Oh, and BTW, we don't have aspirations of regional military hegemony. We have actual regional military hegemony.:-)
(And by "we" I mean "the U.S." as in "me and the rest of my countrymen". I don't necessarily mean "you and me", since I don't know if you are in U.S. or not.)
Isn't the claim of having pointedly and publicly refused corporate donations completely bogus? I thought corporate donations directly to campaigns was still illegal. The Citizens United stuff is all about corporations spending money independently of the campaigns.
Because you only need 2,000 signatures to get on the ballot. Get a few volunteers to stand around a local shopping mall and you can get that in a weekend or two. ABC has no interest in being required to put anyone on TV who has two friends and a couple free weekends. It would tend to undermine the usefulness of the debate to the viewer, anyway. I know I have no interest in hearing from a bunch of fringe candidates who can't possibly win. That's why they generally have some kind of cutoff of "serious candidateness". Being able to raise $50,000 is not a ridiculous test for the seriousness of a U.S. congressional campaign.
If the original poster is serious about being a U.S. congressman, they should mount a serious campaign and I'm sure ABC would be happy to have them in the debate. A candidate who polls at 7%, has raised no money (regardless of the reason), and gets a few applause lines at a debate is not even remotely in the running.
Besides, the claim of refusing corporate donations is totally bogus. It is still illegal for corporations to donate directly to candidates' campaigns.
Very unlikely that we will ever be able to show/prove that fracking will trigger the big one. The systems are simply too complex. In one configuration, micro-quakes could realign stresses to avoid the big one. In another configuration, micro-quakes could realign stresses to trigger the big one. And since these are non-linear dynamic systems, the butterfly effect rears its head. So it could be that those two systems -- one that leads to the big one and the other that leads away from the big one -- could have only tiny differences in starting configuration.
Every state allows employers to ask about convictions and discriminate based on them (at least based on felonies, I'm not sure about misdemeanors).
But, you said
FYI, you are only legally required to list convictions on job applications.
That is not true.
Would have been more accurately writting "you are legally required to list convictions, whether you have to answer questions about merely being arrested varies by state".
This isn't entirely true. The Richter scale is logarithmic for a reason. Small earthquakes (at least ones as small as they're measuring in these kinds of fracking studies) don't release enough energy to meaningfully change the energy in a large earthquake. But small earthquakes can shift around the stresses such that energy is concentrated into (or diluted away from) regions of a fault. Whether energy will be concentrated/diluted in such manners would be entirely dependent on the configuration of the fault, starting conditions, etc. The system is probably chaotic enough to be virtually impossible to predict.
The most accurate answer to the question of how micro-quakes affect the incidence of major quakes will likely turn out to be "micro-quakes will affect the incidence of major quakes, but it is impossible to predict for any fault system whether major quake activity will increase or decrease in number or severity".
While true, this is immaterial in a non-linear system where energy can be transferred around quite easily. Quakes do not just release energy, they also shift the stresses around, allowing energy to shift between fault lines.
Micro-quakes could simultaneously release energy, and spread the remaining stresses around such that energy cannot be built up into a single large quake. Alternatively, micro-quakes could simultaneously release energy and concentrate the remaining stresses such that even more energy is concentrated into a large quake than would have happened otherwise. Considering how small the energy releases are in small quakes, these second order effects should be much more important than the amount of energy released by the micro-quakes.
Most likely outcome is that such micro-quakes do absolutely nothing of importance to the system. A few hundred or thousand micro-quakes simply would not make a huge difference compared to the amount of energy being concentrated then released in a major quake.
You are only sort of right. Micro-quakes can allow a fault to shift in a way that triggers a big quake that might not have otherwise happened. These are non-linear dynamic systems. It is possible to both release a small amount of energy from the system while concentrating existing energy in the system into a narrow area.
In addition, energy is injected into regional fault systems in a manner that is itself probably not constant and probably relates to the configuration of the regional system at any time.
