That's a different point from the one I was making. Agriculture generally takes inputs quite different from what is being produced. Fish farming takes fish and produces less fish. That's a different thing from taking some amount of energy in grass form and getting some smaller of energy in cow form.
As it happens, saltwater aquaculture is widely practiced from Norway to Chile. It basically involves putting a cage out in the sea and growing fish in it.
Of course, there are lots of reasons not to encourage most fish-farming like the fact that it requires huge amounts of wild fish to be caught, mulched and processed to be fed back to the "desirable" fish species that is being farmed. That is, fish farming uses more fish than it creates, thereby exacerbating the chronic overfishing problems that plague the seas.
The problem with that argument is that it doesn't take into account the basis of the laws of the road: they are all predicated on vehicles being cars. Car drivers have much reduced vision, awareness and control as compared to cyclists and cars also have a far greater capacity to cause damage to others. Thus their behaviour needs to be very strictly controlled. Given these things, it is easy to make the argument that cyclists should be allowed more freedoms than cars, so while these people are breaking laws, I'd argue that the law is wrong and should be based on cyclists taking due care rather strictly adhering the rules for cars.
that's the post i was about to write - Maori lived a distinctly unsustainable life when they first arrived, as did the ancestral aboriginals. But they figured out, through necessity or desire, to live somewhat in tune with their environment. Arguing that it was a lack of technology kinda misses the point.
Sure, you can spout bullshit if you like and make up numbers but what is the point?
Thanks for the Brooks reference. I've little opinion one way or the other on the relationship between church attendance and charity, but I do note that it is entirely consistent that the church attender in the given example would be more likely to give to charity than the other.
So where are you getting your numbers from and how do you define the terms rich, poor and middle? According to the US Bureau of labour statistics http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/68456.html, the bottom 20% given about 4% of their income, the 20%-60% bracket give around 2.5% and the top two brackets give about 2%.
You'll really need to reference your religious conservatives claim too.
Honestly, it all sounds kinda minor to me. The guy has had his career ruined over some apparently small technical issue of an airplane. 4 years sounds like a lot to me - acts as a strong deterrent and a punishment. But 40 years, as the parent was baying for, that's real string-em-up mentality.
And seeing you ask, there are plenty I'd let out sooner - the many thousands doing time for drug offenses would be a good place to start. You
He might not be saying that infrastructure etc will become free, but he is saying that the cost is negligible. One of Gladwell's points is that even that assumption is incorrect - these costs, even if individually small, become important when multiplied (as in the youtube case).
Actually, for a large number of papers, the formal peer review process (that begins when the article is sent off to a journal and before publishing) is the only time that the article gets closely read. The informal peer review process that i assume you are referring to (people reading the published paper) may never happen.
Further to your point 4, WinEdt http://www.winedt.com/ is a really great editor tuned for (La)TeX documents that runs in windows. Indeed, it's the only thing I miss about windows.
All languages are mongrel languages in the sense that they borrow from one another. But english is taxonomically a Germanic language, right? Any words of a Latin root are probably borrowed from French (Normans) or other other italic languages (including Latin, italian etc). It's thought that the Germanic and Italic language families share a common ancetor about 5500 years ago.
what absolute rubbish - music is all about expression - what's the point of making a structure if it means nothing? a composer, a musician is trying to express something. If that expression is best achieved through a robotic interpretation of a score, it is easy for the compser to specify that.
Apart from a few very strong known genetic associations, there is currently little that your genotype can tell you about your current or future well-being. The strong associations are so strong, chances are you already know about it (cos you or close family members have something wrong with you). The weak associations tell you things like your chance of heart problems might be 3% higher than the majority of the population because of a few SNPs.
It's possible that you could find some unknown aspects about your family history but you probably already know which part of the world your ancestors come from.
So it's a vanity project that costs $1000 and possibly compromises your privacy.
Right, so when someone says "hydrogenated fats", they typically mean fats that have been artificially subjected to hydrogenation. So they mean transfats.
while the claims about MSG made by the gp appear to be pure crankery, transfats typically refer to liquid unsaturated fats that have been artificially hydrogenenated turning them into solid saturated (hydrogenated) fats.
Open "about:blank" repeatedly and watch the memory footprint rise and rise. Tried it but didn't seem to make a difference. maybe it's not so easy to find these things, eh?
It seems unlikely that this would actually confer a selective advantage on the mouse - being able to run like crazy but need almost twice as much food doesnt sound like a good strategy to me.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a different point from the one I was making. Agriculture generally takes inputs quite different from what is being produced. Fish farming takes fish and produces less fish. That's a different thing from taking some amount of energy in grass form and getting some smaller of energy in cow form.
