Why do you need a clinical test to determine how your body reacts to a type of food? Dont most people take note of how food affects them at every meal? When you wake up with a hangover, do you need to go to the doctor to determine if it was the hamburgers or the 12-pack that caused it?
For most of us who follow this "fad" it comes down to this: Take away the gluten, symptoms go away. Add the gluten, symptoms return. Thats all the evidence I need to cut gluten out of my diet. There are no nutrients in wheat that cant be obtained in greater densities from healthier, tastier, whole foods which dont contain potentially gut-destroying anti-nutrients. So really it doesn't matter if you have celiacs or gluten-intolerance or not; there's technically no good reason to include gluten in your diet anyway (except for pizza and beer which are the only things that are occasionally worth the stomach issues in order to enjoy!)
The world has many challenging problems that require the brightest minds to solve. Environmental, architecture, energy, etc. These overlap with the traditional math&sciences core but if she's motivated to "make a difference", these will be challenging on a different level , requiring social, political AND technical skill to implement correctly. Urge her to steer away from useless academic programs and focus on programs that provide 'real world' opportunities.
Not to mention ergonomics.
Which begs the question: why don't they make *desktop* keyboards with the split ergonomic design and a trackpoint in the middle?
Mapstraction (http://www.mapstraction.com/) is a js api that abstracts the differences between these services (as well as yahoo maps and others). With a trivial change, you can migrate the entire application between different map services.
Exactly! I have a number of acquaintances from South America who all describe LA as "nice" and "clean". Compared to most of the world where severe pollution is largely unregulated, the US is pristine.
Well lets say you're a web developer. It doesn't matter what browser YOU have, it matters what browser your users have. And the majority still use IE.
You can create a site with standard compliant HTML/CSS that works on every other browser in the world. Then you open up IE and the site is broken. You will have to spend countless hours hacking the code to get around IE bugs. In the worst cases, you will have to create entirely seperate IE-only pages and redirect users based on their browser.
I don't know of any formal estimate but I would wager that hundreds of thousands of hours are spent each year trying to tweak web pages in non-standard ways to work in IE. Hows that for a waste of time!
I also found the NY Baseball reference a bit, um, culturally uninformed. Virtually every Met and Yankees fan I know would rather sell their family than wear a jersey from the "other team".
If someone is giving something away, there are two ways to interpret its value:
1. There is a market, and the market value is zero
2. There is effectively no market, so there is no established value
Or...
3. The cost to finish, package and market the product all with your own capital is greater than the profit margin the product would garner on the open market.
In this case, it's wiser to release the ideas into the public domain and allow others to contribute to the product's development. Of course you defer the sales gains but you also defer the development costs and receive the benefits of outside developers. Win-win. No money exchanged but lots of value added.
I for one find Colbert hillarious. His tone is such that you can never figure out exactly what he's saying and, with this particularly anal-retentive crowd, their confused reactions were priceless and precisely the mood his comedy hopes to invoke. That uncomfortable, "did-he-really-say-that", "am-I-supposed-to-laugh?", "is-this-politically-correct?", "Is-he-making-fun-of-me-or-agreeing-with-me?" tension was all too apparent and I got a real laugh out of it.
Colbert's comedy hinges on making people feel uncomfortable. The people who get it are the people who aren't offended yet somehow enjoy seeing others squirm. Count me in.
A better strategy.. speak out to your reps and senators. Send 'em letters, phone calls, emails and fruit cakes. Let them know you're here. If the special interests are the only ones who have the ears of our representitives, guess who they're going to listen to?
Given that most of our energy on the power grid still comes from not-so-clean sources such as coal, how is powering your car from an electric grid supposed to reduce emmissions? Sure there's no direct pollution from the car itself but the energy has to come from *somewhere*. If it's all coming from a "dirty" electric grid, isn't the electric car solution merely pushing the polution burden into communities with power generation facilities?
I'm no electrician but it seems the loss of energy from power plant > grid > battery > motor would outweigh any potenial benefits. Why not focus on cleaner, more efficient gasoline and diesel powered hybrid autos? If i'm missing something here, please enlighten me...
How, in any way, does my statement even imply that civil liberties are seperate from "liberty" as you have defined it?
And how do civil liberties, liberty and freedom have such distinct definitions to you? If someone is monitoring the books I check out from the library, that violates my freedom (I am not "free" to read certain books), it violates my liberty (I can't read, as you so elqoquently put it, "whatever the fuck I want") , and it violates my civil liberties (guaranteed by the constitution and bill of rights).
