|
United States44191 Posts
Maybe they have other shit going on beyond being a pedophile. Hell, I like blondes but I'm not moving to Sweden for it.
|
You won't go to jail for life if you are caught with a blonde though.
|
|
|
On September 29 2015 14:53 KwarK wrote:
Maybe they have other shit going on beyond being a pedophile. Hell, I like blondes but I'm not moving to Sweden for it.
You should though
|
In January I'll move to New Zealand for my PhD. Time difference is 12 hours: how long will it take for me to get past the jetlag?
Also, what is the best trick to get used to it? Sleeping when you feel like it or trying to adapt and only sleep in the night?
|
Just go there and don't think about it ahead?
You will stay for a while, your Body will adjust itself just fine within a few days.
|
You don't say? I was just curious and I asked...so rude
|
Do not keep your European sleep schedule. Try to sleep and eat at the same time as the locals. However what you can do in the beginning is, if you have the time, a 30-minute or 1-hour nap in the afternoon.
|
On September 29 2015 20:58 SoSexy wrote:
In January I'll move to New Zealand for my PhD. Time difference is 12 hours: how long will it take for me to get past the jetlag?
Also, what is the best trick to get used to it? Sleeping when you feel like it or trying to adapt and only sleep in the night?
Presumably your excitement at getting there will help you get over it more quickly than you would think. Arriving in Hong Kong in June (12 or 13 hour difference from MN) I was by and large over it, or didn't care within a few days. Now when you go back to Italy, you'll be a zombie for a while longer, should still be less than a week.
|
On September 29 2015 20:58 SoSexy wrote:
In January I'll move to New Zealand for my PhD. Time difference is 12 hours: how long will it take for me to get past the jetlag?
Also, what is the best trick to get used to it? Sleeping when you feel like it or trying to adapt and only sleep in the night?
Rule of thumb is that you'll be completely recovered after as many days as hours, ie 12 days. In practice you will likely be good enough well before that though. It is pretty individual it seems. Some people seem to barely get any jetlag at all, others are completely useless for days.
The usual tips for adjusting to jetlag:
- be outside to catch sunlight during daytime.
- eat according to proper meal times in your new timezone.
- it is easier for most to adjust forward (ie stay up later, sleep later) than the other way around.
- Take sleeping pills during the flights if needed.
- Start adjusting towards new timezone before travel.
Did I miss any?
In your case, Italy to NZ, it is a bit funny, as the best is probably to adjust forward, ie stay up later and sleep later, especially if you are a night-person. If you are a morning person you may consider adjusting the other way around though. However, the flight will most likely take you the other way around, traveling east over middle east and south east asia, which corresponds to adjusting backwards in local time. So if you want to adjust forward, you have to ignore the local timezone while you travel (hard, as the flight meals and flight-lighting usually is adjusted according to local time), and just look at the time in NZ and aim for those patterns.
|
On September 29 2015 20:58 SoSexy wrote:
In January I'll move to New Zealand for my PhD. Time difference is 12 hours: how long will it take for me to get past the jetlag?
Also, what is the best trick to get used to it? Sleeping when you feel like it or trying to adapt and only sleep in the night?