Put all together, we do not yet have enough information to tell how fracking may affect large earthquakes, whether positively or negatively.
This is too simplistic. Lots of small shifts over here can result in stresses building up faster than normal over there. Enough faster than normal to trigger a big earthquake that might not have happened otherwise.
But the important question is not whether fracking triggers small earthquakes, which would be interesting but not necessarily problematic. The important question is whether fracking triggers large earthquakes (the ones that actually damage things and kill people). The evidence so far seems to show "fracking triggers small earthquakes, but we have no idea how it might affect large earthquakes."
There are states that make it illegal for employers to consider arrest record in employment decisions. Employers in these states are only allowed to consider convictions. Even asking the question can get an employer in trouble in such states.
We weren't worried about Japanese military spying in the 80s because the Japanese had a tiny military, a pacifist constitution and, perhaps most importantly, seemed to have no interest in rebuilding military power.
China has a huge military, is overtly increasing its capabilities and has obvious aspirations to regional military hegemony.
Just look at how much weight loss is experienced by people on raw-only diets. They simply have a hard time getting enough calories, almost regardless of how much they eat.
While you are correct about how limited raw foods are in diets, you are incorrect in the concept that only raw foods exhibit this difference in absorption. You will absorb more calories from a well-done steak than from a rare steak, for example. You will absorb more calories from well-cooked, slightly mushy broccoli than you will from crunchy, slightly steamed broccoli. The differences can be meaningful.
But, also, how cooked something is is only one example of "all calories are not the same". Different foods are easier or harder to digest than others, even controlling for cooked vs raw. Meat is harder to digest than starch, for instance. Your body absorbs more calories from a 100-calorie potato serving than from a 100-calorie meat serving. Again, this is because the laboratory measurements used to determine calories do not mimic the digestive tract. They merely measure the total energy content of the food, regardless of how easily humans could digest/absorb that energy.
Again, it's possible that the types of food that tend to have BPA are the types of food that, for whatever reason, people tend to misreport. It would make sense, because foods with BPA tend to be the kinds of foods we are told are particularly bad for us -- soda, fast food, packaged foods.
A fat person who eats too much organic, home cooked food is less likely to be embarrassed to admit (even to himself) how much he really eats. A fat person who eats too much packaged food is more like to be embarrassed to admit (especially to himself) how much he really eats.
I'm not the one who has to explain anything. That's the beauty of science. It's their responsibility to show how self-reported caloric intake may not be misleading, given that self-reporting is known to be problematic.
But just to play "counter example": BPA content is correlated with certain types of particularly-bad-for-you foods -- soda, fast food, packaged foods. The one study I've seen that tried to get at measuring calorie misreporting showed indications that it is correlated with certain types of particularly-bad-for-you foods -- soda, fast food, packaged foods. (I oversimplified the parallelism for effect, but I think you get the point I was trying to make.)
The kind of person that eats too much home-made pie may be the kind of person that honestly reports about eating too much home-made pie. The kind of person that pigs out at McDonald's may be the kind of person that misremembers how much they pig out at McDonald's.
They convert all of that absorbed/used energy into multiplying themselves, before finally being expelled in your feces. Entropy argues that some of that energy must end up as heat, also, I guess.
BTW, you can get as much of that bacteria as you want... you don't need to get it from me.
I said "colon" not "intestines". Only water, salts and some vitamins are absorbed from the colon (i.e. large intestines). Not all calories are absorbed by the end of the small intestines, especially for hard to digest material. Whatever is left over allows the bacteria to continue to multiply in your large intestine.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, he'd go to jail if he knowingly accepted corporate donations. So the claim is bogus, anyway.
Oh, and BTW, we don't have aspirations of regional military hegemony. We have actual regional military hegemony. :-)
(And by "we" I mean "the U.S." as in "me and the rest of my countrymen". I don't necessarily mean "you and me", since I don't know if you are in U.S. or not.)
