I don't know the details on the statistic he's quoted to tell you if it's true, but it is possible. Mainly because profit margin occurs after taxes are removed. Ie, if over half of the taxable income is taken by the government, then the final profit margin is smaller than the tax revenue.
Don't forget, there are just as many chicken littles as there are big business coverups. For every "smoking isn't bad for your health" there's a "vaccines cause autism." Both scenarios can lead to terrible things. In the particular case of fracking, the studies I've seen tend to lean my opinion toward the chicken little side of things. Even assuming all those studies are nothing but frauds paid for by corporate interests, fracking is already in widespread use.
If it's really half as terrible a danger to the drinking supplies as it's made out to be, where are all the cases of environmental catastrophe and illness that should be endemic by this point? Putting out fake studies are one thing, but it'd be hard to suppress that kind of event for such a hot button issue in this day and age.
And forgive me if I'm not overly worried about potentially causing earthquakes up to a 4.4 magnitude.
It's hard to predict what would happen if MS went with the cheap low tech Nintendo style option, but I don't think that's going to happen.
My prediction is that Sony wins this next generation handily. With the current generation, the PS3 came out a year later, at a significantly higher cost, but was still comparable in hardware specs. It was also much harder to develop for. Despite this, on average it's been outselling the 360 slightly and has nearly caught up to the 360.
In the upcoming generation, they won't have an expensive new optical format to jack up the price, and they're not letting MS get a full year's headstart on them. The prices should be close, especially since the release seems to time pretty well for the yen collapsing back to more traditional levels. And if anything, Sony may beat MS to the market. They've also built it from the ground up to be much easier to program for.
Any final analysis will depend on what MS has to show off, but every dynamic shift from the last generation I can see looks to favor Sony.
We couldn't afford the hamburger. We just had the bun. If we were lucky.
We got most of our calories from going into McDonalds, claiming we just went through the drive through and asking for more ketchup packets.
This is my exact reasoning why flying cars will never take off (pardon the pun). People keep their cars in terrible condition. If your car has an engine failure, worst case scenario, you pull over to the side of the road, or end up blocking traffic. In a flying vehicle, if your engine dies, It's very possible that you will die too. And if you are above a city, it's not impossible to imagine crashing into an innocent bystander.
I imagine the same will be for self driving cars. It will never happen because if the car is getting bad information from its sensors, then crazy things can happen. People can't be bothered to clean more than 2 square inches from their windshield in the winter. Do you really think they are going to go around cleaning the 10 different sensors of ice and snow every winter morning? Sure the car could refuse to operate if the sensors are blocked, but then I guess people would just not want to buy the car, or complain to the dealer about it.
It's a self-driving car. It could take itself to the dealer for maintenance. (Granted that won't help with the ice on the sensors thing, but we'll have some time to figure out a heating system to melt that off.)
Exactly. It's a highly valuable resource and something for which there's a strong argument to get to as many people as possible. But I wouldn't go so far as to consider it a basic human right.
In the US the rules regarding whether bicycles are allowed on sidewalks is generally determined by localities, although I'm sure there are some state level laws as well. Where I grew up, it was legal, and in fact was how I was taught to ride whenever there was a sidewalk to use. Of course whenever you came upon a pedestrian, you were supposed to hop off and walk your bike past them.
That wouldn't work in an area with heavy pedestrian traffic, but as spread out as things were where I lived, you didn't have to hop down very often. I don't have any studies, but I'd wager that is safer than biking on the road, even if it can end up being much slower and more troublesome depending on how many people there are, and completely pointless to even bring the bike in a major city.
I used to bike to town back before I went off to college all the time despite living in the middle of nowhere. It was about an hour trip by bike and very hilly. Sometimes I'd even hike it. Yet now I would never consider biking or walking to work, despite it being less than a quarter of the distance. In the middle of nowhere, you'd occasionally see a car and there'd be plenty of room as the two of you split the road. Now, there's simply far too many and I'm not about to share the road with them.
If they had an unbroken chain of sidewalk and/or bike lanes, I would gladly skip the car whenever the weather is nice. It's not helmets for me, but infrastructure that keeps me from biking. Legal or not, I will not bike on a busy road and I prefer not to walk along it either if I can at all avoid it. So until and unless they fix that, I'll drive 8 minutes to work every day.