you'll be so exhausted from the length of your trip that you'll have no trouble sleeping when you finally arrive ^^
|
On September 29 2015 08:02 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 06:55 whatisthisasheep wrote:On September 29 2015 05:28 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 04:44 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 03:35 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 02:21 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Why is the alcoholism gene so prevalent in Ireland? The very idea of an "alcoholism gene" (or of an "anything gene" tbh) is an absurd oversimplification made by the media in order to sell stuff, and this has no (f)actual basis at all. Does the term genetic predisposition to alcoholism sit better with you? Way, way better. a.k.a. the alcoholism gene No. Saying just "the alcoholism gene" (or "the intelligence gene", or "the violence gene") implies that this sole gene is sole responsible for us being alcoholic or not. Several major issues come from it : -It means that we are entirely our genetic heritage, and our genetic heritage is ourselves. If you're a coke addict, it's in your genes. If you've a tendency to rape girls instead of accepting when one doesn't want to fuck with you, it's in your genes. If you beat your wife and plough your goat, it's in your genes. If you're a nice person, it's in your gene ; if you're affected by depression, it's in your genes, etc. This awfully wrong view of the world is not only completely ignorant, but it causes real damage when people with little knowledge of the way genetics work start to believe in things like "the behavior B gene". Then you see alcoholics who stop trying to fight because "I'm made for it". You see suicidary people never going out of depression because some idiot pseudoscientist told him/her that he/she had some gene that causes depression. Etc. There's a MAJOR nuance between "gene G is related in some way to behavior B" and "gene G causes behavior B, and you can't help it". There are genes that can cause precise, actual disease. Then it's okay to talk about the "disease D gene". But not with social behaviors, which are influenced by genes, but clearly not solely determined by them. -As I just said, a genetic predisposition is just a predisposition and can mean absolutely nothing depending on one's behavior. Even talking about genetic predisposition asks for caution : if you take the case of the ALDH deficiency in the Asian people, you'll see that basically, when having an ALDH deficiency, you stand alcohol a lot worse (and I mean really a lot worse) than when you don't. Thus what would be logical to think is that people with ALDH deficiency will drink less, and thus have less risks of being affected by liver cancer. Well, funnily enough, that's not entirely true. People with heavy ALDH deficiency indeed have lower risks of liver cancer since they almost don't drink, but people with moderate ALDH deficiency have higher risks than normal to have a liver cancer, because the social attraction of alcohol makes them bypass their issues at standing it. See? Social behavior is more important than genes. And it is way safer, and more correct, talk about a genetic association between gene and behavior, than a genetic predisposition. -It makes people less responsible. Ethical issue. When a society pays for alcoholic's treatment, you can't have every alcoholic going like "listen dude, I don't want your fucking treatment and care. You can't affect genetics anyways." -Saying "alcoholism gene" is fundamentally wrong since it implies that you can also have either a "non-alcoholism gene" or no "alcoholism gene" at all. Well no, what every human on the planet probably has is a "alcohol gene" (I'm oversimplifying a lot here, in reality it's tons of genes whose proteins participate in the journey of alcohol in the body), and then everyone has two alleles of this gene. No, you don't have a "red hair gene" and a "blonde hair gene". It's the same gene(s). -Even if we assume that genetics are the sole influence on us and our behaviors, we anyway know way too little about genetics to use the term "behavior B gene" as if we knew that there aren't other genes acting either in conjunction or in opposition with said genes. I mean hell, read this instead of my badly written rant, it': decent enough : http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/mobileart.asp?articlekey=26119&page=1
Yeah, that's fine and all, but what you will read in any news media is this:
Alcoholism gene rampant on the green island!
Scientist have discover that the alcoholism gene is overrepresented in the Irish population. Professor Knowitall comments "The Huffenpuff group has made an outstanding job in producing these results, showing the genetic predispositon of the Irish population. This will prove to be a foundation to much future work." The Irish population is at an all time high with 14% diagnosed as alcoholics, prompting a recent media release from President O'Hara. "Our sustained support for Science and Technology is today finally bearing fruit. The discovery of the Alcoholism Gene will provide a cure for this malady and will allow for a new healthy Irish generation to go hand in hand with our traditional culture."
O'Flannigans new Guinness meatpie recipie that'll knock you out of your chair
Ingredients:
5 bottles of Guinness
Preparation:
Drink the first bottle. Repeat until all bottles are used. After thorough mixing, go to the pub to catch the game with your shams. Order a meatpie and another Pint.
