- once you get big enough and can successfully deal with governments what you do is you pass certain types of legislation that you personally can live with but that will without doubt kill any smaller competing businesses.

When commenting that a product that is supposed to be a sugar substitute has more sugar than substitute, it is certainly not a red herring to say that. You are assuming a meaning that wasn't there. You brought up calories, not I.

THERE'S the red herring in the box. So they have to dilute it with sugar? No, I don't think so.

You simply don't understand the concept of product labels and the order of ingredients listed on them, do you? It's not a small amount of sugar, SUGAR IS THE LARGEST COMPONENT. If, as you say, stevia is so powerful that you'd have to use a "jewler's scale" to measure the correct amount, and stevia is SECOND on the list, that means that every tsp of the stevia product is by a huge majority sugar. That's not "a small amount".

Where have you seen me "freak out" at these ingredients? Stop being insulting when you can't be convincing or correct.

More important, she had images of the labels I was talking about. That's why I linked to it. Sorry you got distracted by the microwave stuff, which I didn't see there, but obviously you did.

Yeah, when you can't dispute the truth, resort to ad hominem.

So, will these bullets steer away from the coded in important persons? The more sophisticated the systems the more there are walls to be broken in the case of a criminal government.

I completely disagree with every business regulation by any government, this is not a problem that government needs to be involved with at all.

Of-course in Canada Bell is a 'crown corporation', an oppressive concept that is incompatible with individual freedoms of people, creating pseudo-government agencies that are imposed upon individuals and that prevent and destroy competition (that's the only way monopolies are dangerous - when they are government created and protected monopolies), so where it comes to such monstrosities as far as I am concerned the only correct course of action is to disband them, liquidate the assets and let the market deal with the industry that the monstrosity was involved in.

Once you have government created, imposed, protected monopolies no amount of regulation will help to fix the underlying problem: they should not exist, the market cannot function with them around. But the same problem (only to a much greater extent) exists in every transaction, half of every transaction is money and government controls/prints money, which is the real issue for the economies around the world.

The real writing is on the wall of-course, that writing being that as long as people don't learn from history and don't stop governments from meddling with business, their economies will be inefficient and their living standards will suffer.

Her card says development engineer (as in R&D), XX billion $ company. They nominally wanted a PhD chemical engineer. She finished calculus at 15, was touring inside the better medical school classes at 19, after summer research. Aim, MD-PhD. Decided medical school was too rote, went into fundamental medical research for grad school with a nicely titled/paid fellowship. Went to work for a small biotech, decided she wanted to work for a large company. She's not classically degreed as an engineer. Why not?

1. Nicer liberal arts colleges typically don't offer engineering, nominal 3-2 programs not withstanding.
2. Much of engineering is not typically seen as a desirable school/work environment stresswise.
3. In my generation, female engineering classmates largely failed to reproduce, 0-1 kids. Only one I know with 3 kids, was summa cum laude, married a (to be) highly successful doctor, and quit after his med school.

Yes, it does say to only work on those things women want to work on. It's even in the summary:

if the content of the work itself is made more societally meaningful, women will enroll in droves.

Content == what you're working on. And if we're changing what we're working on to attract more women, it de facto means we're selectively recruiting women.

Exactly. Maybe they don't see the bigger picture? Maybe we don't properly motivate with these examples?

If engineers fail at their job, people die. Chemical plants explode, medical devices fail, airplanes crash and burn. How much more impact on society can you have?

I think the problem is the job is too far removed from the feels. You don't have personal direct impact.

And sometimes the conditions are not conducive to family life. I have students starting with a four year degree making over $100k. But they spend lots of time in the gulf on oil rigs. Sometimes people make different life choices.

Change for the sake of change is fallacious.

If it is a higher percentage you are after may I suggest a simple and quick solution to this 'problem'? Just shoot most men engineers, enough to get to 50/50 men to women ratio. You will have to keep shooting to keep the ratio at the same level though but at least it would actually get you to the place you are aiming at.

They stop making floppy disks, bugs eat your manuals, your hard drive crashes. Oh no!

You are a fucking nincompoop. Peltier cooling works by pumping heat from the cold side to the hot side. You have to COOL the hot side, not heat it, idiot.

Bullshit. They are HIDDEN. A menu bar that says "File", "Edit", and "View" in plain English or $LOCALIZED_LANGUAGE_OF_CHOICE is not hidden. Something that can only be accessed by knowing a secret location, or by finding a cryptic symbol and determining its purpose, is hidden.

SAA/CUA did not happen, and take over everywhere that mattered, because it was the product of a bunch of masturbating monkeys. It was the end product of research and insight of genuine experts in human interface, including Apple's HIG, and ultimately the innovators behind Xerox Star.

CO2 + H2O doesn't only make methanol. It makes hydrocarbon. Via various chemical processes, you can end up with whatever form(s) of hydrocarbon you want. Diesel fuel is good because (1) it is a very efficient and convenient energy storage medium and (2) a vast infrastructure of vehicles already use it. Methanol is an inefficient energy storage medium - quite apart from its toxicity.

Since burning the fuel returns it back into CO2 and H2O, the amount of energy in the various bonds is irrelevant. All the energy you put in will come out again.

No; far from all of it; not in a useful form. A major part of it comes back, but neither the breakdown processes and the synthesis processes nor the engines consuming the end product are any where near 100% efficient.

The atmosphere has a mass of 5.15×10^18 kg. The concentration of CO2 is about 400 parts per million. That means there is 2.06x10^15 kg[*], or 2.06 trillion tonnes, of CO2 in the atmosphere. That works out to about 294 tonnes for every man, woman, and child in the world. There are also vast amounts dissolved in the oceans.

About 2.4 kg of CO2 is produced per litre of motor fuel burned; hence synthesizing motor fuel from CO2 requires about 2.4 kg of CO2 per litre. That means that the 2.06x10^15 kg of CO2 present in the atmosphere could generate over 8x10^14 litres of motor fuel, or more than ten thousand litres for every man, woman, and child in the world.

So around now, if you are a US driver, you are probably thinking that you do consume on the order of 500 gallons, or 2000 litres, of motor fuel per year, and you will note that there are other vehicles besides personal motor cars to be considered - trucks, planes, ships, etc.

But it seems to me you are utterly ignoring the overriding point. It is a giant closed system! Every kilogram of CO2 you process into fuel gets burned, and every single kg of CO2 you release from burning the fuel goes back into the atmosphere. And the overall loop is very nearly lossless. Sure, some very small fraction of the carbon liberated by combustion gets turned into CO or C particulates instead of CO2, but with modern pollution controls that fraction is very slight.

There are enormous logistical challenges to using the technique at full scale (including where to get the staggering amount of energy to run the synthesis), but running the atmosphere short of CO2 is not one of them.

[*] I spent a fair amount of time researching and could not readily determine whether the oft-quoted figure of 400 ppm is by volume or by mass. My math assumes that it is by mass. That actually leads to lower figures (pessimistic to my point) than if it is by volume, as it probably is. This is because CO2 is substantially higher density than air.