StringJunky

The researchers make associations of mortality risk between stage of life and protein intake i.e. middle-age people should consume low amounts and the old age higher amounts. Really, the research is about tuning your protein intake according to your stage of life and at certain life phases the risk factor for cancer may be equivalent to smoking. Let's not forget, the cancers from smoking are not the same as from excessive protein consumption. Also, the mention of smoking is likely from the person reporting and not the researchers. "The research shows that a low-protein diet in middle age is useful for preventing cancer and overall mortality, through a process that involves regulating IGF-I and possibly insulin levels," said co-author Eileen Crimmins, the AARP Chair in Gerontology at USC. "However, we also propose that at older ages, it may be important to avoid a low-protein diet to allow the maintenance of healthy weight and protection from frailty..." Graphical abstract from the paper: http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/retrieve/pii/S155041311400062X Note the title of the paper: Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population

Yes I can see that was likely the intent of the authors and compilers.

I saw the story as Man's transition from animal to autonomous thinker with self-awareness and self-determination ...God let go of controlling Man's destiny from therein basically because he had acquired freewill. I'm not saying I'm right but this has always been my interpretation in the absence of 'correct' teaching.

My thoughts as well ..the question was reasonably answered in the negative long ago. To argue otherwise would be a teleological one and that is the domain of religion.

Last I heard it could be got rid of in 40% of cases some years ago ...that was with a Ribavarin-Interferon coombination. Treatments seems to be more effective now. This was published today: An estimated 3.2 million people have HCV, but the vast majority are unaware they have it, the AJMC noted. HCV gained steam in the early 1980s, before blood products were routinely screened for its presence. Screening people for HCV would allow candidates for treatment to rid themselves of the disease early, before complications become difficult and expensive to treat. Targeting the baby-boomer generation before most of them retire would allow those found to be carrying the virus to obtain treatment under commercial insurers, rather than Medicare. The cost of treatment to cure HCV, which may be possible in 90 to 94% of cases with new therapies, must be weighed against the cost of caring for what was once an expensive, long-term chronic condition, noted one of the panelists. http://blog.pharmexec.com/2014/02/28/changing-the-hepatitis-c-treatment-landscape/

Try this as a last chance: http://en.community.dell.com/support-forums/laptop/f/3518/t/19494727.aspx

Battery's had it by the sound of it or at least it's regulation mechanism is faulty if not the cells themselves.

What does it do with no battery in and plugged in when you power on?

Sorry, I missed the note about the maximum temperature in open air is only 500c. It's inert properties are good though aren't they?

I've converted the page to a .pdf and added it to the previous post for you to download.

Is 'Glassy Carbon' worth looking into? It can be taken to 2500c with the appropriate grade and 3000c ( I read elsehere) in a vacuum or Helium atmosphere. http://www.2spi.com/catalog/mounts/spi-glas-glassy-carbon-crucibles.php __www.2spi.com_catalog_mounts_spi-glas-glassy-carbon-cruci.pdf

OK. More specific: http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx Edit: Inserted correct link

That approach might work If the majority consensus is disposed against that ideal/belief ...I think you are blowing into the wind. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/09/study-24-of-americans-now-either-atheist-agnostic-or-deist/

Your challenge, I think, is to reconcile how time behaves objectively, as a physicist measures it and how you, as a psychologist, understand it relying more on human experiential and physiological data .

Until the amalgam of chance and deterministic behaviour fall short in describing the development of the world around us Occam's Razor rules the day.

"Clever" is a property of cognitive beings not nature itself. Cleverness implies intent and nature possesees no such faculty.

When you said earlier, paraphrasing, that time does not change the colder you make atoms, seems to me, to knock out the notion that time is change . ...if it was then an implication of that would be time is dependent on temperature - I've never read such a thing.

Youtube says the video has been removed by the user. You can't have constructive criticism and tell your audience to "enjoy" the video. ...not very scientific is it? ...prejudicing the outcome or what?! When you've fixed it I'll have a listen.

Yes that's right ...I cocked it up.

We cannot know external reality ourselves because what we perceive is only data, yes, but we can share the data and see where it matches with each other and call that 'reality' ...it's about the best we can do. I'm not familiar with Berkeley so I apologise if I'm way off in my response. I'm not saying my axiomata is better, I put it 'out there' to be attacked.

Your arguments are fine in the sense that they agree with most scientific types. Yes I'll concede the point that I don't know in practice but I'm with chadn737 based on my 52 years of exposure to human nature on this that it's not a good strategy for the general religious populace. This is one of the few times I find myself in disagreement with the scientific attitude.

I meant your approach is the consensus amongst most scientific types ...here anyway. No ridicule was implied towards you, or anyone else, by me. It's not my style and, besides, I wouldn't want someone calling out "Pot...Kettle..." now would I?

Acme The difference between your approach and chadn737 is they are seeking means to engage and hopefully convert the opposition whereas your, albeit standard, approach only serves to ostracize them and maintain the status quo of two divided camps..

But could it not be argued that it is doing something but we can't measure it ...something must be happening to cause the decay?

We can only define something as existing if we set minimum conditions, hence the minimum of two observers, to help negate that what is observed is not some personal cognitive artefact generated internally as the source. The chances of an object existing increase the more observers there are. We have to start from some assumption, like our fellow observers exist extant to ourselves of course.