I didn't mean to imply health from BMI, but rather the general mass to height ratio - were these people who were carrying significantly more or less than average weight for their height?

I could have said body fat percentage, but that's a lot harder to calculate accurately - and if you're going to be inaccurate you may as well make it easy. If the study were packed with people in the 30+ BMI range, maybe the difference in weight loss wasn't really attributable to the specifics of the diet (we're talking a net caloric deficit of 78 calories a day - half a soda or fruit juice drink).

Obesity *is* a problem, as is physical conditioning. But basing dietary recommendations on studies which don't understand the actual mechanics and science of nutrition is a bad idea. It was a bad idea when they used it to create the "food pyramid" and it's still a bad idea today.

It's be nicer if it didn't look like it was styled after a 1970s movie prop. It's one of the biggest problems with most electric cars (and many hybrids) - they look like someone from Disney's Imagineering division was tasked with designing a style that would fit into the World of Tomorrow. Why can't they just look like a car? (and before you claim aerodynamics, the same argument can be made for an ICE car and yet nobody worries about those last few percent on those)

Mutually Assured Destruction is more of a pro than a con when considering certain element of society which are willing to, say, strap explosives to their chest and detonate them in a public venue. Projecting your morality onto others in order to predict behaviors is a dangerous game.

This study allows writing a hypothesis, but doesn't actually provide us much in the way of scientific knowledge.

This study really does tell us very little, except that they don't know how nutrition variables affect health outcomes. They don't have any idea why the one group lost weight over the year of the study, and there is no long term result (i.e. over your lifetime). There also aren't any details about the kind of LDL. The summary is either intentionally misleading or the submitter didn't read the whole article (not surprising) as the article says specifically they didn't test for that.

The study also didn't actually determine how many calories were consumed. It was a "general guidelines" with very little controls or limits. They encouraged lean proteins, but allowed saturated fats in small or moderate amounts, but there was no limit afaict. They also didn't say how overweight the people were at the beginning of the study. I presume they were overweight as both groups lost weight, and these weren't 20-21 BMI people who somehow dropped into the unhealthily underweight range, but - again - hard to tell.

It's interesting, no doubt, as was the recent study tracking the use of reduced vs full fate dairy products (there was, iirc, no statistically significant weight or health change difference in the two groups). Unfortunately, without the "why" we're left with yet another set of potential guidelines which are based on observations but without a compelling reason. Good for religion, not so good for science.

Did you even feel the breeze?

For 3-5% of gross vehicle weight, each drone can have a safety parachute which activates automatically in the event of any stability failure or rapid drop in altitude. Failsafe systems can be engineered to protect the life of anyone who might be on the ground to several nines reliability. A decent drone recovery reward will get the equipment back - either for re-use or for evaluation of failure mechanism - and onboard camera(s) and real-time flight recording will ensure that sabotage is prosecuted ($100k and 20 years in federal prison, currently).

Try $100,000 and 20 years in federal PMITA prison.

That will be one more gun-toting idiot either financially destitute or behind bars. $100,000 and 20 years is the maximum federal penalty for firing on a commercial aircraft. Lock and load, baby!

Jobs machines do are incredibly cheaper than humans doing those same jobs in nearly all cases. Humans are insanely expensive, even mostly untrained ones. A $10,000 drone, especially one purchased quantities in the tens or hundreds of thousands, seems like expensive kit for just doing deliveries. But you could throw it away every 4 months instead of maintaining it and it would still be cheaper than hiring a human.

No you don't - just turn off the rockets and let it fall half way there (accelerating) under the other planets gravity, then turn around so that you slow down at the rate of earth's gravity pulling you back for the second half of the trip. All you need is the fuel to get to orbit and you're practically done.

*ducks*

Duh, there's already a documentary on that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...

Oh he's not a doctor. But he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

This is why it isn't common.

I think, though, that this is more of a temporary hurdle. Once it's in place, IF it's used properly, there's really no issue. Every bank teller in America has a camera on them at all times, as does nearly ever cashier and casino worker. Most every cube-dweller is subject to email and web tracking software at work as well, watching ever online click and transaction. For most everyone it's not an issue, and in this case there are more reasons - as a cop - to want it than not in the long run because it has the opportunity to make their job easier when it happens to be the hardest.

The brown dwarf that orbits the sun is called Jupiter.