irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect : "Don't go overboard with the gratitude," he rejoined with heavy irony. See note at WIT. [...]
sarcasm: the use of irony to mock or convey contempt : his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment. See note at WIT.
From the usage note at wit:
Irony is the implicit humor in the contradiction between what is meant and what is expressed, or in the discrepancy between appearance and reality. An example would be to shout, in the midst of a hurricane, "What a perfect day for a wedding!" Although sarcasm may take the form of irony, it is less subtle and is often used harshly or bitterly to wound or ridicule someone. Unlike irony, however, sarcasm depends on tone of voice for its effect (: "a fine friend you turned out to be!" he said, with obvious sarcasm).
So in this case, XanC is right. You could say burris was using sarcasm, but it was more like irony, as he was being very subtle.
If you don't know why irony is, stop using the word!
Last year, Maryland raised marginal tax rate on millionaires. This year, the number of millionaires in Maryland dropped by 30% and total tax revenue collected from them dropped as well.
Lemme see. Last year, Forbes counted 1,125 billionaires in the world, and this year only 793. So the number of billionaires dropped by 30%. According to your logic, that's because they moved to... Mars?
Adobe stores a cache of all flash ads and components that are seen on sites that you visit.
So if you are browsing porn, (possibly even on Private Browsing mode... I'm not sure), even with resetting and clearing your history and cache, you can still get some idea of the websites visited by looking in the user's Library/Preferences/Macromedia/Flash Player/ folder and looking in the subfolders there (eg. follow through the #SharedObjects folder, and the macromedia.com folder and they have folders naming the sites visited in each).
Even when most people think they've cleaned up traces of where they've been, it's trivial on a Mac to get a list of sites that they've visited.
Mmmmm... but that is not exclusive to Safari, that's a Macromedia folder... I'm pretty sure that if you visit a page with Flash ads in FireFox or any other browser you will populate the exact same directory.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there is exactly the same directory somewhere in Windows being populated by Flash regardless of the browser. After all, thats a Macromedia folder, I see no reason why they would design that differently for Safari or for the Mac.
Lyx files aren't exactly the same as latex files either, so they need to be converted to.tex before being sent to a journal and since some things don't always quite convert properly, you have to go through and debug the tex file.
That doesn't make any sense. When compiling the document, LyX always creates a valid LaTeX file and then runs either latex or pdflatex (depending on the output/method you choose) on it.
If the intermediate LaTeX file works, so will the LaTeX file you "exported" the LyX file to.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I just found a link that showcases a few of BibTeX's major citation+bibliography formats, and thought someone may be interested:
Word supports a bunch of bibliography managers like EndNote. The combination beats out TeX.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. EndNote has the advantage of being good as a bibliography manager. But unless it has improved a lot in the last three or four years since I last used it, it really feels clunky when compared to some BibTeX bibliography managers such as BibDesk (which by the way is free). I wouldn't change BibDesk for EndNote even if I got paid to do it!
Now, regarding the actual generation of the formatted bibliography, BibTeX works smoothly and very reliably with LaTeX. The same cannot (could not?) be said of EndNote and Word. It is evident that support for EndNote was bolted on top of Word. I've seen EndNote generate bizarre entries, or, more commonly, a bibliography that looks OK suddenly becomes mangled as the Word document evolves (of course you can always regenerate it).
One area where EndNote+Word excels: when you want to generate your own bibliography format. You will find.bst (BibTeX format) files for pretty much any mayor citation style out there, and they work like a dream. Want to change your IEEE-formatted bibliography/citations to AMS or IOP or harvard or APA style? Just change the name of the.bst file you are calling. (Although for harvard-like citations you may also need to call NatBib, but that's one line of code). But if you want to come up with your own personal style you would have to develop your own.bst file, which is painful compared to EndNote's tools. But seriously, are you so picky that none of the dozens (hundreds?) of mayor styles out there will suffice?
Maybe this is the "Mac tax" everyone talks about? I never understood what that meant, but if Mac users have to keep spending ~$150 every other year to upgrade from 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 (plus the necessary RAM upgrades), then that could get damn expensive.
Except that... you didn't spend ANY of that money upgrading THAT machine. Not even your friend spent the money.
So now you can spend ~$150 for the first time ever in that machine's life and get 10.4 on it. That should be enough for the life of that old Mac. Or maybe it can handle 10.5, that's even better.
I've had the same XP installation since 2002. I've never had to spend a dime to upgrade from XP to SP1 to SP2 to SP3.
