks and contingencies are what make a plan well thought-out.
No she's cute. She was a coworker, so not attractive to me (I have a psychological block in place; my emotions attach to concepts and ideals, not to individual people, and I dislike the concept of polluting a professional relationship), but she had objectively all the surface qualities in behavior, intelligence, and bodily appearance one would find attractive.
It's simply an interesting culture point.
The OTA updates they released also wiped the OS. They didn't OTA it because it was too big for their network. The prior updates were 30-ish MB, and this was 130-ish. Motorola spent some 4 months telling us they had an update ready, but didn't know how to roll out something larger than the amount of RAM in the phone.
A ring is a thing you can inspect as well: if it's shiny inside and dirty outside, she's been working it off her finger. This makes no sense in America, as people are prone to bone married women.
You are saying that all the reasons are not reasonable, and your one reason encompasses all perfectly.
Ask yourself this question: why do they behave that way? Even a health nut would eat meat if it were the only healthy food available--they would know that the carbohydrate-based gruel and the apples they can get in prison are not an adequate fat and protein source, and will make them ill, and so they will need meat because nobody is going to give them a bowl of nuts and dried soy beans. What, then, would drive a person to such obsession, if not fear of health issues?
Similarly, animal rights and the issue of supporting the meat industry go out the window in situations where your change in consumption effect no change in society. For example, a wedding planner may cater the wedding such that the 40 pounds of meat and 25 pounds of vegetables are vegan-friendly: the vegetables may involve beans, salads, and some better-spiced vegetable dishes, but they'll still be 25 pounds of vegetables, and you'll still see 40 pounds of meat at the reception. Obviously, the prison system isn't going to reduce its ordering of meat to deal with the vegan population. In both situations, what ties you to adhere to a hollow principle? The "animal rights" and "support of animal torture" considerations are founded on sand, and the sand has shifted away, and yet you still attempt to stand firm on air.
In these situations, when a person experiences any distress at the consideration of consuming the proffered meat, that distress stems not from a violation of the world around them, but from a violation of themselves. There is no other explanation: it damages their image of who they are, which weakens their sense of social position. You offer only peacock feathers and dismiss the idea that the bird may have flesh beneath them; I offer that a peacock is a bird of flesh and fat, and the feathers are only the dressing within which it enshrouds itself.
Vegans are, ostensibly, an issue of morality. Marriage of 12-year-olds to 30-something men are also an issue of morality. There are many other social behaviors which can be said the same of, and they have all changed over time in similar ways, and have been studied to show similar drivers.
You're fixated on this "Vegans are a mystery box, and the way their minds work is deeply personal and does not follow any laws of science" ideal. Problem is their minds do follow the laws of science, and can be approached analytically.
No, it doesn't. You cannot draw conclusions from your results without significant data, because as you just said, your results could be due to random chance.
That's not how statistics works.
With 10 people, a difference of 50% falls within random chance. A difference outside 50% is significant.
With 100 people, a difference of 10% falls within random chance.
Statistically, if you fall within the boundaries of random chance, you can't show that there is a difference between these groups. You can show that there is not a *significant* difference; the measure of significance depends on your sample size, as above (although you'd actually use correct figures, not 50% and 10% arbitrarily; there's math to compute alpha values, but it involves calculus).
Bennett claims there isn't a significant difference: that his small sample size indicates the probable difference between groups is bounded to a range smaller than posited. The range is large, but it's meaningful.
I know a woman who refuses to ever wear a wedding ring. She doesn't like the European position of women as property, and the band as a shackle.
Obvious is not scientific. It's obvious the sun revolves around the earth.
When humans evolved to walk upright, they needed a full frontal display. You would approach a woman from the front, and require something to strongly indicate sexual maturity. Most animals walking on all fours do not naturally expose their breasts prominently, and their breasts remain small to the point that sexing of various animals requires examination of the genitals (and you can see a dog's big nuts hanging down from behind, so you can imagine how cursory of a glance this requires). Many animals also have a heightened sense of smell, and are sensitive to other cues such as coloration (notably contrast and saturation, more than hue).
Tits are, in fact, one way of screaming "WOMAN!" at people.