And why do you assume I'm a Democrat or that I'm spouting democratic rhetoric? To me Democrats and Rebublicans in congress (with a few exceptions) are just the same load of crap, shovelled into two piles.
The patriot act gives the government unprecedented powers to control and monitor citizens without constitutional protection. This is against our civil liberties, it's against our freedom, it's against our liberty. You're probably right that many (most?) voters would sacrifice freedoms/liberty/civil liberties/etc. for security. I think Ben Franklin had a quote about that;-) Truth is if our elected leaders keep pushing america in this direction, it will no longer resemble the republic that our founders had envisioned and it will be damn near impossible to regain those liberties we've lost. That's why the 10 senators who voted against the Patriot Act are the only ones who are standing up for our Constitution and all the freedom/liberties/civil liberties/etc. it guarantees.
Check out the senate roll call [www.senate.gov] for the vote breakdown.
Here's the only 10 senators with enough guts to stand up for america's civil liberties:
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Wyden (D-OR)
I realize some other senators were trying to compromise and we don't live in a perfect society and blah blah blah. But this was just too important of a vote to play political games. If you're against the Patriot Act, these 10 people are the only incumbents who deserve your vote this November!
Three things I don't understand about intelligent design:
- ID points to the complexity of life and says "It is so complex that it must have been designed that way". Why is this so? I would hypothesize that if something was so complex, that no one entity could possibly have designed it all at once. It would take billions of years of tweaking and "testing" the design under varying conditions. Indeed the evidence shows that life has undoubtably changed over time. Wouldn't ID be more valid if it recognized that the design is not constant?
- Why does ID have to conflict with evolution? Isn't it possible that life was "designed" to change and adapt as the empirical evidence clearly shows?
Evolution may not explain all the evidence but it has yet to be disproven. By the very fact that life has changed over time, any theory that points to a static design is inherently disproven. I see no reason why ID needs to adhere to the creationist dogma... recognizing life's fluidity would lend a great deal of validity to ID and perhaps synthesize very well with evolution (eg "Life was intelligently designed to evolve under changing conditions")
And on a religious note, if you think God created the universe and then just let it sit without any "debugging", you must think your God is pretty lazy. Whoever created life did a darn fine job and I happen to believe they would take the pride to upgrade and add new features every once in a while (ok maybe the software analogy has gone too far;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you need a clinical test to determine how your body reacts to a type of food? Dont most people take note of how food affects them at every meal? When you wake up with a hangover, do you need to go to the doctor to determine if it was the hamburgers or the 12-pack that caused it?
For most of us who follow this "fad" it comes down to this: Take away the gluten, symptoms go away. Add the gluten, symptoms return. Thats all the evidence I need to cut gluten out of my diet. There are no nutrients in wheat that cant be obtained in greater densities from healthier, tastier, whole foods which dont contain potentially gut-destroying anti-nutrients. So really it doesn't matter if you have celiacs or gluten-intolerance or not; there's technically no good reason to include gluten in your diet anyway (except for pizza and beer which are the only things that are occasionally worth the stomach issues in order to enjoy!)
The world has many challenging problems that require the brightest minds to solve. Environmental, architecture, energy, etc. These overlap with the traditional math&sciences core but if she's motivated to "make a difference", these will be challenging on a different level , requiring social, political AND technical skill to implement correctly. Urge her to steer away from useless academic programs and focus on programs that provide 'real world' opportunities.
Not to mention ergonomics. Which begs the question: why don't they make *desktop* keyboards with the split ergonomic design and a trackpoint in the middle?
Mapstraction (http://www.mapstraction.com/) is a js api that abstracts the differences between these services (as well as yahoo maps and others). With a trivial change, you can migrate the entire application between different map services.
Exactly! I have a number of acquaintances from South America who all describe LA as "nice" and "clean". Compared to most of the world where severe pollution is largely unregulated, the US is pristine.
Well lets say you're a web developer. It doesn't matter what browser YOU have, it matters what browser your users have. And the majority still use IE.
You can create a site with standard compliant HTML/CSS that works on every other browser in the world. Then you open up IE and the site is broken. You will have to spend countless hours hacking the code to get around IE bugs. In the worst cases, you will have to create entirely seperate IE-only pages and redirect users based on their browser.
I don't know of any formal estimate but I would wager that hundreds of thousands of hours are spent each year trying to tweak web pages in non-standard ways to work in IE. Hows that for a waste of time!
If MS really tried to make IE7 standards compliant (or closer to other imperfect browsers), they might break compatibilty with IE6 sites.
Has anyone found a site that works/renders perfectly in IE6 that doesn't in IE7? My guess is no...