That's because MS delayed the release of Longhorn (Vista) for so many years: there was no new OS to upgrade XP to. (Originally Longhorn was expected to ship in late 2003, and yes, you would have had to pay for it.) And when they finally released Vista... it turned out to be so bloated that pretty much no PC from 2002 would is able to handle it anyway!
On the Mac side the best approach would have been to skip 10.3 and buy 10.4 in 2005. There you have it. $150 in total and you would have had a kick-ass machine with an OS that many consider better than XP or Vista for four years now.
Hmmm... someone didn't even read the abstracts that were given to him.
panthroman already pointed out that the first study specifically addresses the fact that the animals tend to face the magnetic and not the geographic north.
From the abstract of the other paper:
Body orientation of cattle and roe deer was random on pastures under or near power lines. Moreover, cattle exposed to various magnetic fields directly beneath or in the vicinity of power lines trending in various magnetic directions exhibited distinct patterns of alignment. The disturbing effect of the ELFMFs on body alignment diminished with the distance from conductors.
The only thing keeping iTunes relevant is the fact that Apple won't let anything else talk to the iPhone, and they refuse all other music players for the device.
It seems you are mixing up iTunes (the media player) and the iTunes Store, which you access through the iTunes player.
You need iTunes if you have an iPod or iPhone. But you don't need the iTunes Store, which is the topic of discussion, since you can use Amazon's MP3s (or any other non-DRMed files) in iTunes and in your iPod/iPhone.
Similarly, you can use your iTunes Plus files on any player that plays AAC, i.e., most players sold nowadays.
I can't to this day discuss many of the things I know but when I left the service in 1963 I was inspecting little light 1 kiloton tank killers and rumors had an atomic rifle grenade...
You weren't inspecting any such things because they never existed. Nor can there be such a thing as an atomic rifle grenade - as the minimum mass for a practical fission explosion far exceeds what a rifle can project.
Dude, why are you so aggressive? The GP obviously got confused by the terms but in essence he is right about these points. The Davy Crockett that you admit you forgot about could be launched from a recoilless rifle. That doesn't make it a "rifle grenade" in the traditional sense, but for someone who learned about its existence from gossip the confusion is understandable.
If anything, your post reeks of zealotry. A new team of researchers is reporting interesting results from an experiment similar to the infamous 1989 one. It's almost certainly not fusion, and for all we know they may be misinterpreting the data anyway. But your reaction to someone who just says "hey, maybe, mayyyyybe there is something happening here that we can't (currently) explain" is to immediately dismiss them, reject everything they say, and ridicule them, even if that means overlooking some facts that you should obviously know.
That closed-mindedness is almost as damaging to science as teams of researchers making outrageous claims that they don't fully understand about a field that is not of really their expertise when they get unusual results. Being stubbornly close-minded is as bad for a scientist as just being wrong.
Then, let's have a date. When cured? Give me a deadline that you think it will happen.
If you know what you are talking about so much, then let's have a date. It's such a simple thing, three numbers, two slashes. Out with it.
If you knew what you are talking about, you would be aware that there is no fixed time between the start of a clinical trial and the release of the drug to the general public.
By the way, the study that you gave was for a company that did it WITHOUT public funding.
All stem cell research is at, best, a corporate subsidy.
First, TFA talks precisely about the restrictions imposed by the Bush administration on federal funding for most embryonic stem cell research. A HUGE chunk of the funding for research on health issues comes from the NIH, and thus is of federal origin. None of that money could go to projects like that one. No wonder the study I cited (and most other involving embryonic stem cells) received its funding from other sources. Precisely what TFA implies is that this kind of studies is going to receive a huge boost in the coming years as more funding becomes attainable.
Second... if the cold, heartless private companies that only care about profit are getting behind it, it's probably because they see it as likely and very lucrative. The fact that the private sector is funding this is actually a sign of strength.
You got your arguments mixed up. You used a typical argument used to belittle some research projects: "That project is subsidized by the state. It wouldn't have seen the light of day if it wasn't for public funding provided ultimately by the tax payers. The private sector would never fund such a waste of money." And you tried to use it in the opposite scenario... Amusing!
I bet that there are NO cures for cancer, NO blind man seeing, and NO crippled people walking due to stem cell research, in our lifetimes. All of this talk about the immediate need to fund stem cell research is just so much hype.
[...]
The reason that stem cell research needs federal funding is because THERE ARE NO CURES IN SIGHT FOR ANYTHING FROM THEM.