Actually, his sample sizes are small. He says this about your 70% to 77%:
For such a small sample, that's not enough to definitively say whether the small difference is due to random chance, or due to small differences in opinion in the population being surveyed. What it does show, even with such a small sample, is that in the underlying population there's almost certainly no huge gap between people's opinions of black women vs. white women breastfeeding in photos.
This is correct: for around 20 or 30 people, you can expect random chance of e.g. 20% (I don't care to remember how to do the math here). That's 20% of the value: if 70% of group A respond one way, then you would be within random chance if group B's responses fell within 56% and 84%, and not have any conclusion. Bennett says here that groupings of 70% and 77% don't conclude a difference due to random chance, but they DO indicate a small magnitude.
Let's say that the actual numbers are 72% and 71.5%. If you performed a properly controlled experiment with tens of thousands of people on each side, you'd find one group showing 72% and one showing 71.5%. Your alpha value would be around 0.001%, so you'd expect an identical population to show something like 72% and 71.93% A value of 71.5% would be conclusive of a nearly 0.4% difference between populations.
With the small sample size, you'd need a bigger gap. If the numbers were 70% and 20%, you'd have conclusive evidence of a significant difference between populations. At 70% and 77%, you have no evidence for any difference at all; a small difference could exist, but it is exceedingly unlikely that a LARGE difference exists.
Following this logic, 86% and 67% are about the same, and 63% and 79% are about the same. If you want these values to be different from each other, you need bigger sample sizes. Small sample sizes like this are only good for striking divides such as "is your skin more like a banana or chocolate?" surveying black vs white people.
To put this into perspective: out of 14 trials with a deck of 20 red/black cards shuffling 5 times and then predicting the top card, I am 68% likely to predict the correct card drawn from a deck; out of 180 trials, I am 54% likely; out of 700 trials, I am 53.8% likely to correctly predict the card. I did better on early trials, consistently getting 2/3 or more correct. Even hundreds of trials in, I haven't closed on random chance; but we also have about a 5% confidence value at 700 trials, and 53.8% - 5% is less than 50%, so it's quite possible I'm exactly 50% likely to select correctly.
Well, hold on. He made a lot of good points about statistics, sample size, and research into study of surveys; as well as some insightful analysis of credibility of answers. This person clearly has a passable grasp of statistics, at least; having myself gained a perfect score on the AP Statistics and Probability exam, I still evaluate him as having further exposure to structured statistics education than I have. I'm familiar with a few credibility models used in psychology as well; he used a very statistics-based model that shows behavioral correlation as a credibility marker (i.e. a person's responses follow a logical grouping of behaviors similar to other persons's responses, and thus the existence of concentrated groups of thinking indicates that these are real responses).
I find this write-up to cover a lot of interesting and useful information, which I could see some of my Psychology grad student friends putting into practice.
An official-channel manual update wouldn't involve rooting. I had to do that with my Motorola; it had 3 OTA updates, but the last was 130MB and they refused to OTA it at all. In that case, it did wipe my data, but didn't unlock my phone.
She locked you in the chokie! XD
Depends on the software. Typically, you have an OS, cache, and data partition. Manual updates of Cyanogenmod through Clockwork have wiped the OS partition, leaving the others in tact. A desktop update using the boot loader shell and instructions might instruct the phone to wipe data and cache, thus performing a factory reset.
It comes down to your phone's boot loader, mostly. The OS image itself is just a file that gets unpacked and dumped onto the OS partition; but if your upgrade software unpacks the OS image, wipes the internal ROM, repartitions, and installs the new OS image, it'll wipe your data. If your upgrade software wipes the OS partition and unpacks, you get an upgrade without a factory reset.
I've had OTA upgrades (Motorola Cliq) wipe the data partition. The only way to know is to find someone else who's done it.
That's hollywood accounting. :|
If a non-US business comes into the US and sells a product or service, they're legally required to pay taxes on it. You can't reach across the border, exchange money, and then run away with your profits; the tax man expects you to file your activities, or else you're a smuggling ring.
Plutonium is toxic because it's a heavy metal. It's also radioactive. It will poison you by heavy metal poisoning well before you have enough to suffer toxic radiation exposure.
