Sure, it probably *can* be used to produce better/healthier food. But will it?
Absolutely (but that's just my opinion).
Now, be realistic. Seriously. Almost all food modifications have been done simply to increase 'yield' for the producer.
If you mean changes like selective breeding, then yes, for most of the few thousand years that has been going on, the focus has mainly been on faster growing and better producing crops. Although there has been a fair amount of focus on marketability as agriculture has become more commercial, e.g. seedless grapes and watermelons, bananas, etc...
Genetically modified foods, though, definitely include better/healthier aspects. For instance, GM rice is being grown that has higher levels of iron and vitamin A. And it seems there is a lot of focus on disease and pest resistant crops, which allows reduced use of pesticides. Admittedly that is a cost savings for growers, but less pesticide on foods is clearly a win for consumers as well.
In fact many of the 'organic' labels on certain food items are all but meaningless so as organic foods become more popular (and they are, at least for dairy products and meat) I'd expect the major producers will start exploiting that further (slap a label on stuff you already make, charge more for the 'special' food).
I may be misinformed (by an acquaintance who used to help run an organic farm), but my understanding is that requirements are getting more stringent. The popularity of organic foods initially saw a surge of questionable products due to the fact that there were few rules and standards regarding organic foods (particularly labelling requirements). But now clearer standards are being defined so "organic" on a label will have a clear meaning.
Except these 'improvements' only improve shelf-life and manufacturing costs, not quality.
That would be your assumption --perhaps based on the example of the frying oil-- but there is no reason this type of technology can't be used to improve quality, nutrition, flavor, etc.... And given that "health foods" tend to sell for a premium price, you'll probably see attempts to offer improvements in those products using nanotechnology in some form.
Re:I have plenty of reasons to dislike Microsoft..
on
The BBC's Honeypot PC
·
· Score: 1
In fact, it's not clear from the article that ANY of the attacks were successful.
Excellent point. I was wondering about that myself. Maybe the number of actual successful attacks would have been anticlimactic after all the scary stuff about compromised machines and botnets?
Also, your point is about kids willingly joining the army would be valid if they did it willingly.
If you are aware of any instances where that is not the case, some references would be nice.
But in America you put a limit on the amount of social security anyone can claim. So it is highly likely that if you run out of social security you would be very desperate for anywork you could get as starvation is fairly unpleasant. And watching your family starve is probably about the only thing less than pleasant than starving to death yourself.
Obesity -- not starvation -- is the big problem in the U.S. I gather by "social security" you mean public assitance, which is provided at both state and federal level (social security is the name of a specific federal program that pays benefits primarily to retirees). But lets back up a bit -- are we speaking of kids straight out of high school, or adults with families to support? For the moment, I'll address kids fresh out of school since that is probably the vast majority of enlistments in the U.S. armed forces. You imply that (significant numbers of) these kids face the choice of joining the military or starving. And yet, unemployment is fairly low in the U.S. (varies by region). So there is a third choice -- if no jobs are available where you live, move to where jobs are easier to come by. Now before you argue that these kids might not want to move away from family/friends, recall that these are the kids whose families choose to stop supporting them as soon as they're out of school.
This will give people a great incentive to join the army even without the fact that it is the only way a lot of poor kids can afford to go to college.And before anyone claims that they paid there own way through college with no financial help from their parents please include a free place to live while saving for college as financial help.
There are options for going to school aside from having one's parents pay, or getting a job and paying it all yourself. In the case we've been considering --in which the parents no longer provide any financial support -- a student would be elible for federal grants and loans, as well as need based assistance from most schools, and perhaps states. This is based entirely on financial need. If one is a good student, athelete, musician (or other art or performing art), or has other skills, scholarships may be available for that as well.
From your comments, it appears that you are not from the U.S., correct? If that is the case, perhaps you're just not getting the full picture. There are other choices for kids besides joining the military.
Excellent point. Many posts here have whined about "common usage" and the notion that "everyone knows what it means anyway". This may be true of the average native speaker, but small things like that could easily confuse a non-native speaker or reader of English. This is particularly true if one is not used to hearing the language, since most of the common errors are based on words that sound alike.
English is a living language, why do i care if "should have" is technically correct according to some english professor somewhere.