Actually there are MANY current studies using stem cells, and in particular embryonic stem cells, in promising treatments for a large range of diseases. Some of them are already approved for human trials and therefore will probably see the light in mainstream medicine in very few years.
If I live in a state that goes 49% for party X, and 51% for party Y, you can't even argue that giving 100% of our states votes to party Y makes the least bit of sense.
States are supposed to pic a executive. The select an executive to represent the STATE. They send electors (the number of which is weighted by population) to vote for that executive. How can a state pick 51% of an executive? And 49% of another? They pick a SINGLE executive, not two, three or more.
No, no, NO! In that scenario 49%, that is almost HALF of the people in that particular state, DO NOT agree with choosing that particular representative! It is true that in the end only one representative will be chosen, but it is completely absurd to turn a blind eye on the opinion of half of the voters of your state when the race is still ongoing!
By removing this system, you effectivly remove any executive representation to small states. Preseidents will be elected by large cities (Los Angeles, New York City, etc) of a handfull of states. Executive decisions will be based on the needs of those few zones rather than the country as a whole.
That is an argument for having an EC distribution that is not proportional to the states' populations. That is why the number of electors is equal to the number of electoral districts plus two, so the small states get a small advantage over the big ones. But it has NOTHING to do with the winner-takes-all system, which could be eliminated without changing this advantage (e.g., what Iowa is proposing). Remember we are talking about a state where HALF of the people don't agree with the winner-takes all result!
Face it, the electoral system of the US, in particular the winner-takes-all policy that almost all states follow, is an embarrassment for the country. People here are brainwashed into believing that because we do it that way it is good, but it is not. Foreigners have a hard time understanding the system because of its complexity, but when they finally do they LAUGH at us and our pretensions of being the "leaders in democracy".
Our system is really rotten. It mathematically allows the candidate with almost 75% of the popular vote to lose. It mathematically allows the candidate that gets almost 50% of the popular vote to not get a single electoral vote and lose to the candidate that got just over 25% of the votes. Granted, these are extremely unlikely scenarios, but mathematically they could happen.
I don't know of ANY electoral system in the world that is perfect. I can poke holes in absolutely all the ones I have come to know. But of all those electoral systems I don't now of ANY single one of them that is more flawed than the one used by the USA. And that is a shame.
...Even at the most expensive prices in the US (20 cents per Kwh), this is roughly two dollars a month.
So yes, roughly $25 per year. Per device.
So if your household income after taxes is $35,000 (quite low, specially in those places where electricity costs 20 cents/Kwh), this is 0.07% of your income. Ouch! Also, if your monthly electric bill averages $180 (very conservative if they charge 20 c/kWh), that's 1.15% of the total bill.
Per device.
If you have more than two devices on which you can't turn EPG off, you most certainly earn way more than $35,000, even after taxes.
Now, most places in the US charge FAR less per kWh, frequently under 10 cents. In those cases, it is still cheaper than a cheap $19 subscription to TV Guide. (Normally you get it for $40/year, I'm being generous here).
That is a myth. Japan never offered to surrender. They offered to negotiate an end to the war but they would have kept Korea and most of what the had left in China..
I suggest you read this comment by KarrdeSW. He cites good sources that dispute your assertion.
"My iPhone is a heck of a lot slimmer than the Nokia candy bar phone I was using up until now"
You do realize we live in a 3 dimensional world, don't you? There are two other dimensions to consider in addition to width. And here is a hint - the other two dimensions are larger than the average cell phone size.
In a 3 dimensional world, the most important measure of size is volume: iPhone: 4.5" x 2.4" x 0.48" = 5.184 cu in
On the other hand, Nokia 6030: 4.40" x 1.90" x 0.90" = 7.524 cu in (or 45% more than the iPhone) Nokia N73: 4.33" x 1.93" x 0.75" = 6.268 cu in (or 21% more) Nokia N78: 4.45" x 1.93" x 0.59" = 5.067 cu in (or 2.3% less) Nokia N82: 4.41" x 1.98" x 0.68" = 5.938 cu in (or 15% more)
Cool. But the next article links to Google's Browser Security Handbook, which in the Introduction says this about browser usage:
Microsoft IE 6: 23% Microsoft IE 7: 47% Microsoft IE 8 (beta): n/a Mozilla Firefox 2: 5% Mozilla Firefox 3: 15% Apple Safari: 5% Opera: ~1% Google Chrome: ~1% Android: n/a
So Firefox has ~ 20/27 = 74% of the browser usage.