Low concentrations of low-activity radioisotopes generally follow this pattern. C-137 is a heavy metal, and I would wager it's toxic in its own right; in low concentrations, the radiation is probably benign (as asserted), while the heavy metal toxicity is significant; and in lower concentrations still, the heavy metal toxicity becomes tolerable, and then insignificant.
Plutonium is exceedingly toxic. Its slow radioactive decay is distressing because dilution in the environment isn't sufficient to reduce its toxicity to any sane level: we have to warehouse spent nuclear waste forever, or we'll destroy everything. This is why nuclear warfare is the stupidest thing humanity has ever invented.
Yes, they all self-selected for that group, but that doesn't mean their reason for doing so are all the same.
No, their "reason" for doing so is largely all the same; their "reasoning" is different.
Reason, the root cause, is as I stated. Reasoning is something else. This is confusing because "reason" is a noun, and "reason" is also a verb. A person reasoning is a person who reasons; but a person has a reason, and also has a reasoning (gerund).
In any case, the rational mind can decorate behaviors with social constructs. Men largely only fall in love with women whom they are attracted to physically, and straight men never fall in love with other men (and gay men don't fall in love with women, and bisexuals who prefer one sex over the other only fall for that sex). Their reasoning for a relationship is that they have an emotional or spiritual connection, but a cursory observation suggests love is a sexual behavior; scientifically, love is understood as a pair bonding phenomena, with familial love as a strong pair bonding and a social survival trait, and romantic love as a sexual attraction combined with a strong pair bonding. When someone says, "She's such a great person," "He's so driven," and so on, they're largely focusing on traits a lot of people they've met have, but which stand out to them due to this pair bonding: none of these things are actually why they have feelings for this person.
You assert that vegans are different from this: that they have nothing but an arbitrary, foundationless moral belief about eating meat. There's no such thing; it doesn't exist, and cannot. Two hundred years ago, 30-year-old men routinely selected 12-year-old girls they wanted to fuck, and got married, and then you had a pregnant 13-year-old having a baby at 14; today, any suggestion of attraction to someone under the age of 18 is considered morally reprehensible. One hundred years ago, it was not considered without virtue to hang a black man without trial; today, it's considered one of the worst atrocities of humanity. Fifty years ago, gay people were routinely arrested or executed for the crime of being homosexual. These were all, at some time, a moral imperative of society, and then became different moral imperatives.
Once a person assimilates into a social position, they must protect it. Deviation from that stance is distressing. Veganism is no different: they can't eat meat because it would harm them psychologically by damaging their self-image.
That is hilarious. Your entire administrative chain is retarded.
Actually, by what I have been hearing lately they want to have a British operation doing their European business so they'll be in the EU common market, then they want to route all their $10 million of product sales though a shell company in Luxembourg where they make a secret tax agreement with the authorities to pay taxes of less than 1% while nominally paying the much higher Luxembourg corporate tax and VAT.
Which doesn't work, because walking into a country and selling products or services subjects you to that country's taxes. The moment they set foot in France or China and perform a business operation, that operation is taxed by France or China. If their HQ is in the US, their Chinese and French operations are taxed in China AND in the US.
If you didn't pay taxes on business performed within a country, foreign services would always be less expensive than local services.
Why that for salt? Did early man drink salt water, or otherwise eat salt? Salt as a spice is relatively new. Spices at all, and cooking are new-ish as well.
Not sure. I've seen some studies that suggest salt in high concentrations is not harmful. Likely, man has occasionally encountered brackish water, and drunk it; whether high tolerance for salt is a result of evolution to deal with significant brackish water intake or just the simple fact of the kidneys being that adaptable by chance is beyond my ken. I do know that this doesn't work if you don't have a lot of potassium intake, as you would if you were a wild caveman foraging for food from the potassium-rich sources of nature.
And none of the studies really treat individuals as individuals. As you've said, you are near-unique, with a bizarre addiction to animal fat. I've gone years with no animal fat or protein with no effect on my immune system.
I'm rather strange. I also had a friend who could not eat meat at all; it would make her violently ill, and could become life threatening. Some people do manage a vegetarian diet, and a few are healthier on it; as I said, many who are healthy on veganism are even healthier with some meat in their diet; and plenty of people become weak and sickly, but not catastrophically ill, enough to be discouraged from the whole thing. It's a big spectrum, and a significant chunk of it is better off with meat.