Same reason they teach theory courses to CS students. If you understand the roots of words and phrases and why they mean what they mean, you are better equipped to handle language elements that you have not seen before without having them spoon fed to you.
And in writing, especially in a business context, it demonstrates attention to detail and implies that you are well rounded in your education rather than just technically competent at what you do. As an example, look at any job search book or article. One of the first things you will read is that your resume must be free of spelling and grammatical errors since the whole recruitment process is about eliminating candidates until you are down to the one remaining that gets the offer. Recruiters are happy to have an easy way to make the first cut.
Congratulations on your success. Sorry I missed your other response.
I agree that 10-20 minutes a few times a week will not do much for anyone unless they're in the tiny minority whose diet brings them just to the edge, but not really losing weight consistently. Still 10-20 minutes here and there (say, 2-3 times a day) can add up. And even if you're going at light to moderate intensity, you're burning more calories than just sitting on your ass which is probably the alternative for most people. Quicker results, naturally, require greater intensity and duration. I think the real problem most people have when doing a light cardio session or two per day is that they are not changing their diet enough to stop gaining weight.
Actually 95% of the calories you burn are at resting heart beat.
I'm not sure where you got that number, but it sounds rather high.
The amont of calories you burn at a work out are almost worthless. Cardio is good for working your heart but it won't make you lose weight.
These statements, of course, are utter nonsense. As you can see here, there are many activities that will result in weight loss of a pound of fat per week (around 4000 Calories) or so if performed for 30-45 minutes per day (depending on one's size and intensity level). Provided that one's weight is stable to begin with, which often is not the case for people trying to lose fat. Also, cardio gives an "afterburn" in which you continue to burn calories at a higher rate for a period after you stop exercising (more intense cardio gives a greater effect). You also get this from weight lifting, but weight lifting increases your BMR as well.
Now I'm having to completely alter my diet to lose it from my belly and chest because working out just isn't enough.
Diet changes are often necessary for stubborn areas, or if your diet was bad to begin with. The best strategy for weight loss is a combination of weights, cardio, and diet (and yes, higher protein, lower carbs tends to work better); with a focus on the activities you enjoy (so you'll be less likely to punk out after a couple weeks).
...I've never heard of weightlifting as a weight-loss technique. Fat -> muscle, sure, but you aren't going to lose weight.
It often seems that way because when you start weight lifting you may not see the scale move, or it moves in the wrong direction. This is because you're building muscle as fast or faster than you're losing the fat. Depending on how much fat you have to lose, your fat loss will probably outpace your muscle gain before long. If you're only slightly chubby to begin with (and/or if you get into more serious bodybuilding), you may end up with a net weight gain. But you'll be thinner since muscle is denser than fat.
And to clarify, muscle may replace fat in most areas but there is never a "conversion" of muscle to fat or vice versa. The reason people think muscle can turn into fat is because ex-jocks often change their exercise habits, but don't change their eating habits. Eventually, they end up with fat in the places they once had muscle.
Good cites, but other posters have mentioned that if the person lives there, the OP may have no recourse. So neither case you mentioned quite matches the circumstances. In some ways, that makes sense. By living with someone, you give up a large measure of privacy compared to the public which has no right to any part of your home, or even a landlord whose rights to enter your home are limited by law even though he may own the property.
The OP's brings to mind one of those Fox shock shows from a few years ago about bad behavior "Caught on Tape!" One of the clips was from a guy who put a video camera in his bathroom because (allegedly) he thought his roommate was using his toothbrush (evidently it was often already wet when he went to brush). Turns out his roomie was doing a quick brush to the inside of the toilet each day.
On the other hand, if you just have a religious ceremony but don't properly apply for and file a marriage certificate, you're not legally married (in the U.S. at least). So it is probably fair to say that marriage (today) is more of a civil institution than a religious one. Which is probably a good thing, since a great many laws involve marriage in some way.
If the viscosity of a fluid doesn't influence your speed through it...
Because that is not actually true. The article seems to describe the experiment fairly well, but the underlying theory quite poorly. If objects (or swimmers) were simply launched into the fluid, the difference would be much more obvious. The key point in the experiment is that you gain about the same amount propelling yourself as you lose due to greater drag for the limited range of viscosities investigated (very high or low viscosity could produce different results).