Of course usage is not the same as marketshare, but the numbers do suggest that while the marketshare held by Firefox is increasing overall, compared to the rest of the alternative browsers (Safari, Opera, Chrome) its marketshare would actually be decreasing. Interesting indeed.
Regarding your idea of proportional votes, that would be fine with me since it preserves the principal, but since that will never happen there is not much value in discussing it.
If no one ever discusses it, it will indeed never happen. Only if people start discussing it (or any other reform to the current system), there will be a chance that some day the change will happen.
If more people were educated about the history of the Electoral College and about details on how it works, and if they were told that there ARE alternatives that preserve the (IMO very few) advantages it holds, change will most certainly come about.
In fact, if people realized that the rest of the world silently makes fun of the USA for their clunky electoral system they would start looking for alternatives, if only for national pride.
[...] unveiled a massive concerted effort to become the electric vehicle capitol of the United States.
Sorry to be the spelling Nazi, but (from the New Oxford American Dictionary):
Capitol 1 the seat of the U.S. Congress in Washington, DC. â ( capitol) a building housing a legislative assembly : 50,000 people marched on New Jersey's state capitol. 2 the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill in ancient Rome.
ORIGIN from Old French capitolie, capitoile, later assimilated to Latin Capitolium (from caput, capit- âheadâ(TM) ).
On the other hand:
capital noun 1 (also capital city or town) the most important city or town of a country or region, usually its seat of government and administrative center. â [with adj. ] a place associated more than any other with a specified activity or product : Milan is the fashion capital of the world. [...]
I'm not a native English speaker and even I knew that.
Okay, then why does iPhoto? It has a range of photo-editing tools and can open many windows for individual photos. It always seemed pretty "document based" to me.
You are misunderstanding what "document based" means, because you are combining in your mind the abstract concept of the photograph with the original JPEG or RAW file you imported into iPhoto. From the point of view of iPhoto the photograph is not a file but more like an entry in a database. (Yes, I know it's not a real database, bear with me for a moment). That entry may have several files linked to it: the original file, a file with any edits you may have made, thumbnails, etc.
If you try to shake off your preconceptions (something easier for those not technically oriented, as they have fewer preconceptions), you may understand that this is fundamentally different from, say, Word, or Pages, or Preview, where you are actually dealing with a specific file in your file system, one that even a novice user can easily pinpoint.
Okay, again I'll use iPhoto. A function - and arguably the application's main function - of iPhoto is to synch photos from your camera when you plug it in. In this case it seems that it would be appropriate for the application to keep running ready to copy photos off cameras you plug in even if the main window viewing the library of photos is closed.
No, the application doesn't need to be running because it will be started automatically when the camera is connected. That is how it is set by default. If for some reason you changed this setting, you can reset it in the Preferences of the Image Capture application. (I will admit that such setting should also be in the Preferences for iPhoto, or in some other more evident place).
The article I linked to is perfectly clear and gives very good examples of what McCain can't do and what is difficult for him. All revealed by the senator himself. That he can handwrite is clearly known. And we all know that there are ways of controlling a computer that are in now way related to typing (thus only answering emails would be too hard and need his wife's assistance).
Too bad you are so adamant about your political choices that you refused to read the article. But well, what can we do when people don't see a difference between politics and religion.
The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.
Bullshit.
This article gives a very good description of McCain's ailments. In summary, he cannot raise his arms over his head which means he cannot do common things such as combing his own hair. Also, other activities that require him to stretch his arms at the shoulder, such as putting on a jacket by himself, become quite difficult for him.
Guess what: typing on a computer is not such an activity. From the point of view of his ailments, it's as hard as handwriting, something he actually does. Furthermore, you don't need to type a lot in order to just browse the web. And even if he really could not type at all, there are other ways to control a computer.
Face it, McCain doesn't use a computer simply because, like other elderly persons, he's afraid of learning something new and alien to him. Using his war injuries as an excuse is just pathetic.
There are rumours that the device is multitouch capable at hardware level but disabled at software level due to Apple patents on multi touch interface.
Regardless of the reason, the point is that the G1 is not, at the time, multi-touch capable (at least as the consumers get it).
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, chill out and grab a dictionary.
From the New Oxford American Dictionary:
irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect : "Don't go overboard with the gratitude," he rejoined with heavy irony. See note at WIT. [...]
sarcasm: the use of irony to mock or convey contempt : his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment. See note at WIT .