But so what? The question was "why are we worried about China but we weren't worried about Japan back in the day?"
The question wasn't "is China the only one with aspirations of regional hegemony?"
Worse than that. IIRC, it's actually illegal for a campaign to accept corporate donations. So this is a completely bogus complaint.
Isn't the claim of having pointedly and publicly refused corporate donations completely bogus? I thought corporate donations directly to campaigns was still illegal. The Citizens United stuff is all about corporations spending money independently of the campaigns.
Because you only need 2,000 signatures to get on the ballot. Get a few volunteers to stand around a local shopping mall and you can get that in a weekend or two. ABC has no interest in being required to put anyone on TV who has two friends and a couple free weekends. It would tend to undermine the usefulness of the debate to the viewer, anyway. I know I have no interest in hearing from a bunch of fringe candidates who can't possibly win. That's why they generally have some kind of cutoff of "serious candidateness". Being able to raise $50,000 is not a ridiculous test for the seriousness of a U.S. congressional campaign.
If the original poster is serious about being a U.S. congressman, they should mount a serious campaign and I'm sure ABC would be happy to have them in the debate. A candidate who polls at 7%, has raised no money (regardless of the reason), and gets a few applause lines at a debate is not even remotely in the running.
Besides, the claim of refusing corporate donations is totally bogus. It is still illegal for corporations to donate directly to candidates' campaigns.
Very unlikely that we will ever be able to show/prove that fracking will trigger the big one. The systems are simply too complex. In one configuration, micro-quakes could realign stresses to avoid the big one. In another configuration, micro-quakes could realign stresses to trigger the big one. And since these are non-linear dynamic systems, the butterfly effect rears its head. So it could be that those two systems -- one that leads to the big one and the other that leads away from the big one -- could have only tiny differences in starting configuration.
Every state allows employers to ask about convictions and discriminate based on them (at least based on felonies, I'm not sure about misdemeanors).
But, you said
FYI, you are only legally required to list convictions on job applications.
That is not true.
Would have been more accurately writting "you are legally required to list convictions, whether you have to answer questions about merely being arrested varies by state".
This isn't entirely true. The Richter scale is logarithmic for a reason. Small earthquakes (at least ones as small as they're measuring in these kinds of fracking studies) don't release enough energy to meaningfully change the energy in a large earthquake. But small earthquakes can shift around the stresses such that energy is concentrated into (or diluted away from) regions of a fault. Whether energy will be concentrated/diluted in such manners would be entirely dependent on the configuration of the fault, starting conditions, etc. The system is probably chaotic enough to be virtually impossible to predict.
The most accurate answer to the question of how micro-quakes affect the incidence of major quakes will likely turn out to be "micro-quakes will affect the incidence of major quakes, but it is impossible to predict for any fault system whether major quake activity will increase or decrease in number or severity".
Conservation of energy still applies.
While true, this is immaterial in a non-linear system where energy can be transferred around quite easily. Quakes do not just release energy, they also shift the stresses around, allowing energy to shift between fault lines.
Micro-quakes could simultaneously release energy, and spread the remaining stresses around such that energy cannot be built up into a single large quake. Alternatively, micro-quakes could simultaneously release energy and concentrate the remaining stresses such that even more energy is concentrated into a large quake than would have happened otherwise. Considering how small the energy releases are in small quakes, these second order effects should be much more important than the amount of energy released by the micro-quakes.
Most likely outcome is that such micro-quakes do absolutely nothing of importance to the system. A few hundred or thousand micro-quakes simply would not make a huge difference compared to the amount of energy being concentrated then released in a major quake.
You are only sort of right. Micro-quakes can allow a fault to shift in a way that triggers a big quake that might not have otherwise happened. These are non-linear dynamic systems. It is possible to both release a small amount of energy from the system while concentrating existing energy in the system into a narrow area.
In addition, energy is injected into regional fault systems in a manner that is itself probably not constant and probably relates to the configuration of the regional system at any time.