I'm not a pessimist about technology, but I'm disappointed in what has passed for technology since, say the 1960s. As they say --where's the flying cars damnit?
Here. Now before you whine that you can't buy one yet, you should decide which way you want it. On one hand, you're saying the big "technological developments" of late (e.g. the internet) are not really new. Of course that is true, but generally technology doesn't get interesting until it approaches commercial viability. That's when it becomes the next big thing, even though the "breakthrough" that made it possible occurred five or ten years before.
From that perspective, technology isn't really about inventing revolutionary new things or processes. Almost everything is an iterative advancement based on older technology. The bulk of the work in technology is making it useful and affordable.
There's promises about ultra efficient fuel cells and nanotubes and such but there were promises forty years ago as well. They even had better promises back then.
Like computers in every home and office, in cars and appliances? Wrist phones (which never really caught on, but there are phones not much larger than a largish watch)? Video phones (think webcams)?
Think of all the things we have today that weren't available (to the average consumer) 30 years ago (Internet, cell phones --even cordless phones, Tivo --hell you probably didn't have more than 3 or 4 TV channels in 1974 unless you lived in a major metro area). And you're complaining because some things (flying cars and holographic immersion) haven't come along yet.
To answer your question, the "advanced technology" will probably be a small advance here, a little improvement there, that may add up to something significant. Maybe even the "next big thing".
Two different studies, stories, genes, even animals. The first related to recognizing satisfaction from completing work. When the gene is turned off, the satisfaction is not felt, so the monkeys continued to work and work and work.
The current one involves mice that, with the gene in question turn on, were able to run much longer and farther than normal mice despite having the same activity level prior to the test (i.e. they didn't develop better athletic performance with extensive training). Also, they did not gain weight when food intake increased, even though activity did not.
I have a serious question for hemp advocates. Mostly what I hear is that U.S. drug policy is the big barrier holding up all kinds of wonderful benefits of super cheap hemp (tons of uses for the oil, fiber, etc....) The question is, why aren't other countries tapping this phenomenal resource (or if they are, why aren't there more studies/stats showing how great hemp is for everything)?
I'm not saying hemp is a dead end or anything, but many advocates claim it is a virtual panacea for all our woes. Even if it only partly delivers, you'd think more people would be using and studying it.
"Producing hydrogen from sunflower oil could provide a more environmentally-friendly alternative by reducing [pollutants such as carbon monoxide and greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane] while offering an abundant, low-cost and renewable resource that reduces dependence on foreign oil," says the study's lead researcher Valerie Dupont, Ph.D., an energy engineer with the University of Leeds in England.
Of course, carbon dioxide and methane are also produced by the process, so I'm not sure what the advantage is supposed to be. Still, the aim seems to be reducing pollution by not actually burning fuel, with a side benefit of using less petroleum. In that context, using hydrogen from vegetable oil might make some sense. Regarding your specific points:
The reactor doesn't generate hydrogen with 90% efficiency, it generates hydrogen of 90% purity. Given that the off-gas is about half methane (RTFA) it appears to me to be very inefficient.
First part (efficiency vs. purity) you quite right. I'm not sure what the "more efficient" claim is supposed to mean. The most likely thing that comes to mind is that when you use the hydrogen in a fuel cell, more pure would mean more efficient.
There are already engines, and even fuel cells, which can burn hydrocarbons directly. Sunflower oil makes reasonable diesel fuel....
Quite right. It isn't clear what advantage this new process is supposed to afford, except possibly the aforementioned greater purity which could mean better performace and/or longer life from the actual hydrogen fuel cell components.
Hydrogen as a motor fuel suffers from huge problems with storage.
Again, pretty true. Ultimately if we are going to use hydrogen fuel cells to power vehicles, the reformer and fuel cell need to be small and light enough to be on-board. They'll be fed by the real fuel (vegetable oil, ethanol, gasoline, whatever). Eventually, that will be possible/practical. Whether it will ever be preferable to biodiesel (or better yet a hybrid biodiesel/electric drivetrain) or whatever is the next big thing, is anyone's guess.