From the usage note at wit:
Irony is the implicit humor in the contradiction between what is meant and what is expressed, or in the discrepancy between appearance and reality. An example would be to shout, in the midst of a hurricane, "What a perfect day for a wedding!"
Although sarcasm may take the form of irony, it is less subtle and is often used harshly or bitterly to wound or ridicule someone. Unlike irony, however, sarcasm depends on tone of voice for its effect (: "a fine friend you turned out to be!" he said, with obvious sarcasm).
So in this case, XanC is right. You could say burris was using sarcasm, but it was more like irony, as he was being very subtle.
If you don't know why irony is, stop using the word!
Indeed.
Last year, Maryland raised marginal tax rate on millionaires. This year, the number of millionaires in Maryland dropped by 30% and total tax revenue collected from them dropped as well.
Lemme see. Last year, Forbes counted 1,125 billionaires in the world, and this year only 793. So the number of billionaires dropped by 30%. According to your logic, that's because they moved to... Mars?
Adobe stores a cache of all flash ads and components that are seen on sites that you visit.
So if you are browsing porn, (possibly even on Private Browsing mode... I'm not sure), even with resetting and clearing your history and cache, you can still get some idea of the websites visited by looking in the user's Library/Preferences/Macromedia/Flash Player/ folder and looking in the subfolders there (eg. follow through the #SharedObjects folder, and the macromedia.com folder and they have folders naming the sites visited in each).
Even when most people think they've cleaned up traces of where they've been, it's trivial on a Mac to get a list of sites that they've visited.
Mmmmm... but that is not exclusive to Safari, that's a Macromedia folder... I'm pretty sure that if you visit a page with Flash ads in FireFox or any other browser you will populate the exact same directory.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there is exactly the same directory somewhere in Windows being populated by Flash regardless of the browser. After all, thats a Macromedia folder, I see no reason why they would design that differently for Safari or for the Mac.
Lyx files aren't exactly the same as latex files either, so they need to be converted to .tex before being sent to a journal and since some things don't always quite convert properly, you have to go through and debug the tex file.
That doesn't make any sense. When compiling the document, LyX always creates a valid LaTeX file and then runs either latex or pdflatex (depending on the output/method you choose) on it.
If the intermediate LaTeX file works, so will the LaTeX file you "exported" the LyX file to.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I just found a link that showcases a few of BibTeX's major citation+bibliography formats, and thought someone may be interested:
http://amath.colorado.edu/documentation/LaTeX/reference/faq/bibstyles.pdf
Word supports a bunch of bibliography managers like EndNote. The combination beats out TeX.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. EndNote has the advantage of being good as a bibliography manager. But unless it has improved a lot in the last three or four years since I last used it, it really feels clunky when compared to some BibTeX bibliography managers such as BibDesk (which by the way is free). I wouldn't change BibDesk for EndNote even if I got paid to do it!
Now, regarding the actual generation of the formatted bibliography, BibTeX works smoothly and very reliably with LaTeX. The same cannot (could not?) be said of EndNote and Word. It is evident that support for EndNote was bolted on top of Word. I've seen EndNote generate bizarre entries, or, more commonly, a bibliography that looks OK suddenly becomes mangled as the Word document evolves (of course you can always regenerate it).
One area where EndNote+Word excels: when you want to generate your own bibliography format. You will find .bst (BibTeX format) files for pretty much any mayor citation style out there, and they work like a dream. Want to change your IEEE-formatted bibliography/citations to AMS or IOP or harvard or APA style? Just change the name of the .bst file you are calling. (Although for harvard-like citations you may also need to call NatBib, but that's one line of code). But if you want to come up with your own personal style you would have to develop your own .bst file, which is painful compared to EndNote's tools. But seriously, are you so picky that none of the dozens (hundreds?) of mayor styles out there will suffice?
Is it now using Knuth's nice optimal line breaking algorithm with nice hyphenation (sorry, I can't remember who came up with that algorithm) (...)
I'm not sure, but maybe you are talking about the microtypography features incorporated into pdfTeX by Han The Thanh?
Maybe this is the "Mac tax" everyone talks about? I never understood what that meant, but if Mac users have to keep spending ~$150 every other year to upgrade from 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 (plus the necessary RAM upgrades), then that could get damn expensive.
Except that... you didn't spend ANY of that money upgrading THAT machine. Not even your friend spent the money.
So now you can spend ~$150 for the first time ever in that machine's life and get 10.4 on it. That should be enough for the life of that old Mac. Or maybe it can handle 10.5, that's even better.
