-The necessary biochemistry needed to really analyze the effects of nutrition is still in development. -Food processing in general is a recent adaptation (less than a lifetime), and the effects of it are just now being understood. -The number of degrees of freedom (food types, component chemicals, varied responses to each chemical, factorial responses to multiple combinations, genetics) combined with the inability of really knowing what test subjects eat over a long time make rigorous experimentation impossible. -The fact that the human body can metabolize so many chemicals effectively with such delayed responses...it takes years for someone who was thin to get fat sometimes. Many of the food companies know that Twinkies are delicious, and they were not shy about pushing that crap down easily impressionable young kid's throats.
It's getting more informed now, but if you look back the food pyramid wasn't necessarily bad, even today it's okay to have proteins, vegetables, breads, and dairy, it's the proportions and processing that are under scrutiny.
It's a shame, Radio Shack was so early in the PC game with the tape drives, 16KB of RAM, no hard drive, peek and pokes...they catered to the true tech junkies and with just a bit more business acumen, they could have ruled the computer world.
But then Commodore 64 came out with color and games, then came the the 8086 etc., but for a while the real eggheads knew how to play with the machine that looked like it came straight from the Star Trek bridge.
I don't disagree with your civics, but I'm also a realist. When I put money in a stock, I want the value to grow. That value is based on earnings per share and other technicals, and those technicals are determined from the annual cash flow. Cash flows are affected greatly by taxes, which are always represented as a cost. Institutional investors follow these cash flow tables closely, and their decisions are what determine the market price.
Our tax system is set up to tax high and then give credits/exemptions/loopholes to those who manage to influence the system. If it were set up where there would be relatively fair tax with fewer exemptions, it would be manipulated less and more money would stay here. Or maybe not, I'm not naive enough to think that they wouldn't find another way to pay less.
Dry air behaves ideally until several atmospheres at reduced temperatures well above one, we're talking about 2 atmospheres. Ideal assumption would be fine unless there is humidity. If there is humidity in the air, it gets a little more complicated; you'd have to subtract out the vapor fraction that may condense.
Only those that have diversified assets and the ability to move them into different vehicles (transfer pricing is a key product in accounting firms). A lot of companies pay the full amount.
People forget that the United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and we impose it on American companies foreign-earned capital if they should bring the money back to the States. If you are responsible to the shareholders to be stewards of their investments, you have to take whatever measures you can to avoid heavier than necessary taxes. Hence people park their money off American shores.
This seems like a cash grab to me, where the better option is to really reform the tax code to be equitable within and outside the United States; then the responsible steward of their investors money would feel more free to have that capital here. 20% of 10 million is a lot more than 35% of zero.
I would think that the 20 or so kilograms of uranium from a rocket may be overshadowed by the 4.5 billion tons of uranium already in the ocean.
Not that it shouldn't be protected, but if we want long term propulsion in space, we'll need energy densities that can't be generated from chemical propulsion.
Can't you understand that it is impossible for humans to place something on a comet? It's a hoax, a HOAX I tell you, and all of you swallowed this hook line and sinker.
Sure, you'll reference the wonderfully focused pictures (notice there are no particles on the lens, WHERE ARE THEY?!?!?!) but if you saw Superman throwing Zod into a skyscraper, you didn't believe that did you? Therefore they must be faking it.
It's a conspiracy, I tell you, a CONSPIRACY!!!....
[before you mod this down, realize I'm joking...okay?]
I know for certain that they had the storyline of Obi-wan and Vader fighting on a planet with streams of lava and Vader was burned severely and had lost limbs because around 1981-82 my stepbrother told me that he read that in an interview (I don't remember if it was before or after Episode V release).
My read on this (probably wrong) is that c is the max speed limit and the slow photons are the stragglers of the peloton, which would mean c' for this beam is slightly less then c. Again, probably totally wrong.
Think of many situations where mock-up training is needed (for example, working in radiation fields). If you could practice a task in a safe environment before actually doing it, you could safe hundreds of person-hours of exposure.
These are impressive, and I hope they continue to develop them.
For those across different ponds, John Oliver's takedown of this horrid practice in the United States shows why this was needed. I'm wondering if this piece had something to do with the response.
Good points, I would also add that methane is lighter (MW 16) than air (average MW = 29) and that which doesn't degrade will rise far enough above surface to not have as much of an impact. Unless it's there in sufficient quantities to react with ozone and deplete the layer (not sure if I'm joking or not, I don't know the status of that research).
Jesus said turn the other cheek. The Pope just said words are like sticks and stones, and it's okay to retaliate. This is one of the few comments from this pope that I disagree with strongly (and I'm not a member of a church, he's been brave and kind in many ways).
