djkrudy's comments

But seriously, what the heck makes more current information better? We aren't talking about significant technological advancements in the last 30 years in dating. What about releasing the click bait news story when a date is corroborated by a new piece of evidence, instead of every time some new find is dated we change the scientifically accepted just to the new number. gnaritas, its hilarious how you ask a very legitimate question, and then the responses are all "Isn't it great how the scientific method allows us to blatantly...." Instead of a response like "Oh...why the heck did we say we had so much confidence before" Regardless of what commenters say, the truth is that yes, without corroboration or quantifiable changes in technology, there is NO VALIDITY in saying that the newest number is the best number. It's another data point, and more importantly its another data point to prove that its stupid to so quickly decide that once you find something in 1 hole in 1 location, that artifact MUST be the beginning of an era!

Probably the same way they're so good at getting 9 year olds into the Olympics.

Atlas Shrugged. For its dogged adherence to finding out and practicing a morality. Rand's fault is that she ignores this cannon in creating entirely, unbelievably optimistic characters, but remembers it well in their decisions and formation of plot. This book challenged, nearly destroyed, and then strengthened my faith and hope in Christ because of its' logical progression toward the necessity and worth of truth and fairness, and then being unable to act out those principles without the use of God-like character(s). I was left, after studying Islam in the Koran and separately, mindfulness and others, unable to turn to anything else, except the Gospel of John and Romans. A Reason for God, by Tim Keller was also a necessary step in the tempering of my morality.

Can we retag this "Scientist who denies that dark matter exists exists"

"Do you have any questions for us?" "Um, how many days can I call in sick in a year before I get fired?"

As a hiring manager, I would never believe this response, because as an interviewee there isn't a company on the planet I could say all these things about AFTER working there for 30 years, much less before working there. I'd just laugh because anybody who says something like this has no idea how mucked up a simple task can get in the real world. Jeez, are you a second semester business administration UG student?

This is not an answer to the question. The question is actually "Why should we hire you, INSTEAD of the next person in the door. I'd be weary about working for a company that fell for the "You give me money I give you work worth more money" answer. This question is asked to discern why or how you cannot be generalized into being just another grunt who will be the first to be laid off. What qualities, morals, connections, skills, perspectives do you bring? This is your chance to not be a piece of paper. Speaking to your resume is very dry, this is an opportunity to show your intrinsic value. Warren Buffet is just an investor, right? Elon Musk is just a business magnate, right? NO, these leaders have qualities that don't fit into work experience. The hiring process is 2 things really: 1, finding grunts to create slightly more value than they are paid(as told in above answer), and 2, a lot like venture capitalism. A good company is looking for people with high potential to pay back 10x, 100x, etc in innovation, or as leaders. If they hire the first 50 people in the door, they have a 1 in 50 chance (for example) but if they vet and press people to explain why a company should bet on them, instead of a random selection of "qualified applicants", they can improve those odds considerably. If you think the job search is literally luck of the draw in a pool of people with similar experience, or a comparison of who has the most degrees, you won't succeed in face-to-face interviews. I'll provide my stock response, paraphrased, but your answer should be true for you, this is an answer that MUST be truthful, because they're asking for your identity. "Why should we hire you" "Because of my dogged commitment to "right". I'm someone who will not be happy with the answer I get in the typical 9-5 if I know I can get a better one. I'm not content biting my tongue on a new idea, even if it creates more work for me. I will stand up for fair treatment of ALL of my coworkers, and I will gladly accept, and seek out criticism about my work and behavior. Integrity is the most important moral I have, and that means it stands above profit, job security, etc etc etc." Do you have a life experience that armed you with incredible empathy? This is when to break that out, without sounding whiny. Do you have skills that don't fit within the scope of experience, but provide you with an edge in day to day tasks, etc?

Ten minute static front plank? Video or it didn't happen. I've heard if you can do 3min front and 3 min each side (on elbows) without rest or movement, you'll never have back problems. I believe it, but I've never met or seen anybody capable.