|
On September 29 2015 22:50 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 08:02 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 06:55 whatisthisasheep wrote:On September 29 2015 05:28 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 04:44 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 03:35 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 02:21 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Why is the alcoholism gene so prevalent in Ireland? The very idea of an "alcoholism gene" (or of an "anything gene" tbh) is an absurd oversimplification made by the media in order to sell stuff, and this has no (f)actual basis at all. Does the term genetic predisposition to alcoholism sit better with you? Way, way better. a.k.a. the alcoholism gene No. Saying just "the alcoholism gene" (or "the intelligence gene", or "the violence gene") implies that this sole gene is sole responsible for us being alcoholic or not. Several major issues come from it : -It means that we are entirely our genetic heritage, and our genetic heritage is ourselves. If you're a coke addict, it's in your genes. If you've a tendency to rape girls instead of accepting when one doesn't want to fuck with you, it's in your genes. If you beat your wife and plough your goat, it's in your genes. If you're a nice person, it's in your gene ; if you're affected by depression, it's in your genes, etc. This awfully wrong view of the world is not only completely ignorant, but it causes real damage when people with little knowledge of the way genetics work start to believe in things like "the behavior B gene". Then you see alcoholics who stop trying to fight because "I'm made for it". You see suicidary people never going out of depression because some idiot pseudoscientist told him/her that he/she had some gene that causes depression. Etc. There's a MAJOR nuance between "gene G is related in some way to behavior B" and "gene G causes behavior B, and you can't help it". There are genes that can cause precise, actual disease. Then it's okay to talk about the "disease D gene". But not with social behaviors, which are influenced by genes, but clearly not solely determined by them. -As I just said, a genetic predisposition is just a predisposition and can mean absolutely nothing depending on one's behavior. Even talking about genetic predisposition asks for caution : if you take the case of the ALDH deficiency in the Asian people, you'll see that basically, when having an ALDH deficiency, you stand alcohol a lot worse (and I mean really a lot worse) than when you don't. Thus what would be logical to think is that people with ALDH deficiency will drink less, and thus have less risks of being affected by liver cancer. Well, funnily enough, that's not entirely true. People with heavy ALDH deficiency indeed have lower risks of liver cancer since they almost don't drink, but people with moderate ALDH deficiency have higher risks than normal to have a liver cancer, because the social attraction of alcohol makes them bypass their issues at standing it. See? Social behavior is more important than genes. And it is way safer, and more correct, talk about a genetic association between gene and behavior, than a genetic predisposition. -It makes people less responsible. Ethical issue. When a society pays for alcoholic's treatment, you can't have every alcoholic going like "listen dude, I don't want your fucking treatment and care. You can't affect genetics anyways." -Saying "alcoholism gene" is fundamentally wrong since it implies that you can also have either a "non-alcoholism gene" or no "alcoholism gene" at all. Well no, what every human on the planet probably has is a "alcohol gene" (I'm oversimplifying a lot here, in reality it's tons of genes whose proteins participate in the journey of alcohol in the body), and then everyone has two alleles of this gene. No, you don't have a "red hair gene" and a "blonde hair gene". It's the same gene(s). -Even if we assume that genetics are the sole influence on us and our behaviors, we anyway know way too little about genetics to use the term "behavior B gene" as if we knew that there aren't other genes acting either in conjunction or in opposition with said genes. I mean hell, read this instead of my badly written rant, it': decent enough : http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/mobileart.asp?articlekey=26119&page=1 Yeah, that's fine and all, but what you will read in any news media is this: Alcoholism gene rampant on the green island!Scientist have discover that the alcoholism gene is overrepresented in the Irish population. Professor Knowitall comments "The Huffenpuff group has made an outstanding job in producing these results, showing the genetic predispositon of the Irish population. This will prove to be a foundation to much future work." The Irish population is at an all time high with 14% diagnosed as alcoholics, prompting a recent media release from President O'Hara. "Our sustained support for Science and Technology is today finally bearing fruit. The discovery of the Alcoholism Gene will provide a cure for this malady and will allow for a new healthy Irish generation to go hand in hand with our traditional culture."O'Flannigans new Guinness meatpie recipie that'll knock you out of your chairIngredients:
5 bottles of Guinness
Preparation:
Drink the first bottle. Repeat until all bottles are used. After thorough mixing, go to the pub to catch the game with your shams. Order a meatpie and another Pint.
any resemblance to every nasa press realease ever is purely coincidential
|
On September 29 2015 20:58 SoSexy wrote:
In January I'll move to New Zealand for my PhD. Time difference is 12 hours: how long will it take for me to get past the jetlag?
Also, what is the best trick to get used to it? Sleeping when you feel like it or trying to adapt and only sleep in the night?