Chinese diet (which contains no Chinese food, as known in the US) is very healthy. That's why you see lots of short, skinny Chinese people. Low protein, so low growth, and healthy, so fewer fat people.
The Chinese don't seem a very healthy people to me. They have historically come in great numbers to win wars, built great things by exploitation of labor until death (the Great Wall has dead bodies as filler, where the workers died from exertion), and generally not shown prowess as the strongest and healthiest in the world. Up through the 1970s, the average life expectancy in China was 30-40 years, and the mortality rate under 5 years old was nearly the highest in the world. What happened after the 1970s?
Before China’s economic reforms of the late 1970s, the typical Chinese diet consisted primarily of grain products and starchy roots, with few animal source foods, caloric sweeteners, or fruits and vegetables. Since the 1980s, Chinese people have experienced drastic changes in their food consumption behavior and nutritional status as a result of rapid economic development, expansion of agricultural production, globalization, urbanization, and technological improvement. These social and economic changes have helped shift the Chinese dietary structure toward increased consumption of energy-dense foods that are high in fat, particularly saturated fat, and low in carbohydrates. Dietary changes have been accompanied by a decline in energy expenditure associated with sedentary lifestyles, motorized transportation, labor-saving devices at home and at work, and physically undemanding leisure activities.
Massive health improvements due to a shift from 95% grain and vegetables to a large proportion of fatty meats.
Yes. Prions can be passed by consumption of human meat, and are difficult to eradicate. They can pass fatal familial insomnia, CJD, and other diseases. Deer can pass Chronic Wasting Disease to humans, and so the nervous tissue is quickly discarded; eating human flesh infected by CWD can also pass CWD to humans, although human-to-human transmission otherwise is more difficult. Mad cow disease is also a prion, and the central reason why it is illegal to mix beef parts into beef feed.
I wouldn't have any sort of moral issues consuming human meat that was offered. I'd have issues with the acquisition and preparation (murder), the health issues, and personal squeamishness; the actual consumption of meat isn't a moral or ethical issue, and I see no crime in what is called defiling a corpse--dead people don't give a shit. If I were captive in some way which this was a primary form of sustenance, avoidance behavior would largely revolve around health issues in the same way that unprotected sex with anyone I meet is avoided for health issues.
Actually, meat is digested by stomach acid and enzymes such as pepsin and trypsin. Gut flora are more useful in digesting carbohydrates (e.g. lactose) and processing certain minerals into useful vitamins. Fats and proteins are much less affected. Likewise, the facilities required for digesting meat are also required for digesting proteins in grains, plants, and nuts.
You pretty much just asserted that vegans are an enigmatic mystery not understood by man. Possibly, you just asserted that anything dealing with human psychology is invalid, which carries the implication that human interactions are wholly random and be neither understood nor manipulated, which further implies that people don't actually have things they do and don't like or believe.
All such things are illogical. You make a hollow assertion, while also trying to shroud it in incorrect language. There are no opinions, only facts; we label as opinions certain facts which are complex due to the nature of personal preference. For example: a preference for pizza over tacos is an opinion--that pizza tastes better--and is largely formed by the facts of what a person has eaten before, what his palate has been trained for, and thus what appeals to him more. An assertion that pizza has more calories than tacos is a fact--it may be incorrect, but it's a simple data point which cannot change without physical changes to the medium. Disposition--the opinion that pizza tastes better--is also a fact, although its scope is limited to the person's preferences, and this scope is implicit.
What I pass off is an analysis of behavior. Vegans, when faced with a situation whereby there is no harm done by eating meat products placed in front of them, will reject meat; attempting to override this induces stress in the vegan. This cannot be for any reason other than a person's self-image: if a person is lead to believe that performing an action will cause no harm, but still finds great distress in performing the action, it is because they cannot reconcile their self-image with the ideal of themselves performing the action. In many such situations, the person refuses to accept any such assertion that performing the action would cause no harm, as it is equally distressing to view their own behavior as not carrying the meaning they've attached to it: they're more likely to just reject any physical considerations and apply the same viewpoint in all situations.
Facts. Facts facts facts. Facts. Facts facts. Facts. Gettin' in ur way.