Put all together, we do not yet have enough information to tell how fracking may affect large earthquakes, whether positively or negatively.
This is too simplistic. Lots of small shifts over here can result in stresses building up faster than normal over there. Enough faster than normal to trigger a big earthquake that might not have happened otherwise.
But the important question is not whether fracking triggers small earthquakes, which would be interesting but not necessarily problematic. The important question is whether fracking triggers large earthquakes (the ones that actually damage things and kill people). The evidence so far seems to show "fracking triggers small earthquakes, but we have no idea how it might affect large earthquakes."
There are states that make it illegal for employers to consider arrest record in employment decisions. Employers in these states are only allowed to consider convictions. Even asking the question can get an employer in trouble in such states.
FYI, you are only legally required to list convictions on job applications.
Careful, this varies by state.
We weren't worried about Japanese military spying in the 80s because the Japanese had a tiny military, a pacifist constitution and, perhaps most importantly, seemed to have no interest in rebuilding military power.
China has a huge military, is overtly increasing its capabilities and has obvious aspirations to regional military hegemony.
Wrong.
Just look at how much weight loss is experienced by people on raw-only diets. They simply have a hard time getting enough calories, almost regardless of how much they eat.
LOL
Why do you think the only possible result of energy metabolism is heat?
While you are correct about how limited raw foods are in diets, you are incorrect in the concept that only raw foods exhibit this difference in absorption. You will absorb more calories from a well-done steak than from a rare steak, for example. You will absorb more calories from well-cooked, slightly mushy broccoli than you will from crunchy, slightly steamed broccoli. The differences can be meaningful.
But, also, how cooked something is is only one example of "all calories are not the same". Different foods are easier or harder to digest than others, even controlling for cooked vs raw. Meat is harder to digest than starch, for instance. Your body absorbs more calories from a 100-calorie potato serving than from a 100-calorie meat serving. Again, this is because the laboratory measurements used to determine calories do not mimic the digestive tract. They merely measure the total energy content of the food, regardless of how easily humans could digest/absorb that energy.
Again, it's possible that the types of food that tend to have BPA are the types of food that, for whatever reason, people tend to misreport. It would make sense, because foods with BPA tend to be the kinds of foods we are told are particularly bad for us -- soda, fast food, packaged foods.
A fat person who eats too much organic, home cooked food is less likely to be embarrassed to admit (even to himself) how much he really eats. A fat person who eats too much packaged food is more like to be embarrassed to admit (especially to himself) how much he really eats.
I'm not the one who has to explain anything. That's the beauty of science. It's their responsibility to show how self-reported caloric intake may not be misleading, given that self-reporting is known to be problematic.
But just to play "counter example": BPA content is correlated with certain types of particularly-bad-for-you foods -- soda, fast food, packaged foods. The one study I've seen that tried to get at measuring calorie misreporting showed indications that it is correlated with certain types of particularly-bad-for-you foods -- soda, fast food, packaged foods. (I oversimplified the parallelism for effect, but I think you get the point I was trying to make.)
The kind of person that eats too much home-made pie may be the kind of person that honestly reports about eating too much home-made pie. The kind of person that pigs out at McDonald's may be the kind of person that misremembers how much they pig out at McDonald's.
You should quit while you're behind. Are you really arguing that bacteria do not utilize energy?
They convert all of that absorbed/used energy into multiplying themselves, before finally being expelled in your feces. Entropy argues that some of that energy must end up as heat, also, I guess.
BTW, you can get as much of that bacteria as you want... you don't need to get it from me.
I said "colon" not "intestines". Only water, salts and some vitamins are absorbed from the colon (i.e. large intestines). Not all calories are absorbed by the end of the small intestines, especially for hard to digest material. Whatever is left over allows the bacteria to continue to multiply in your large intestine.
My bad... but the truth is even worse. ;-)
Even though the discussion has been more about cans, in my mind I was thinking about bottles when I wrote that.