Adjust your eating and sleeping schedule to the desired times. Force yourself to sleep and eat when you'll typically be eating and sleeping in NZ.
|
On September 29 2015 22:53 oGoZenob wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 22:50 Cascade wrote:On September 29 2015 08:02 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 06:55 whatisthisasheep wrote:On September 29 2015 05:28 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 04:44 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 03:35 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 02:21 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Why is the alcoholism gene so prevalent in Ireland? The very idea of an "alcoholism gene" (or of an "anything gene" tbh) is an absurd oversimplification made by the media in order to sell stuff, and this has no (f)actual basis at all. Does the term genetic predisposition to alcoholism sit better with you? Way, way better. a.k.a. the alcoholism gene No. Saying just "the alcoholism gene" (or "the intelligence gene", or "the violence gene") implies that this sole gene is sole responsible for us being alcoholic or not. Several major issues come from it : -It means that we are entirely our genetic heritage, and our genetic heritage is ourselves. If you're a coke addict, it's in your genes. If you've a tendency to rape girls instead of accepting when one doesn't want to fuck with you, it's in your genes. If you beat your wife and plough your goat, it's in your genes. If you're a nice person, it's in your gene ; if you're affected by depression, it's in your genes, etc. This awfully wrong view of the world is not only completely ignorant, but it causes real damage when people with little knowledge of the way genetics work start to believe in things like "the behavior B gene". Then you see alcoholics who stop trying to fight because "I'm made for it". You see suicidary people never going out of depression because some idiot pseudoscientist told him/her that he/she had some gene that causes depression. Etc. There's a MAJOR nuance between "gene G is related in some way to behavior B" and "gene G causes behavior B, and you can't help it". There are genes that can cause precise, actual disease. Then it's okay to talk about the "disease D gene". But not with social behaviors, which are influenced by genes, but clearly not solely determined by them. -As I just said, a genetic predisposition is just a predisposition and can mean absolutely nothing depending on one's behavior. Even talking about genetic predisposition asks for caution : if you take the case of the ALDH deficiency in the Asian people, you'll see that basically, when having an ALDH deficiency, you stand alcohol a lot worse (and I mean really a lot worse) than when you don't. Thus what would be logical to think is that people with ALDH deficiency will drink less, and thus have less risks of being affected by liver cancer. Well, funnily enough, that's not entirely true. People with heavy ALDH deficiency indeed have lower risks of liver cancer since they almost don't drink, but people with moderate ALDH deficiency have higher risks than normal to have a liver cancer, because the social attraction of alcohol makes them bypass their issues at standing it. See? Social behavior is more important than genes. And it is way safer, and more correct, talk about a genetic association between gene and behavior, than a genetic predisposition. -It makes people less responsible. Ethical issue. When a society pays for alcoholic's treatment, you can't have every alcoholic going like "listen dude, I don't want your fucking treatment and care. You can't affect genetics anyways." -Saying "alcoholism gene" is fundamentally wrong since it implies that you can also have either a "non-alcoholism gene" or no "alcoholism gene" at all. Well no, what every human on the planet probably has is a "alcohol gene" (I'm oversimplifying a lot here, in reality it's tons of genes whose proteins participate in the journey of alcohol in the body), and then everyone has two alleles of this gene. No, you don't have a "red hair gene" and a "blonde hair gene". It's the same gene(s). -Even if we assume that genetics are the sole influence on us and our behaviors, we anyway know way too little about genetics to use the term "behavior B gene" as if we knew that there aren't other genes acting either in conjunction or in opposition with said genes. I mean hell, read this instead of my badly written rant, it': decent enough : http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/mobileart.asp?articlekey=26119&page=1 Yeah, that's fine and all, but what you will read in any news media is this: Alcoholism gene rampant on the green island!Scientist have discover that the alcoholism gene is overrepresented in the Irish population. Professor Knowitall comments "The Huffenpuff group has made an outstanding job in producing these results, showing the genetic predispositon of the Irish population. This will prove to be a foundation to much future work." The Irish population is at an all time high with 14% diagnosed as alcoholics, prompting a recent media release from President O'Hara. "Our sustained support for Science and Technology is today finally bearing fruit. The discovery of the Alcoholism Gene will provide a cure for this malady and will allow for a new healthy Irish generation to go hand in hand with our traditional culture."O'Flannigans new Guinness meatpie recipie that'll knock you out of your chairIngredients:
5 bottles of Guinness
Preparation:
Drink the first bottle. Repeat until all bottles are used. After thorough mixing, go to the pub to catch the game with your shams. Order a meatpie and another Pint. any resemblance to every nasa press realease ever is purely coincidential
New scientist, CNN, the sun. They are all the same. I haven't read many NASA releases, but from your comment it seems like they are the same as well. You don't sell copies by being scientifically accurate.