I think it would be helpful if everyone that shares anecdotes about their life involving their weight also mention their height. You may be 4'8", which would mean you still have a lot of weight to lose. You may also be 6'6" and be rather thin now.
Heh, true enough. I'm 6'1" which makes me fairly comfortable with my weight.
I didn't read TFA but I wonder if this study consider the quality of those calories, e.g. in America we try and diet by eating one cheeseburger instead of two, of course we could have eaten 5 apples instead, been full and satisfied, and gotten some nutrition as well.
Who would want to eat five apples in one sitting? Even if I were hungry, I'd probably just stop at one and wait till the next meal. At least pick a more appealing fruit like an orange.
But seriously, I dropped from 205 pounds to 170 and have kept it off for years with virtually exercise and with the only change to what I'm consuming being that I never buy any beverages with calories. Mostly stick to water with some diet pop on occasion. Other than that, I just cut back portions and eliminated snacking between meals.
Funny thing is, I motivate myself to diet with food. I have a very strict rule that I never eat out/order in unless I'm below 170 pounds. Then I'll get whatever food I want and have one meal where I eat without restraint. After that, I have to diet off whatever I gained and repeat the process. Keeps me happy, and sure beats going vegetarian and/or spending hours a week in the gym.
If God created it then being the deceitful God that he is, he could have done it 6000 years ago to make it look like it was done billions of years ago. He could have also done it yesterday and created the universe as-is complete with memories and fossil evidence of days gone by.
Creates world 6000 years ago
Spreads lots of clues that something else happened instead (fossils, C14 dating, star light already travelling towards us, etcetera)
To be fair, if you took a human, and gave them immortality,a blank universe, and godlike powers in it, how many would start with a big bang and sit around waiting for billions of years to see what happened? They'd just jump ahead. Most humans that wanted to play around would start with civilization already existing including a history that never actually occurred. The same thing happens in novels and other narratives. Why would it actually existing change anything?
Not only would I not find at all odd for records to exist that would indicate a past that never actually occurred, I would expect it from any godlike being with thought processes that at all mimicked those of humans. (Or I suppose it would be human thought processes mimicking their creator in this case.)
I was going to say the same thing only suggesting email rather than twitter. Just let people sign up for an email notification. Anyone with a smart phone is going to get emails from it, and hey, they now have a list of people to advertise to if they so wish. No need to design any special app.
Except the paper isn't trying to disprove that their has been a warming trend, only showing that in the US at least, that trend has been exaggerated. Satellite evidence may actually support that fact. Here are the trends for surface based measurements, and two satellite measurements since 1979.
RSS +0.137 C/decade.
Surface Temperatures +0.17 C/decade
That's 24% more warming in the surface data sets. In addition, both satellite records show 1998 being the hottest year since modern records began, while the surface temperature records show several years since than being hotter. Now the paper calls for a much larger bias in the trend, but not on the global level. So without looking at any of the data, it's at least a plausible conclusion that a much more highly inaccurate US data set could be responsible for most of the global difference from the satellite record.
Yes, there is a link, but causation has not been shown. The liklihood is that schitzophrenia makes one more prone to smoke marijuana.
Did you read the entire article? Because if you continue on, you'll find this:
Nevertheless, research on cannabis as a risk factor continued. Psychiatrists from the University of Amsterdam published data suggesting that schizophrenia patients who used cannabis showed worse outcomes than those who didn’t, and further studies confirmed this observation. Recent work following large groups over time also added to the risk theory – and these were careful to include all relevant factors.
Mary Cannon, of Ireland’s Royal College of Surgeons, took part in a New Zealand-based study which found that smoking cannabis before the age of 15 increased the risk of schizophrenia from 3% to 10% by age 26.
Well in my mind there's no question that tobacco is far worse than marjiuana, claiming there's no bad side effects at all is always a risky claim to make. There have been studies that indicate that's not the case as it leads to increased risk of schizophrenia, especially when used by adolescents.
I'm not even claiming that's a strong enough reason to keep it banned, just that there are bad side effects.