News flash. The Dems controlled until last election both the U S Senate and presidency.
This might be news to you, but to most of the world, US democrats are republicans. They may not be Republicans with a capital R, but they certainly are republicans, and far to the right of what's considered the center in most countries.
There are only two double-blind studies with results in that list, and one of them only had 9 participants, leaving only one result:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2...
It's not large scale, though - 331 participants.
And that one is for treating a problem that exists in the brain, not the body. And worse, it has no fewer than 35(!) secondary outcome measures. This is p-hunting at its worst. With that many outcomes, there's a statistical near-certainty that there will be one or more "significant" findings. You could test people for drinking 35 different sodas and find a statistical significant result for one of them versus a disease.
Color me not convinced. This smells of snake oil and bad science. That there are that many studies, most of them for ailments that are especially prone to natural variations, and yet not a single focused one that show positive results says all you need to know.
This is zone therapy and chiropracty for the new millennium.
I should have said that the mass of an attracted object is irrelevant if the attractor is stationary. Like, one presumes, said McD station was thought to be.
When the relative difference in mass between two objects go towards infinity, the amount of influence the mass of the lighter object has goes towards zero. The pull a car has on earth, an astronaut on the moon, or a star on a galactic center black hole is so small that for all purposes they can be disregarded, and the greater objects be considered stationary.
it does seem to work like this, with bodies of larger mass being attracted to it with greater force!
Jokes aside, you're perpetuating a false belief.
It should be well known by now that gravity does not accelerate heavier objects any faster than lighter objects. The mass of the bodies is irrelevant if non-zero.
Ref Gallileo's alleged demonstration at the tower of Pisa.
The people who designed the SR-71 are at the top end of their generation's technological bell curve. The people who sponsored it are at the bottom end.
So what you're saying is that those who designed the SR-71 were mediocre and those who sponsored it were a mix of geniuses, idiots and anything in-between?
If you're on the top end of a bell curve, your possible deviation is as low as it can be. You are mediocre, belonging to the largest segment of the population.
If you're at the bottom end of a bell curve, your possible deviation is as high as it can be. There's no telling. You may be a genius or you might be an idiot.
Anyhow, what's pretty clear is that most of those who designed and sponsored the SR-71 are dead.
Without assumptions, there is no threat model. Without a threat model, there is no way to measure security.
Security isn't a measurable commodity, It's a philosophy.
What makes me mad in this case is that the pilot is ruining it for everyone else. Every time an idiot does something like this, it's going to contribute to locking down the ability for everyone else to fly them.
I'm good with that. I don't want have to build an opaque dome over my property to keep privacy. And I don't want to become collateral damage of a drone strike either.
She had her own e-mail server, but I bet she did not run it.
Simple as it is, it's beyond the capabilities of any politician I can think of.
And nothing says "get off my lawn" like 4123.7562@compuserve.com
Then what does my @well.com account say?
Again, you fail to understand how statistics work, trying to address the single items, instead of the problem, which is that there is any fucking numbers of unforeseen things that can happen.
No matter how unlikely any single instance is to happen, or how easily it can be solved, there as such an enormous number of them, that they cannot be addressed due to the sheer scale.
Even if there's only 0.01% chance for an unexpected event happening any given minute, multiply that with the number of minutes and number of cars, and you'll end up with a huge number.
You can't solve that problem from the bottom up, addressing specifics.
No shit. I'd expect a world class physicist who was involved in the top-secret development of the nuclear bomb would attract a bit more scrutiny than a vocal anti-religious advocate and author. One of these things is not like the other things...
True. A few hundred years down the road, I am sure that Hitchens will be remembered as one of the great pioneers for mankind to throw off its yoke.
Many of us have adjusted our side mirrors correctly, to point far more outwards than what most people do. Or even attach dead angle mirrors.
The rear view mirror is for a rear view - the side mirrors are for watching what's diagonally to the side. If you can see the side of your own car in the side mirrors, you're doing it wrong.
Never depend on being able to watch out the rear side window. That's a bad habit you need to stop. It may be blocked or not even there (pickup trucks). And by turning your head, you lose sight of what's even more dangerous - what's ahead of you.
And in an accident like that where the doors are jammed shut due to damage, how exactly are the passengers supposed to extricate themselves from the wrecked vehicle?
Or how would the ones who witness the accident know whether there are passengers to rescue or not?
Would you break open the boot of a car on the off-chance that there's someone lying in there?
Happiness is twin floppies.