I'm not sure about this. RPGs, where the character spends most of his/her time just walking around talking to people, the people could say things like "Oooh, this [brand] cola sure hits the spot and it's a chrome cleaner....
That's possible, and it could be done in an amusing/entertaining way. Other possibilities that seem more likely are things like real billboard ads, signs, etc... in any game with a somewhat realistic environment. And product placement in cutscenes and during loads (long load times could then be offset by a price discount since advertisers would get more exposure and thus be expected to pay more).
Add 30-second ads to the process of "leveling up" in an RPG (use your Nike|Reebok|Adidas-brand armor boots to defeat a boss and get to see an ad...tons of fun), and heads would start exploding the world over.
No no. Sponsors pay developers big bucks to have their item be the best -- Adidas boots increase your movement rate by, say 5%, and Reebok by 8%, but Nike naturally outbids everyone and their boots are +15%. Everyone loves Nike the best and their virtual boots are the most sought after. It is win-win-win. Players get a perk, developers/publishers get a new revenue stream (and maybe pass some of that along to gamers? Well, it is theoretically possible), and Nike gets advertising in a market they might otherwise miss (gamers who'd rather play an RPG than watch sports).
Once again, the "special case" argument is posed; I tend to consider that the send of an argument, since it is statistically invalid.
Not sure I follow you here. "Statisically invalid" sounds like what you mean is "what you say is true, but I don't want to recognize it because it doesn't support my view".
Of course it's not impossible for you to go. But you have a huge statistical burden to overcome....
Statistical burden? You mean financial burden, right? An individual's success is not predicated on what others in similar circumstances do or have done. Grants, loans and (to a lesser extent) scholarships are available to anyone who can get accepted to college. It is harder than just having the money, but it is realistic for anyone who is not a *special case*, e.g. is needed to support their family at home. By the way, I just tossed out $100K because that (or a similar number) seems to get bandied about as the "average cost of college" or some such in reference to what parents will have to pony up (usually some time in the near future).
While I like the fact that [the military] is a valid route to get an education for many, I find it sad that so many of them are now cannon fodder in Iraq....
I agree. Unfortunately, that risk is part of the cost.
As for your article, that is for attending college immediately after high school. The total case, however, is that there is a notably lower percentage of blacks who attend college than whites.
That was my impression. As I said, I did only a brief search and didn't find anything of interest besides the article. If you have a link to some data, I'd appreciate it. Particularly if it answers the question: are poor whites more likely to go to college than poor blacks? Another question that occurs to me is whether poor high school students believe they will not be able to afford college, and therefore don't put forth as much effort academically and reduce their chances further. And of course, everything we've touched on is economic rather than racial.
While the collegic system is not intended to be anti-poor, unfortunately, it works in exactly the same way as the poll tax, and thus inhibits black and other minority students as well as the (smaller percentage) white poor from getting an education.
Thanks. You make a good point. It is a lot tougher to go to college if you're poor. But of course, that does not mean that if you don't have $100,000 for college, you can't go.
There are many ways financially challenged people (of all races) can approach higher education. Aside from the hundreds of billions of dollars in scholarships that cover the whole range of need and achievement based awards from both public and private sources (for the moment, we'll totally ignore athletic scholarships), most areas have very affordable and flexible community colleges with vocational as well as academic programs. Plus a number of states are introducing initiatives in which students who perform at a certain level are guaranteed a spot in (and money for) the state university system, such as the Bright Futures program in Florida that another poster mentioned. And though recent events might make is seem less attractive, the GI Bill is still available. And as far as I know, they still let you pick your MOS (hint: don't choose infantry). Or you can simply work your way through school. I'm sure there are other things I'm forgetting, but you get the idea. Poor people may have to work harder for an education, but that has always been true and is the same for people of all races.
Are poor blacks less likely to go to college than poor whites? I looked briefly for some numbers but didn't find much. This article says in part "Much to the surprise of social scientists who traditionally have looked for educational problems among minorities, low-income black and Hispanic men are more likely to go to college right out of high school than white guys...." for whatever that is worth.
You didn't answer the question, rather you made a broad generalization. The question was, in what endeavor are blacks unwelcome? If you believe it is education, please be more specific about how blacks are excluded?