I've had the same XP installation since 2002. I've never had to spend a dime to upgrade from XP to SP1 to SP2 to SP3.
That's because MS delayed the release of Longhorn (Vista) for so many years: there was no new OS to upgrade XP to. (Originally Longhorn was expected to ship in late 2003, and yes, you would have had to pay for it.) And when they finally released Vista... it turned out to be so bloated that pretty much no PC from 2002 would is able to handle it anyway!
On the Mac side the best approach would have been to skip 10.3 and buy 10.4 in 2005. There you have it. $150 in total and you would have had a kick-ass machine with an OS that many consider better than XP or Vista for four years now.
But no. Your friend had to be cheap.
Hmmm... someone didn't even read the abstracts that were given to him.
panthroman already pointed out that the first study specifically addresses the fact that the animals tend to face the magnetic and not the geographic north.
From the abstract of the other paper:
We have Amazon.
Except that.... Amazon also started selling tracks at $1.29 today. Granted, Amazon's $0.79 songs seem to be more frequent than Apple's $0.69 songs.
The only thing keeping iTunes relevant is the fact that Apple won't let anything else talk to the iPhone, and they refuse all other music players for the device.
It seems you are mixing up iTunes (the media player) and the iTunes Store, which you access through the iTunes player.
You need iTunes if you have an iPod or iPhone. But you don't need the iTunes Store, which is the topic of discussion, since you can use Amazon's MP3s (or any other non-DRMed files) in iTunes and in your iPod/iPhone.
Similarly, you can use your iTunes Plus files on any player that plays AAC, i.e., most players sold nowadays.
You weren't inspecting any such things because they never existed. Nor can there be such a thing as an atomic rifle grenade - as the minimum mass for a practical fission explosion far exceeds what a rifle can project.
Dude, why are you so aggressive? The GP obviously got confused by the terms but in essence he is right about these points. The Davy Crockett that you admit you forgot about could be launched from a recoilless rifle. That doesn't make it a "rifle grenade" in the traditional sense, but for someone who learned about its existence from gossip the confusion is understandable.
If anything, your post reeks of zealotry. A new team of researchers is reporting interesting results from an experiment similar to the infamous 1989 one. It's almost certainly not fusion, and for all we know they may be misinterpreting the data anyway. But your reaction to someone who just says "hey, maybe, mayyyyybe there is something happening here that we can't (currently) explain" is to immediately dismiss them, reject everything they say, and ridicule them, even if that means overlooking some facts that you should obviously know.
That closed-mindedness is almost as damaging to science as teams of researchers making outrageous claims that they don't fully understand about a field that is not of really their expertise when they get unusual results. Being stubbornly close-minded is as bad for a scientist as just being wrong.
Then, let's have a date. When cured? Give me a deadline that you think it will happen.
If you know what you are talking about so much, then let's have a date. It's such a simple thing, three numbers, two slashes. Out with it.
If you knew what you are talking about, you would be aware that there is no fixed time between the start of a clinical trial and the release of the drug to the general public.
But I can give you and expected time: "On average, about 8 years pass from the time a cancer drug enters clinical trials until it receives approval from regulatory agencies for sale to the public." This is far more straight forward than a cancer drug, so chances are that it will move on faster. So your expected TOA: 03/08/2017.
First, TFA talks precisely about the restrictions imposed by the Bush administration on federal funding for most embryonic stem cell research. A HUGE chunk of the funding for research on health issues comes from the NIH, and thus is of federal origin. None of that money could go to projects like that one. No wonder the study I cited (and most other involving embryonic stem cells) received its funding from other sources. Precisely what TFA implies is that this kind of studies is going to receive a huge boost in the coming years as more funding becomes attainable.
Second... if the cold, heartless private companies that only care about profit are getting behind it, it's probably because they see it as likely and very lucrative. The fact that the private sector is funding this is actually a sign of strength.
You got your arguments mixed up. You used a typical argument used to belittle some research projects: "That project is subsidized by the state. It wouldn't have seen the light of day if it wasn't for public funding provided ultimately by the tax payers. The private sector would never fund such a waste of money." And you tried to use it in the opposite scenario... Amusing!
I bet that there are NO cures for cancer, NO blind man seeing, and NO crippled people walking due to stem cell research, in our lifetimes. All of this talk about the immediate need to fund stem cell research is just so much hype.
[...]
The reason that stem cell research needs federal funding is because THERE ARE NO CURES IN SIGHT FOR ANYTHING FROM THEM.