As it happens, saltwater aquaculture is widely practiced from Norway to Chile. It basically involves putting a cage out in the sea and growing fish in it.
Of course, there are lots of reasons not to encourage most fish-farming like the fact that it requires huge amounts of wild fish to be caught, mulched and processed to be fed back to the "desirable" fish species that is being farmed. That is, fish farming uses more fish than it creates, thereby exacerbating the chronic overfishing problems that plague the seas.
The problem with that argument is that it doesn't take into account the basis of the laws of the road: they are all predicated on vehicles being cars. Car drivers have much reduced vision, awareness and control as compared to cyclists and cars also have a far greater capacity to cause damage to others. Thus their behaviour needs to be very strictly controlled. Given these things, it is easy to make the argument that cyclists should be allowed more freedoms than cars, so while these people are breaking laws, I'd argue that the law is wrong and should be based on cyclists taking due care rather strictly adhering the rules for cars.
that's the post i was about to write - Maori lived a distinctly unsustainable life when they first arrived, as did the ancestral aboriginals. But they figured out, through necessity or desire, to live somewhat in tune with their environment. Arguing that it was a lack of technology kinda misses the point.
In PLoS One: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006256
Sure, you can spout bullshit if you like and make up numbers but what is the point?
Thanks for the Brooks reference. I've little opinion one way or the other on the relationship between church attendance and charity, but I do note that it is entirely consistent that the church attender in the given example would be more likely to give to charity than the other.
So where are you getting your numbers from and how do you define the terms rich, poor and middle? According to the US Bureau of labour statistics http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/68456.html, the bottom 20% given about 4% of their income, the 20%-60% bracket give around 2.5% and the top two brackets give about 2%. You'll really need to reference your religious conservatives claim too.
Honestly, it all sounds kinda minor to me. The guy has had his career ruined over some apparently small technical issue of an airplane. 4 years sounds like a lot to me - acts as a strong deterrent and a punishment. But 40 years, as the parent was baying for, that's real string-em-up mentality.
And seeing you ask, there are plenty I'd let out sooner - the many thousands doing time for drug offenses would be a good place to start. You
Cos the US doesnt put enough people in jail for long enough, right?
He might not be saying that infrastructure etc will become free, but he is saying that the cost is negligible. One of Gladwell's points is that even that assumption is incorrect - these costs, even if individually small, become important when multiplied (as in the youtube case).
Actually, for a large number of papers, the formal peer review process (that begins when the article is sent off to a journal and before publishing) is the only time that the article gets closely read. The informal peer review process that i assume you are referring to (people reading the published paper) may never happen.
except that you don't need to employ willpower to avoid the temptation to see who's calling
It's different because you don't need to remember to turn it back on.
Further to your point 4, WinEdt http://www.winedt.com/ is a really great editor tuned for (La)TeX documents that runs in windows. Indeed, it's the only thing I miss about windows.
Well, you're missing out on a whole lot more than annoying advertising.
Well, the story actually orginates from informationweek.com (see link at bottom of original story), and that falls into the "US media" class.
I really doubt anyone in australia gives a damn (except to note that embargos are pretty easy to get around).
All languages are mongrel languages in the sense that they borrow from one another. But english is taxonomically a Germanic language, right? Any words of a Latin root are probably borrowed from French (Normans) or other other italic languages (including Latin, italian etc). It's thought that the Germanic and Italic language families share a common ancetor about 5500 years ago.
What? is that supposed to be funny? More like stupid and sexist. Grow up.
what absolute rubbish - music is all about expression - what's the point of making a structure if it means nothing? a composer, a musician is trying to express something. If that expression is best achieved through a robotic interpretation of a score, it is easy for the compser to specify that.
Apart from a few very strong known genetic associations, there is currently little that your genotype can tell you about your current or future well-being. The strong associations are so strong, chances are you already know about it (cos you or close family members have something wrong with you). The weak associations tell you things like your chance of heart problems might be 3% higher than the majority of the population because of a few SNPs.
It's possible that you could find some unknown aspects about your family history but you probably already know which part of the world your ancestors come from.
So it's a vanity project that costs $1000 and possibly compromises your privacy.
Right, so when someone says "hydrogenated fats", they typically mean fats that have been artificially subjected to hydrogenation. So they mean transfats.
while the claims about MSG made by the gp appear to be pure crankery, transfats typically refer to liquid unsaturated fats that have been artificially hydrogenenated turning them into solid saturated (hydrogenated) fats.
or when that doesn't work, just ask the person behind you in the queue to borrow theirs.
It seems unlikely that this would actually confer a selective advantage on the mouse - being able to run like crazy but need almost twice as much food doesnt sound like a good strategy to me.