Yes, you have very ably demonstrated how Dr. King felt about Affirmative Action in the 1960s. Sadly, we will never know how he felt about Affirmative Action in the 21st century. We have come a long way over the last 40 years or so. To borrow one of your quotes:
"Integration...is the welcome participation of Negroes into the total range of human activities...."
Are we there yet? If not, in what endeavor are blacks unwelcome? It is not realistic to expect a nation or world free of racism. But are our institutions sufficiently colorblind?
The scientists involved seem to be saying that certain brain structures predispose certain people toward reluctance or caution.
Nope. The research indicates correlation between brain activity associated with emotion and self-identification as a democrat. That's all.
I like learning how these things operate, but the idea that people might try modifying these things to "better the species" scares the shit out of me.
Not to worry. The article clearly states (emphasis added) "One thing is certain: evidence of a neurological difference between liberal and conservative brains would not be another instance of genetic determinism...."
Furthermore, this isn't new information. Both sides have been saying similar things for years (Democrats/Liberals are accused of being ruled by emotion, Republicans/Conservatives are accused of being heartless).
ME: lasting 50 years (in reasonable working condition) does not imply 50 years of useful life.
AC: Um, yes it does.
No, the fact that a product still performs the function it was intended to has no bearing whatsoever on whether that function is desired or needed by the consumer (i.e. useful). Try again.
Better quality? Pictures get printed.
Yes. I'm not enough of a photography enthusiast to argue the relative photo quality of moderately priced cameras of 50 years ago compared to cheap cameras then and now. But the point does not apply to strictly to cameras. Today's cheap piece of crap is often better (quality and/or features) than yesterday's good quality product.
As for New Features- a Camera is supposed to take pictures. Period. What new features can they add?
Auto-focus, electronic zoom, automatic advance and film rewind, faster or variable aperture speed, built-in flash, etc....
Houses. Cars. Buildings. Highways. Bridges.
None of those are consumer products. Cars might make it as an extreme stretch. Try to stay focused.
ME: Buying cheap is not always a bad choice.
AC: IT wastes money and fills up the landfills with waste.
No, spending $50 on a product when a $10 one meets all your needs is a waste of money. If you're worried about landfills, recycle.
Slashdot Mirror
If you mean changes like selective breeding, then yes, for most of the few thousand years that has been going on, the focus has mainly been on faster growing and better producing crops. Although there has been a fair amount of focus on marketability as agriculture has become more commercial, e.g. seedless grapes and watermelons, bananas, etc...
Genetically modified foods, though, definitely include better/healthier aspects. For instance, GM rice is being grown that has higher levels of iron and vitamin A. And it seems there is a lot of focus on disease and pest resistant crops, which allows reduced use of pesticides. Admittedly that is a cost savings for growers, but less pesticide on foods is clearly a win for consumers as well.
I may be misinformed (by an acquaintance who used to help run an organic farm), but my understanding is that requirements are getting more stringent. The popularity of organic foods initially saw a surge of questionable products due to the fact that there were few rules and standards regarding organic foods (particularly labelling requirements). But now clearer standards are being defined so "organic" on a label will have a clear meaning.
That would be your assumption --perhaps based on the example of the frying oil-- but there is no reason this type of technology can't be used to improve quality, nutrition, flavor, etc.... And given that "health foods" tend to sell for a premium price, you'll probably see attempts to offer improvements in those products using nanotechnology in some form.
Excellent point. I was wondering about that myself. Maybe the number of actual successful attacks would have been anticlimactic after all the scary stuff about compromised machines and botnets?
From your comments, it appears that you are not from the U.S., correct? If that is the case, perhaps you're just not getting the full picture. There are other choices for kids besides joining the military.
Regards
Excellent point. Many posts here have whined about "common usage" and the notion that "everyone knows what it means anyway". This may be true of the average native speaker, but small things like that could easily confuse a non-native speaker or reader of English. This is particularly true if one is not used to hearing the language, since most of the common errors are based on words that sound alike.
Same reason they teach theory courses to CS students. If you understand the roots of words and phrases and why they mean what they mean, you are better equipped to handle language elements that you have not seen before without having them spoon fed to you.