Actually there are MANY current studies using stem cells, and in particular embryonic stem cells, in promising treatments for a large range of diseases. Some of them are already approved for human trials and therefore will probably see the light in mainstream medicine in very few years.
One example of such applications: restoring locomotion after spinal chord injury, a study that was cleared by the FDA for human trials a little over a month ago.
Dude, if you have no idea what you are talking about, it's better to moderate your own opinions.
States are supposed to pic a executive. The select an executive to represent the STATE. They send electors (the number of which is weighted by population) to vote for that executive. How can a state pick 51% of an executive? And 49% of another? They pick a SINGLE executive, not two, three or more.
No, no, NO! In that scenario 49%, that is almost HALF of the people in that particular state, DO NOT agree with choosing that particular representative! It is true that in the end only one representative will be chosen, but it is completely absurd to turn a blind eye on the opinion of half of the voters of your state when the race is still ongoing!
By removing this system, you effectivly remove any executive representation to small states. Preseidents will be elected by large cities (Los Angeles, New York City, etc) of a handfull of states. Executive decisions will be based on the needs of those few zones rather than the country as a whole.
That is an argument for having an EC distribution that is not proportional to the states' populations. That is why the number of electors is equal to the number of electoral districts plus two, so the small states get a small advantage over the big ones. But it has NOTHING to do with the winner-takes-all system, which could be eliminated without changing this advantage (e.g., what Iowa is proposing). Remember we are talking about a state where HALF of the people don't agree with the winner-takes all result!
Face it, the electoral system of the US, in particular the winner-takes-all policy that almost all states follow, is an embarrassment for the country. People here are brainwashed into believing that because we do it that way it is good, but it is not. Foreigners have a hard time understanding the system because of its complexity, but when they finally do they LAUGH at us and our pretensions of being the "leaders in democracy".
Our system is really rotten. It mathematically allows the candidate with almost 75% of the popular vote to lose. It mathematically allows the candidate that gets almost 50% of the popular vote to not get a single electoral vote and lose to the candidate that got just over 25% of the votes. Granted, these are extremely unlikely scenarios, but mathematically they could happen.
I don't know of ANY electoral system in the world that is perfect. I can poke holes in absolutely all the ones I have come to know. But of all those electoral systems I don't now of ANY single one of them that is more flawed than the one used by the USA. And that is a shame.
So yes, roughly $25 per year. Per device.
So if your household income after taxes is $35,000 (quite low, specially in those places where electricity costs 20 cents/Kwh), this is 0.07% of your income. Ouch! Also, if your monthly electric bill averages $180 (very conservative if they charge 20 c/kWh), that's 1.15% of the total bill.
Per device.
If you have more than two devices on which you can't turn EPG off, you most certainly earn way more than $35,000, even after taxes.
Now, most places in the US charge FAR less per kWh, frequently under 10 cents. In those cases, it is still cheaper than a cheap $19 subscription to TV Guide. (Normally you get it for $40/year, I'm being generous here).
That is a myth. Japan never offered to surrender. They offered to negotiate an end to the war but they would have kept Korea and most of what the had left in China..
I suggest you read this comment by KarrdeSW. He cites good sources that dispute your assertion.
Sadly, it's best just to physically destroy the drive after use. I suggest a two-year old child just after its nap ought to do the trick.
I dismantle mine and make those cool clocks out of them for xmas gifts. [...]
Wait, you regularly dismantle your two-year old children? That's disgusting!
"My iPhone is a heck of a lot slimmer than the Nokia candy bar phone I was using up until now"
You do realize we live in a 3 dimensional world, don't you? There are two other dimensions to consider in addition to width. And here is a hint - the other two dimensions are larger than the average cell phone size.
In a 3 dimensional world, the most important measure of size is volume:
iPhone: 4.5" x 2.4" x 0.48" = 5.184 cu in
On the other hand,
Nokia 6030: 4.40" x 1.90" x 0.90" = 7.524 cu in (or 45% more than the iPhone)
Nokia N73: 4.33" x 1.93" x 0.75" = 6.268 cu in (or 21% more)
Nokia N78: 4.45" x 1.93" x 0.59" = 5.067 cu in (or 2.3% less)
Nokia N82: 4.41" x 1.98" x 0.68" = 5.938 cu in (or 15% more)
So, the iPhone is pretty much as big as the smallest candy bar Nokia that I found in a fast query.
From the summary:
Cool. But the next article links to Google's Browser Security Handbook, which in the Introduction says this about browser usage:
So Firefox has ~ 20/27 = 74% of the browser usage.
