The article doesn't reference weight or obesity directly, but it does reference BMI, waist/hip ratio, and cholesterol, which are more quantitatively meaningful ways of controlling for obesity.
This is not a "study", it's a statistical analysis of a database set that proves nothing at all by itself.
That's called a study. Science, unlike math, doesn't prove things. It does give you a good reason to do more studies to try to understand the relationship better.
That's not how science works. A lot of studies do turn out to be false, but that's not because some guy is fudging numbers. It does happen sometimes, but it's a serious allegation, and for you to simply dismiss a peer reviewed study without evidence puts you in the anti-science crowd.
Did you even read the study before criticizing it? My guess is no. The study does take into account "waist/hip ratio", which is similar for the sugar soda and diet soda groups, among other parameters.
In general relativity, gravity is a curvature of spacetime. It does not produce any proper acceleration of a test object, so it can be regarded as a fictitious force, like centrifugal force. In other words, we can choose coordinates in which there is no acceleration in the test object.
Of course, this is just one way to look at it. In other physical contexts, we can view gravity as a force. It's not wrong to do so, since the meaning is context sensitive.
Translation: Do you want a new stapler in the office? Go fill out this TPS report and get the signature of your supervisor. Then ask the administrator to open up a Purchase Order so they can get a quote from the supplier.
There is always the potential for civilian casualties, especially with large impact remote weapons systems. The next question is what is a legitimate target. I don't think if you are fighting a war for example all civilians are really off limits in terms of targets. What about the guy working in the tire factory, or the oil field. You know his effort supports the war effort and he knows it too but is still working there, is he fair target? What about the farmer tending his wheat field? I would say yes! If taking out that facility means either sweeping it with ground forces and loosing American lives or bombing / sending in terminator unit and killing some 'enemy' non-combatants, better them than us, would be my call.
You make a good war criminal. The problem with going down that route is that everybody loses. Civilization stagnates as infrastructure and knowledge is continually destroyed, so we return to a period where we have fragmented tribes at total war with each other. You don't think America will be able to maintain military superiority forever, do you?
The large number of friendly fire and collateral damage reports suggests that humans are not very good at target recognition. I suspect that AI can do better
I suppose the difference is that those other products were designed by artists, and this one is developed by scientists. The artists have no idea about the technical details of how it supposed to work, and try to hire some engineers to do the actual development. When the numbers don't work out, then they go into full bullshit mode, crafting stories to their backers about supplier difficulties or whatnot.
The scientists are already developing the device and have some prototypes that do things. The claims are large, but Science has a lot more credibility than Kickstarter.
Man, cut the crap. Of course the phone should not allow a new home button to unlock the phone. But once the phone is unlocked by some other means (a long password), there should be a way to reset the functionality of the home button.
Slashdot Mirror
The article doesn't reference weight or obesity directly, but it does reference BMI, waist/hip ratio, and cholesterol, which are more quantitatively meaningful ways of controlling for obesity.
What is remarkable about this study is that apparently every single artificial sweetener has exactly the same association with stroke and dementia.
The study doesn't claim that!
This is not a "study", it's a statistical analysis of a database set that proves nothing at all by itself.
That's called a study. Science, unlike math, doesn't prove things. It does give you a good reason to do more studies to try to understand the relationship better.
facepalm
That's not how science works. A lot of studies do turn out to be false, but that's not because some guy is fudging numbers. It does happen sometimes, but it's a serious allegation, and for you to simply dismiss a peer reviewed study without evidence puts you in the anti-science crowd.
Did you even read the study before criticizing it? My guess is no. The study does take into account "waist/hip ratio", which is similar for the sugar soda and diet soda groups, among other parameters.
And changing jobs every 3-5 years brought in larger raises than staying put.
Bingo. If companies cared about retaining employees, they would give them more than inflation-level raises.
In general relativity, gravity is a curvature of spacetime. It does not produce any proper acceleration of a test object, so it can be regarded as a fictitious force, like centrifugal force. In other words, we can choose coordinates in which there is no acceleration in the test object.
Of course, this is just one way to look at it. In other physical contexts, we can view gravity as a force. It's not wrong to do so, since the meaning is context sensitive.
Defense could be handled by a volunteer militia.
Translation:
Do you want a new stapler in the office? Go fill out this TPS report and get the signature of your supervisor. Then ask the administrator to open up a Purchase Order so they can get a quote from the supplier.
You don't think robots will eventually decide when to fire? It could happen soon!
There is always the potential for civilian casualties, especially with large impact remote weapons systems. The next question is what is a legitimate target. I don't think if you are fighting a war for example all civilians are really off limits in terms of targets. What about the guy working in the tire factory, or the oil field. You know his effort supports the war effort and he knows it too but is still working there, is he fair target? What about the farmer tending his wheat field? I would say yes! If taking out that facility means either sweeping it with ground forces and loosing American lives or bombing / sending in terminator unit and killing some 'enemy' non-combatants, better them than us, would be my call.
You make a good war criminal. The problem with going down that route is that everybody loses. Civilization stagnates as infrastructure and knowledge is continually destroyed, so we return to a period where we have fragmented tribes at total war with each other. You don't think America will be able to maintain military superiority forever, do you?
The large number of friendly fire and collateral damage reports suggests that humans are not very good at target recognition. I suspect that AI can do better
Obviously, the flying cars will be self-driving.
Then it's irrelevant.
Does that include agricultural and industrial water use?
Who said it has to be portable?
I suppose the difference is that those other products were designed by artists, and this one is developed by scientists.
The artists have no idea about the technical details of how it supposed to work, and try to hire some engineers to do the actual development. When the numbers don't work out, then they go into full bullshit mode, crafting stories to their backers about supplier difficulties or whatnot.
The scientists are already developing the device and have some prototypes that do things. The claims are large, but Science has a lot more credibility than Kickstarter.
Self driving cars and self driving buses will come hand in hand. Self driving buses will be cheaper for cities than bus drivers in the long term.
Man, cut the crap. Of course the phone should not allow a new home button to unlock the phone. But once the phone is unlocked by some other means (a long password), there should be a way to reset the functionality of the home button.
He's not hitting Assad. He's hitting Syria. Rulers of the world know that you don't attack other rulers.
You are white.
Another article
http://www.pcmag.com/news/3528...
Alright, if they don't plan on selling our data, then who wrote the legislation? I seriously doubt that politicians by themselves would write this.
Obviously, it's both. Shoppers pay less, but some amount of savings is diverted to CEOs.
Competitive pressure does exist to some degree for LASIK surgery. Doctors will actually try to undercut each other on price.
That's because LASIK is considered an elective procedure and not covered by most insurance companies.