And in writing, especially in a business context, it demonstrates attention to detail and implies that you are well rounded in your education rather than just technically competent at what you do. As an example, look at any job search book or article. One of the first things you will read is that your resume must be free of spelling and grammatical errors since the whole recruitment process is about eliminating candidates until you are down to the one remaining that gets the offer. Recruiters are happy to have an easy way to make the first cut.
On first reading, I was sure that headline said "attack monkey". I bet that would be a lot more interesting story.
I agree that 10-20 minutes a few times a week will not do much for anyone unless they're in the tiny minority whose diet brings them just to the edge, but not really losing weight consistently. Still 10-20 minutes here and there (say, 2-3 times a day) can add up. And even if you're going at light to moderate intensity, you're burning more calories than just sitting on your ass which is probably the alternative for most people. Quicker results, naturally, require greater intensity and duration. I think the real problem most people have when doing a light cardio session or two per day is that they are not changing their diet enough to stop gaining weight.
I'm not sure where you got that number, but it sounds rather high.
The amont of calories you burn at a work out are almost worthless. Cardio is good for working your heart but it won't make you lose weight.
These statements, of course, are utter nonsense. As you can see here, there are many activities that will result in weight loss of a pound of fat per week (around 4000 Calories) or so if performed for 30-45 minutes per day (depending on one's size and intensity level). Provided that one's weight is stable to begin with, which often is not the case for people trying to lose fat. Also, cardio gives an "afterburn" in which you continue to burn calories at a higher rate for a period after you stop exercising (more intense cardio gives a greater effect). You also get this from weight lifting, but weight lifting increases your BMR as well.
Now I'm having to completely alter my diet to lose it from my belly and chest because working out just isn't enough.
Diet changes are often necessary for stubborn areas, or if your diet was bad to begin with. The best strategy for weight loss is a combination of weights, cardio, and diet (and yes, higher protein, lower carbs tends to work better); with a focus on the activities you enjoy (so you'll be less likely to punk out after a couple weeks).
It often seems that way because when you start weight lifting you may not see the scale move, or it moves in the wrong direction. This is because you're building muscle as fast or faster than you're losing the fat. Depending on how much fat you have to lose, your fat loss will probably outpace your muscle gain before long. If you're only slightly chubby to begin with (and/or if you get into more serious bodybuilding), you may end up with a net weight gain. But you'll be thinner since muscle is denser than fat.
And to clarify, muscle may replace fat in most areas but there is never a "conversion" of muscle to fat or vice versa. The reason people think muscle can turn into fat is because ex-jocks often change their exercise habits, but don't change their eating habits. Eventually, they end up with fat in the places they once had muscle.
The OP's brings to mind one of those Fox shock shows from a few years ago about bad behavior "Caught on Tape!" One of the clips was from a guy who put a video camera in his bathroom because (allegedly) he thought his roommate was using his toothbrush (evidently it was often already wet when he went to brush). Turns out his roomie was doing a quick brush to the inside of the toilet each day.
On the other hand, if you just have a religious ceremony but don't properly apply for and file a marriage certificate, you're not legally married (in the U.S. at least). So it is probably fair to say that marriage (today) is more of a civil institution than a religious one. Which is probably a good thing, since a great many laws involve marriage in some way.
Because that is not actually true. The article seems to describe the experiment fairly well, but the underlying theory quite poorly. If objects (or swimmers) were simply launched into the fluid, the difference would be much more obvious. The key point in the experiment is that you gain about the same amount propelling yourself as you lose due to greater drag for the limited range of viscosities investigated (very high or low viscosity could produce different results).
Here. Now before you whine that you can't buy one yet, you should decide which way you want it. On one hand, you're saying the big "technological developments" of late (e.g. the internet) are not really new. Of course that is true, but generally technology doesn't get interesting until it approaches commercial viability. That's when it becomes the next big thing, even though the "breakthrough" that made it possible occurred five or ten years before.
From that perspective, technology isn't really about inventing revolutionary new things or processes. Almost everything is an iterative advancement based on older technology. The bulk of the work in technology is making it useful and affordable.
There's promises about ultra efficient fuel cells and nanotubes and such but there were promises forty years ago as well. They even had better promises back then.
Like computers in every home and office, in cars and appliances? Wrist phones (which never really caught on, but there are phones not much larger than a largish watch)? Video phones (think webcams)?