Of course usage is not the same as marketshare, but the numbers do suggest that while the marketshare held by Firefox is increasing overall, compared to the rest of the alternative browsers (Safari, Opera, Chrome) its marketshare would actually be decreasing. Interesting indeed.
Regarding your idea of proportional votes, that would be fine with me since it preserves the principal, but since that will never happen there is not much value in discussing it.
If no one ever discusses it, it will indeed never happen. Only if people start discussing it (or any other reform to the current system), there will be a chance that some day the change will happen.
If more people were educated about the history of the Electoral College and about details on how it works, and if they were told that there ARE alternatives that preserve the (IMO very few) advantages it holds, change will most certainly come about.
In fact, if people realized that the rest of the world silently makes fun of the USA for their clunky electoral system they would start looking for alternatives, if only for national pride.
[...] unveiled a massive concerted effort to become the electric vehicle capitol of the United States.
Sorry to be the spelling Nazi, but (from the New Oxford American Dictionary):
Capitol
1 the seat of the U.S. Congress in Washington, DC.
â ( capitol) a building housing a legislative assembly : 50,000 people marched on New Jersey's state capitol.
2 the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill in ancient Rome.
ORIGIN from Old French capitolie, capitoile, later assimilated to Latin Capitolium (from caput, capit- âheadâ(TM) ).
On the other hand:
capital
noun
1 (also capital city or town) the most important city or town of a country or region, usually its seat of government and administrative center.
â [with adj. ] a place associated more than any other with a specified activity or product : Milan is the fashion capital of the world.
[...]
I'm not a native English speaker and even I knew that.
Okay, then why does iPhoto? It has a range of photo-editing tools and can open many windows for individual photos. It always seemed pretty "document based" to me.
You are misunderstanding what "document based" means, because you are combining in your mind the abstract concept of the photograph with the original JPEG or RAW file you imported into iPhoto. From the point of view of iPhoto the photograph is not a file but more like an entry in a database. (Yes, I know it's not a real database, bear with me for a moment). That entry may have several files linked to it: the original file, a file with any edits you may have made, thumbnails, etc.
If you try to shake off your preconceptions (something easier for those not technically oriented, as they have fewer preconceptions), you may understand that this is fundamentally different from, say, Word, or Pages, or Preview, where you are actually dealing with a specific file in your file system, one that even a novice user can easily pinpoint.
Okay, again I'll use iPhoto. A function - and arguably the application's main function - of iPhoto is to synch photos from your camera when you plug it in. In this case it seems that it would be appropriate for the application to keep running ready to copy photos off cameras you plug in even if the main window viewing the library of photos is closed.
No, the application doesn't need to be running because it will be started automatically when the camera is connected. That is how it is set by default. If for some reason you changed this setting, you can reset it in the Preferences of the Image Capture application. (I will admit that such setting should also be in the Preferences for iPhoto, or in some other more evident place).
The article I linked to is perfectly clear and gives very good examples of what McCain can't do and what is difficult for him. All revealed by the senator himself. That he can handwrite is clearly known. And we all know that there are ways of controlling a computer that are in now way related to typing (thus only answering emails would be too hard and need his wife's assistance).
Too bad you are so adamant about your political choices that you refused to read the article. But well, what can we do when people don't see a difference between politics and religion.
The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.
Bullshit.
This article gives a very good description of McCain's ailments. In summary, he cannot raise his arms over his head which means he cannot do common things such as combing his own hair. Also, other activities that require him to stretch his arms at the shoulder, such as putting on a jacket by himself, become quite difficult for him.
Guess what: typing on a computer is not such an activity. From the point of view of his ailments, it's as hard as handwriting, something he actually does. Furthermore, you don't need to type a lot in order to just browse the web. And even if he really could not type at all, there are other ways to control a computer.
Face it, McCain doesn't use a computer simply because, like other elderly persons, he's afraid of learning something new and alien to him. Using his war injuries as an excuse is just pathetic.
I believe it's not multi-touch however. I think that was the intended criticism.
Where the hell do you get that?
It's all over the place, for example in Engadget's review:
First, there's the issue of multi-touch -- the G1 doesn't support it at this point.
The Wikipedia page for the G1 says:
There are rumours that the device is multitouch capable at hardware level but disabled at software level due to Apple patents on multi touch interface.
Regardless of the reason, the point is that the G1 is not, at the time, multi-touch capable (at least as the consumers get it).