Don't be naive.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Please re-read the first sentence of my post.

Even so a single paper still isn't enough for a layman to conclude anything from. That's why laymen are so misinformed on science. Even when a news account accurately describes a study or experiment, it's still misleading. Just because an experiment produces a result doesn't mean that result represents the bulk of evidence, or that that the conclusions won't be shot full of holes in a few months.

In that case what you're talking about is more of an industry handout than a corporate handout. Anybody with enough capital to run an insurance company is free to compete for the "obligate consumer's" business.

Contrast this to various weapons systems of dubious usefulness that are funded for political reasons. As American taxpayers we're all "obligate consumers" of those things, but we don't have any say whatsoever in whose pockets our dollars land.

You need the full article -- the abstract at the very least -- to make any sense of a study. Press releases are written by PR flacks who dumb down the science to the point where it is meaningless, as in this case. What you need to make sense of an experiment are details and context, neither of which the PR release in question provide. This is the problem with PR -- it's not a discipline that's meant to help you grasp complexity; it's about coming away with a simple, carefully chosen message.

Even if you have a whole article you have to proceed with caution. Interesting science tends to be about open questions; cutting edge topics tend to produce a diversity of opinion and contradictory evidence. What you need to read if you want to go to the horse's mouth in science is to read some literature review papers, like this one, which summarize the current state of research and the open questions at the time of writing. In fact you should probably read a recent review paper before you try to make sense of any individual paper. Having skimmed the review paper, it looks like the experiment we're discussing is attempting to explain a long-known experimental effect in terms of gut biota, which is a hot research field right now.

If all you had to make dietary decisions was the press release, you'd probably think, "Well, I'd better cut down on fat and sugar in my diet." The problem I have with that is that "fat" is a vast category of chemicals with wildly different physiological effects. Avoiding all fat because of this study would be like avoiding all acids because of a study of aspirin poisoning -- acids including all proteins and most vitamins.

What makes more sense is to consider all the proposed mechanisms, namely: chronic oxidative stress, inflammation, insulin resistance, and now disturbed gut flora. It's feasible to devise a lifestyle and diet which reduces *all* these things, which in turn would also improve our chances against other things like diabetes, autoimmune diseases, and cardiovascular disease. But so far as I know nobody's really put all that together yet. Science deals mainly in diseases, leaving health to the quacks.

You are so far off base, that you're making an ass out of yourself. First of all, I'm in no way religious. The only times I've been to a church in my adult life are for weddings and funerals. Politically, I'm only fiscally on the right, but not when it comes to social issues. So, not what I've corrected your ASSumptions, when it comes to rewriting history, WTF are you talking about?

Now you're stretching. I look over every resume for the requisitions I post. And certainly we get a share that are unqualified, but plenty who are. And, I'm typically looking for engineers with specific skills and certs.

What you fail to realize is that it's all about finding the right company/boss to work for. And yes, if you don't like your boss, you should move on. But, if you've jumped through a half dozen jobs, in as many years, it's likely you that have issues, and not the boss/company. 0-3% raises are not the norm (though there have been a couple years where sub 3% was the average with us). If that's what you've been getting, it's likely you that have issues.

Yeah, not so much. You're welcome to keep that tinfoil hat on, and keep buying gold though.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/...
http://azizonomics.com/2013/06...
http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

You in no way countered the point that I made. The US was started on religious values. It certainly wasn't a scientifically oriented government..."In God We Trust".

Very doubtful. The teachers unions are typically pretty strong.

$100/hr for SW dev is chicken fee. Someone who makes $100k/yr., or roughly $48/hr. is typically billed to a customer at around $150/hr. Realize that there a a lot of things that go into that figure, right down to the cost of keeping the lights on. If you're not paying those expenses as a contractor, you might not be able to negotiate a fee at that same figure.

No, they can't get away with it. It takes one person to report them, and they'll be screwed.

Yeah, that happens a lot. Please share the last occurrence with us.

The Dept of Labor has info on what qualifies.

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/f...

I've been a hiring manager for more than a few years, and never heard such a thing. Got something to base this on?