Think of all the things we have today that weren't available (to the average consumer) 30 years ago (Internet, cell phones --even cordless phones, Tivo --hell you probably didn't have more than 3 or 4 TV channels in 1974 unless you lived in a major metro area). And you're complaining because some things (flying cars and holographic immersion) haven't come along yet.
To answer your question, the "advanced technology" will probably be a small advance here, a little improvement there, that may add up to something significant. Maybe even the "next big thing".
Mussolini was really a woman?
The current one involves mice that, with the gene in question turn on, were able to run much longer and farther than normal mice despite having the same activity level prior to the test (i.e. they didn't develop better athletic performance with extensive training). Also, they did not gain weight when food intake increased, even though activity did not.
I'm not saying hemp is a dead end or anything, but many advocates claim it is a virtual panacea for all our woes. Even if it only partly delivers, you'd think more people would be using and studying it.
"Producing hydrogen from sunflower oil could provide a more environmentally-friendly alternative by reducing [pollutants such as carbon monoxide and greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane] while offering an abundant, low-cost and renewable resource that reduces dependence on foreign oil," says the study's lead researcher Valerie Dupont, Ph.D., an energy engineer with the University of Leeds in England.
Of course, carbon dioxide and methane are also produced by the process, so I'm not sure what the advantage is supposed to be. Still, the aim seems to be reducing pollution by not actually burning fuel, with a side benefit of using less petroleum. In that context, using hydrogen from vegetable oil might make some sense. Regarding your specific points:
The reactor doesn't generate hydrogen with 90% efficiency, it generates hydrogen of 90% purity. Given that the off-gas is about half methane (RTFA) it appears to me to be very inefficient.
First part (efficiency vs. purity) you quite right. I'm not sure what the "more efficient" claim is supposed to mean. The most likely thing that comes to mind is that when you use the hydrogen in a fuel cell, more pure would mean more efficient.
There are already engines, and even fuel cells, which can burn hydrocarbons directly. Sunflower oil makes reasonable diesel fuel....
Quite right. It isn't clear what advantage this new process is supposed to afford, except possibly the aforementioned greater purity which could mean better performace and/or longer life from the actual hydrogen fuel cell components.
Hydrogen as a motor fuel suffers from huge problems with storage.
Again, pretty true. Ultimately if we are going to use hydrogen fuel cells to power vehicles, the reformer and fuel cell need to be small and light enough to be on-board. They'll be fed by the real fuel (vegetable oil, ethanol, gasoline, whatever). Eventually, that will be possible/practical. Whether it will ever be preferable to biodiesel (or better yet a hybrid biodiesel/electric drivetrain) or whatever is the next big thing, is anyone's guess.
That's possible, and it could be done in an amusing/entertaining way. Other possibilities that seem more likely are things like real billboard ads, signs, etc... in any game with a somewhat realistic environment. And product placement in cutscenes and during loads (long load times could then be offset by a price discount since advertisers would get more exposure and thus be expected to pay more).
Add 30-second ads to the process of "leveling up" in an RPG (use your Nike|Reebok|Adidas-brand armor boots to defeat a boss and get to see an ad...tons of fun), and heads would start exploding the world over.
No no. Sponsors pay developers big bucks to have their item be the best -- Adidas boots increase your movement rate by, say 5%, and Reebok by 8%, but Nike naturally outbids everyone and their boots are +15%. Everyone loves Nike the best and their virtual boots are the most sought after. It is win-win-win. Players get a perk, developers/publishers get a new revenue stream (and maybe pass some of that along to gamers? Well, it is theoretically possible), and Nike gets advertising in a market they might otherwise miss (gamers who'd rather play an RPG than watch sports).
Not sure I follow you here. "Statisically invalid" sounds like what you mean is "what you say is true, but I don't want to recognize it because it doesn't support my view".
Of course it's not impossible for you to go. But you have a huge statistical burden to overcome....
Statistical burden? You mean financial burden, right? An individual's success is not predicated on what others in similar circumstances do or have done. Grants, loans and (to a lesser extent) scholarships are available to anyone who can get accepted to college. It is harder than just having the money, but it is realistic for anyone who is not a *special case*, e.g. is needed to support their family at home. By the way, I just tossed out $100K because that (or a similar number) seems to get bandied about as the "average cost of college" or some such in reference to what parents will have to pony up (usually some time in the near future).