Scientific conclusion requires a far higher standard of evidence than personal opinion, so even if a scientist is 95% confident that humans cause global warming then many will avoid explicitly concluding this in a scientific paper until there is a much higher degree of certainty based on their explicit experiment.
That is exactly what I said in my last sentence. What the media states is that 97% of the climate scientists believe anthropogenic sources cause climate change, where the majority do not state it explicitly. Your statement is implying that those that stated no opinion really believe in it but withhold for more evidence, my statement states they didn't make a statement, it could be either way. Which position is more distorting?
I reported the results of a metastudy. I leave it to the authors of the papers who took no position to state what their opinion is, from what the review said, they chose not to for whatever reasons. Perhaps they are being prudent scientists in stating that there is not enough evidence to support the hypothesis, but there may be enough evidence to continue doing research.
By the way, in both cases (32.6% and 31.6%), it was less than one-third, I didn't distort anything.
According to one of the key decision makers at the time (Steve Jobs), the US lost manufacturing precisely because we lack STEM degrees. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01...
Overall I'm fine with Tyson, but he has a bad habit of after explaining how science only advances if one questions, that we shouldn't question the science that is proven. Which is a rather serious flaw in science communication.
If you review the abstract of the meta-study, http://iopscience.iop.org/1748..., you'll see that 66% express no position on global warming, 32.6% endorsed it, 0.7% rejected, and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause (but accepted global warming was occuring). Of the 32.6%, 97% said humans were responsible, which yields 31.6% believe humans are causing global warming, or less than one-third.
Before others jump in, expressing no opinion is not affirmation of the hypothesis, it's stating that 'we don't know.'
Slashdot Mirror
I think some of the issues are that:
-The necessary biochemistry needed to really analyze the effects of nutrition is still in development.
-Food processing in general is a recent adaptation (less than a lifetime), and the effects of it are just now being understood.
-The number of degrees of freedom (food types, component chemicals, varied responses to each chemical, factorial responses to multiple combinations, genetics) combined with the inability of really knowing what test subjects eat over a long time make rigorous experimentation impossible.
-The fact that the human body can metabolize so many chemicals effectively with such delayed responses...it takes years for someone who was thin to get fat sometimes. Many of the food companies know that Twinkies are delicious, and they were not shy about pushing that crap down easily impressionable young kid's throats.
It's getting more informed now, but if you look back the food pyramid wasn't necessarily bad, even today it's okay to have proteins, vegetables, breads, and dairy, it's the proportions and processing that are under scrutiny.
It's a shame, Radio Shack was so early in the PC game with the tape drives, 16KB of RAM, no hard drive, peek and pokes...they catered to the true tech junkies and with just a bit more business acumen, they could have ruled the computer world.
But then Commodore 64 came out with color and games, then came the the 8086 etc., but for a while the real eggheads knew how to play with the machine that looked like it came straight from the Star Trek bridge.
I don't disagree with your civics, but I'm also a realist. When I put money in a stock, I want the value to grow. That value is based on earnings per share and other technicals, and those technicals are determined from the annual cash flow. Cash flows are affected greatly by taxes, which are always represented as a cost. Institutional investors follow these cash flow tables closely, and their decisions are what determine the market price.
Our tax system is set up to tax high and then give credits/exemptions/loopholes to those who manage to influence the system. If it were set up where there would be relatively fair tax with fewer exemptions, it would be manipulated less and more money would stay here. Or maybe not, I'm not naive enough to think that they wouldn't find another way to pay less.
Dry air behaves ideally until several atmospheres at reduced temperatures well above one, we're talking about 2 atmospheres. Ideal assumption would be fine unless there is humidity. If there is humidity in the air, it gets a little more complicated; you'd have to subtract out the vapor fraction that may condense.
Only those that have diversified assets and the ability to move them into different vehicles (transfer pricing is a key product in accounting firms). A lot of companies pay the full amount.
People forget that the United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and we impose it on American companies foreign-earned capital if they should bring the money back to the States. If you are responsible to the shareholders to be stewards of their investments, you have to take whatever measures you can to avoid heavier than necessary taxes. Hence people park their money off American shores.
This seems like a cash grab to me, where the better option is to really reform the tax code to be equitable within and outside the United States; then the responsible steward of their investors money would feel more free to have that capital here. 20% of 10 million is a lot more than 35% of zero.
I would think that the 20 or so kilograms of uranium from a rocket may be overshadowed by the 4.5 billion tons of uranium already in the ocean.