I also found the NY Baseball reference a bit, um, culturally uninformed. Virtually every Met and Yankees fan I know would rather sell their family than wear a jersey from the "other team".
In this case, it's wiser to release the ideas into the public domain and allow others to contribute to the product's development. Of course you defer the sales gains but you also defer the development costs and receive the benefits of outside developers. Win-win. No money exchanged but lots of value added.
... as evidenced by the reaction here on /.
I for one find Colbert hillarious. His tone is such that you can never figure out exactly what he's saying and, with this particularly anal-retentive crowd, their confused reactions were priceless and precisely the mood his comedy hopes to invoke. That uncomfortable, "did-he-really-say-that", "am-I-supposed-to-laugh?", "is-this-politically-correct?", "Is-he-making-fun-of-me-or-agreeing-with-me?" tension was all too apparent and I got a real laugh out of it.
Colbert's comedy hinges on making people feel uncomfortable. The people who get it are the people who aren't offended yet somehow enjoy seeing others squirm. Count me in.
A better strategy.. speak out to your reps and senators. Send 'em letters, phone calls, emails and fruit cakes. Let them know you're here. If the special interests are the only ones who have the ears of our representitives, guess who they're going to listen to?
Given that most of our energy on the power grid still comes from not-so-clean sources such as coal, how is powering your car from an electric grid supposed to reduce emmissions? Sure there's no direct pollution from the car itself but the energy has to come from *somewhere*. If it's all coming from a "dirty" electric grid, isn't the electric car solution merely pushing the polution burden into communities with power generation facilities? I'm no electrician but it seems the loss of energy from power plant > grid > battery > motor would outweigh any potenial benefits. Why not focus on cleaner, more efficient gasoline and diesel powered hybrid autos? If i'm missing something here, please enlighten me...
Where do come up with this crap?
;-) Truth is if our elected leaders keep pushing america in this direction, it will no longer resemble the republic that our founders had envisioned and it will be damn near impossible to regain those liberties we've lost. That's why the 10 senators who voted against the Patriot Act are the only ones who are standing up for our Constitution and all the freedom/liberties/civil liberties/etc. it guarantees.
How, in any way, does my statement even imply that civil liberties are seperate from "liberty" as you have defined it?
And how do civil liberties, liberty and freedom have such distinct definitions to you? If someone is monitoring the books I check out from the library, that violates my freedom (I am not "free" to read certain books), it violates my liberty (I can't read, as you so elqoquently put it, "whatever the fuck I want") , and it violates my civil liberties (guaranteed by the constitution and bill of rights).
And why do you assume I'm a Democrat or that I'm spouting democratic rhetoric? To me Democrats and Rebublicans in congress (with a few exceptions) are just the same load of crap, shovelled into two piles.
The patriot act gives the government unprecedented powers to control and monitor citizens without constitutional protection. This is against our civil liberties, it's against our freedom, it's against our liberty. You're probably right that many (most?) voters would sacrifice freedoms/liberty/civil liberties/etc. for security. I think Ben Franklin had a quote about that
Get it?
Check out the senate roll call [www.senate.gov] for the vote breakdown. Here's the only 10 senators with enough guts to stand up for america's civil liberties: Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Byrd (D-WV) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Jeffords (I-VT) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Murray (D-WA) Wyden (D-OR) I realize some other senators were trying to compromise and we don't live in a perfect society and blah blah blah. But this was just too important of a vote to play political games. If you're against the Patriot Act, these 10 people are the only incumbents who deserve your vote this November!
Three things I don't understand about intelligent design:
;-)
- ID points to the complexity of life and says "It is so complex that it must have been designed that way". Why is this so? I would hypothesize that if something was so complex, that no one entity could possibly have designed it all at once. It would take billions of years of tweaking and "testing" the design under varying conditions. Indeed the evidence shows that life has undoubtably changed over time. Wouldn't ID be more valid if it recognized that the design is not constant?
- Why does ID have to conflict with evolution? Isn't it possible that life was "designed" to change and adapt as the empirical evidence clearly shows?
Evolution may not explain all the evidence but it has yet to be disproven. By the very fact that life has changed over time, any theory that points to a static design is inherently disproven. I see no reason why ID needs to adhere to the creationist dogma... recognizing life's fluidity would lend a great deal of validity to ID and perhaps synthesize very well with evolution (eg "Life was intelligently designed to evolve under changing conditions")
And on a religious note, if you think God created the universe and then just let it sit without any "debugging", you must think your God is pretty lazy. Whoever created life did a darn fine job and I happen to believe they would take the pride to upgrade and add new features every once in a while (ok maybe the software analogy has gone too far