While I like the fact that [the military] is a valid route to get an education for many, I find it sad that so many of them are now cannon fodder in Iraq....
I agree. Unfortunately, that risk is part of the cost.
As for your article, that is for attending college immediately after high school. The total case, however, is that there is a notably lower percentage of blacks who attend college than whites.
That was my impression. As I said, I did only a brief search and didn't find anything of interest besides the article. If you have a link to some data, I'd appreciate it. Particularly if it answers the question: are poor whites more likely to go to college than poor blacks? Another question that occurs to me is whether poor high school students believe they will not be able to afford college, and therefore don't put forth as much effort academically and reduce their chances further. And of course, everything we've touched on is economic rather than racial.
Thanks. You make a good point. It is a lot tougher to go to college if you're poor. But of course, that does not mean that if you don't have $100,000 for college, you can't go.
There are many ways financially challenged people (of all races) can approach higher education. Aside from the hundreds of billions of dollars in scholarships that cover the whole range of need and achievement based awards from both public and private sources (for the moment, we'll totally ignore athletic scholarships), most areas have very affordable and flexible community colleges with vocational as well as academic programs. Plus a number of states are introducing initiatives in which students who perform at a certain level are guaranteed a spot in (and money for) the state university system, such as the Bright Futures program in Florida that another poster mentioned. And though recent events might make is seem less attractive, the GI Bill is still available. And as far as I know, they still let you pick your MOS (hint: don't choose infantry). Or you can simply work your way through school. I'm sure there are other things I'm forgetting, but you get the idea. Poor people may have to work harder for an education, but that has always been true and is the same for people of all races.
Are poor blacks less likely to go to college than poor whites? I looked briefly for some numbers but didn't find much. This article says in part "Much to the surprise of social scientists who traditionally have looked for educational problems among minorities, low-income black and Hispanic men are more likely to go to college right out of high school than white guys...." for whatever that is worth.
You didn't answer the question, rather you made a broad generalization. The question was, in what endeavor are blacks unwelcome? If you believe it is education, please be more specific about how blacks are excluded?
Yes, you have very ably demonstrated how Dr. King felt about Affirmative Action in the 1960s. Sadly, we will never know how he felt about Affirmative Action in the 21st century. We have come a long way over the last 40 years or so. To borrow one of your quotes:
Are we there yet? If not, in what endeavor are blacks unwelcome? It is not realistic to expect a nation or world free of racism. But are our institutions sufficiently colorblind?Nope. The research indicates correlation between brain activity associated with emotion and self-identification as a democrat. That's all.
I like learning how these things operate, but the idea that people might try modifying these things to "better the species" scares the shit out of me.
Not to worry. The article clearly states (emphasis added) "One thing is certain: evidence of a neurological difference between liberal and conservative brains would not be another instance of genetic determinism...."
Furthermore, this isn't new information. Both sides have been saying similar things for years (Democrats/Liberals are accused of being ruled by emotion, Republicans/Conservatives are accused of being heartless).
AC: Um, yes it does.
No, the fact that a product still performs the function it was intended to has no bearing whatsoever on whether that function is desired or needed by the consumer (i.e. useful). Try again.
Better quality? Pictures get printed.
Yes. I'm not enough of a photography enthusiast to argue the relative photo quality of moderately priced cameras of 50 years ago compared to cheap cameras then and now. But the point does not apply to strictly to cameras. Today's cheap piece of crap is often better (quality and/or features) than yesterday's good quality product.
As for New Features- a Camera is supposed to take pictures. Period. What new features can they add?
Auto-focus, electronic zoom, automatic advance and film rewind, faster or variable aperture speed, built-in flash, etc....
Houses. Cars. Buildings. Highways. Bridges.
None of those are consumer products. Cars might make it as an extreme stretch. Try to stay focused.
ME: Buying cheap is not always a bad choice.
AC: IT wastes money and fills up the landfills with waste.
No, spending $50 on a product when a $10 one meets all your needs is a waste of money. If you're worried about landfills, recycle.