Not that it shouldn't be protected, but if we want long term propulsion in space, we'll need energy densities that can't be generated from chemical propulsion.
Yeah, reading the day after, I gotta agree.
Can't you understand that it is impossible for humans to place something on a comet? It's a hoax, a HOAX I tell you, and all of you swallowed this hook line and sinker.
Sure, you'll reference the wonderfully focused pictures (notice there are no particles on the lens, WHERE ARE THEY?!?!?!) but if you saw Superman throwing Zod into a skyscraper, you didn't believe that did you? Therefore they must be faking it.
It's a conspiracy, I tell you, a CONSPIRACY!!! .. ..
[before you mod this down, realize I'm joking...okay?]
I know for certain that they had the storyline of Obi-wan and Vader fighting on a planet with streams of lava and Vader was burned severely and had lost limbs because around 1981-82 my stepbrother told me that he read that in an interview (I don't remember if it was before or after Episode V release).
The rest of the plot? I have no idea.
My view is that George Lucas is great writing the overall story arc, but when it comes to dialog and subtle plotting...he leaves his comfort zone.
I liked the stories behind Episodes I-III (and IV-VI). But the dialog in the movies (especially II) was hard to listen to.
My read on this (probably wrong) is that c is the max speed limit and the slow photons are the stragglers of the peloton, which would mean c' for this beam is slightly less then c. Again, probably totally wrong.
Think of many situations where mock-up training is needed (for example, working in radiation fields). If you could practice a task in a safe environment before actually doing it, you could safe hundreds of person-hours of exposure.
These are impressive, and I hope they continue to develop them.
You posted as AC, I'm sure you've checked to see if you are logged in...right?
You'll note in Oliver's piece that the sheriff in the courtroom referred to civil forfeiture as 'pennies from heaven.' His heaven was America's hell.
For those across different ponds, John Oliver's takedown of this horrid practice in the United States shows why this was needed. I'm wondering if this piece had something to do with the response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Good points, I would also add that methane is lighter (MW 16) than air (average MW = 29) and that which doesn't degrade will rise far enough above surface to not have as much of an impact. Unless it's there in sufficient quantities to react with ozone and deplete the layer (not sure if I'm joking or not, I don't know the status of that research).
Jesus said turn the other cheek. The Pope just said words are like sticks and stones, and it's okay to retaliate. This is one of the few comments from this pope that I disagree with strongly (and I'm not a member of a church, he's been brave and kind in many ways).
Scientific conclusion requires a far higher standard of evidence than personal opinion, so even if a scientist is 95% confident that humans cause global warming then many will avoid explicitly concluding this in a scientific paper until there is a much higher degree of certainty based on their explicit experiment.
That is exactly what I said in my last sentence. What the media states is that 97% of the climate scientists believe anthropogenic sources cause climate change, where the majority do not state it explicitly. Your statement is implying that those that stated no opinion really believe in it but withhold for more evidence, my statement states they didn't make a statement, it could be either way. Which position is more distorting?
I reported the results of a metastudy. I leave it to the authors of the papers who took no position to state what their opinion is, from what the review said, they chose not to for whatever reasons. Perhaps they are being prudent scientists in stating that there is not enough evidence to support the hypothesis, but there may be enough evidence to continue doing research.
By the way, in both cases (32.6% and 31.6%), it was less than one-third, I didn't distort anything.
According to one of the key decision makers at the time (Steve Jobs), the US lost manufacturing precisely because we lack STEM degrees. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01...
Overall I'm fine with Tyson, but he has a bad habit of after explaining how science only advances if one questions, that we shouldn't question the science that is proven. Which is a rather serious flaw in science communication.
The paper surveys papers to 2013, and this is the reference that most of the claims that '97% of climate scientists agree' originate from..
99.9% is a number that you just made up.
If you review the abstract of the meta-study, http://iopscience.iop.org/1748..., you'll see that 66% express no position on global warming, 32.6% endorsed it, 0.7% rejected, and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause (but accepted global warming was occuring). Of the 32.6%, 97% said humans were responsible, which yields 31.6% believe humans are causing global warming, or less than one-third.
Before others jump in, expressing no opinion is not affirmation of the hypothesis, it's stating that 'we don't know.'
Viewing this tweet shows that Arment is a big fan of Scott Forstall, who ran iOS development until he was pushed out after Jobs passed away.
https://twitter.com/marcoarmen...
Not sure if he is chums with him, but taking potshots after your favorite is pushed out isn't uncommon.
As any developer knows, there will always be bugs, and they will be found when you have a billion, and growing, users.