My main concern is, like others below, the opaque beer. I've always known that to be the undesirable effect of "pulverizing" I think of it as maybe twice ground beef can be cooked more evenly than a steak, but the crust and raw elements are what make a steak better. That's an unscientific way to say it, but as a homebrewer I know that efficiency is NOT quality. "Cold brewing" or brewing with CHC may have advantages in releasing/ preserving flavor in hops, but the study doesn't support this claim. I don't care if I get 30% efficiency based on original alphas to extracted alphas if something else is lost. (Like taste, sensory effect or mouth feel) I'm thinking this may be more comparable to "dry hopping", which can be used to give hop forward bitterness instead of the dregs that hops boiled for an hour provide. (Like the difference between the aromatic taste of fresh salsa versus the nearly coppery taste of cooked all day tomato sauce. I love fresh salsa, but you can't replace that "dregs" almost umami flavor brought out in Marinara. Compare Bell's Two Hearted to 3F Zombie Dust. IBU's don't tell the whole story. I'm not discounting these methods, but I don't think that the research is comprehensive enough or takes into account taste enough to talk about completely converting a brewery to these methods.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaning-water-wit... I think that doesn't apply here, the concept is that CHC purifies the liquid. I'm not sure how much I like that, but I agree that changing the boiling point wouldn't mean that bacteria are irradiated at boil.

Probably wise!

Ah, no. I must have not made myself clear somewhere. God of the gaps philosophy is mirrored by modern science as a sort of "Nothingness blob of the gaps". Its the same type of thing though: If we haven't figured out how it works, then its some random nothingness blob that happened to...even though that is not how it behaves naturally...blah blah blah (Like flies on meat). Basically just listen for when NDeT almost lets his words hum out of his mouth, he's trying to dramatize his words so you get caught up in the majesty of the things he's describing instead of questioning them. So if God of the gaps is so bad, its comical that Nothingness blob of the gaps passes your rigorous critical analysis. I believe in the Bible , not "God of the gaps" or the "Nothingness blob"

In 1668 Francesco Redi disproved the theory that flies spontaneously generated from rotting meat, a theory originally proposed by Aristotle. Since that time, popular science has just shifted that theory farther and farther away from the common era. When carefully and objectively observed, rotting meat does not emit maggots, but since nobody around to observe meat, matter, molecules or atoms billions of years ago... we can just squint at the farthest reaches of the timeline and infer from the fuzziness that life must have spontaneously generated...right? God is very scary and mean when he is misunderstood, we can agree on that. You speak of beauty as an objective(even if relative) truth but deny the concept of objective truths. You have an innate respect for continuation and survival, but deny the order and purpose necessary to create and sustain that framework. I'm sure you'd profess Newton's laws of motion, but you deny them in your lack of theory of existence. I'm not trying to be demeaning, I'm trying to leave no room for anything but a yes or no answer in your mind. If you don't want to break it down to that, then cheers to a good life my friend.

noir_lord, if you're happy, then great. Just don't dig too far into your existentialism or in my opinion you'll end up disappointed and confused with the circularity of the reasoning. I hope sometime you say to yourself "No, really, what is the actual point??? If the answer is REALLY nothing but random fluctuations in the space time continuum then I don't understand why we don't just all slit our wrists together. But life goes on, and mass suicide hasn't happened, which I find inconsistant with your line of reasoning. That said, I'm sure OP appreciates your input "Everything is meaningless, you should feel lost and helpless cause it's the truth!"

Wow, this is great. Can we be friends because I love to argue with people I know. If you don't fight, you never realize who you are, you just think you're the same being as Pauly D, but you missed your "big shot" somewhere along the line. One of the most incredible feelings I've ever experienced is severely disagreeing with 3 friends but really feeling passionate about it, then running into the woods to contemplate and cry, and then returning and getting 3 hugs. I want you to know that. It's a "You haven't lived until..." type of thing.

I'd climb rocks and find Jesus. In the opposite order, but that sounds less poetic :P Either way, I vouch for both and if you want to know more about either, get in touch. If moderate success doesn't equal moderate happiness then is our whole societal model of success equals happiness broken? I think so. Love, -Daniel

Grandalf are you suggesting in your first point that the company allow the previous employee to leave, then put that facet of their business on hold for 1-12 months while they find a replacement?

Can I get a free copy please?

Don't forget technological advancements, the other price driver. They're 11 years into the research, there could still be huge changes coming in how they can produce it.