|
On September 29 2015 23:18 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 22:53 oGoZenob wrote:On September 29 2015 22:50 Cascade wrote:On September 29 2015 08:02 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 06:55 whatisthisasheep wrote:On September 29 2015 05:28 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 04:44 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 03:35 OtherWorld wrote:On September 29 2015 02:21 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Why is the alcoholism gene so prevalent in Ireland? The very idea of an "alcoholism gene" (or of an "anything gene" tbh) is an absurd oversimplification made by the media in order to sell stuff, and this has no (f)actual basis at all. Does the term genetic predisposition to alcoholism sit better with you? Way, way better. a.k.a. the alcoholism gene No. Saying just "the alcoholism gene" (or "the intelligence gene", or "the violence gene") implies that this sole gene is sole responsible for us being alcoholic or not. Several major issues come from it : -It means that we are entirely our genetic heritage, and our genetic heritage is ourselves. If you're a coke addict, it's in your genes. If you've a tendency to rape girls instead of accepting when one doesn't want to fuck with you, it's in your genes. If you beat your wife and plough your goat, it's in your genes. If you're a nice person, it's in your gene ; if you're affected by depression, it's in your genes, etc. This awfully wrong view of the world is not only completely ignorant, but it causes real damage when people with little knowledge of the way genetics work start to believe in things like "the behavior B gene". Then you see alcoholics who stop trying to fight because "I'm made for it". You see suicidary people never going out of depression because some idiot pseudoscientist told him/her that he/she had some gene that causes depression. Etc. There's a MAJOR nuance between "gene G is related in some way to behavior B" and "gene G causes behavior B, and you can't help it". There are genes that can cause precise, actual disease. Then it's okay to talk about the "disease D gene". But not with social behaviors, which are influenced by genes, but clearly not solely determined by them. -As I just said, a genetic predisposition is just a predisposition and can mean absolutely nothing depending on one's behavior. Even talking about genetic predisposition asks for caution : if you take the case of the ALDH deficiency in the Asian people, you'll see that basically, when having an ALDH deficiency, you stand alcohol a lot worse (and I mean really a lot worse) than when you don't. Thus what would be logical to think is that people with ALDH deficiency will drink less, and thus have less risks of being affected by liver cancer. Well, funnily enough, that's not entirely true. People with heavy ALDH deficiency indeed have lower risks of liver cancer since they almost don't drink, but people with moderate ALDH deficiency have higher risks than normal to have a liver cancer, because the social attraction of alcohol makes them bypass their issues at standing it. See? Social behavior is more important than genes. And it is way safer, and more correct, talk about a genetic association between gene and behavior, than a genetic predisposition. -It makes people less responsible. Ethical issue. When a society pays for alcoholic's treatment, you can't have every alcoholic going like "listen dude, I don't want your fucking treatment and care. You can't affect genetics anyways." -Saying "alcoholism gene" is fundamentally wrong since it implies that you can also have either a "non-alcoholism gene" or no "alcoholism gene" at all. Well no, what every human on the planet probably has is a "alcohol gene" (I'm oversimplifying a lot here, in reality it's tons of genes whose proteins participate in the journey of alcohol in the body), and then everyone has two alleles of this gene. No, you don't have a "red hair gene" and a "blonde hair gene". It's the same gene(s). -Even if we assume that genetics are the sole influence on us and our behaviors, we anyway know way too little about genetics to use the term "behavior B gene" as if we knew that there aren't other genes acting either in conjunction or in opposition with said genes. I mean hell, read this instead of my badly written rant, it': decent enough : http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/mobileart.asp?articlekey=26119&page=1 Yeah, that's fine and all, but what you will read in any news media is this: Alcoholism gene rampant on the green island!Scientist have discover that the alcoholism gene is overrepresented in the Irish population. Professor Knowitall comments "The Huffenpuff group has made an outstanding job in producing these results, showing the genetic predispositon of the Irish population. This will prove to be a foundation to much future work." The Irish population is at an all time high with 14% diagnosed as alcoholics, prompting a recent media release from President O'Hara. "Our sustained support for Science and Technology is today finally bearing fruit. The discovery of the Alcoholism Gene will provide a cure for this malady and will allow for a new healthy Irish generation to go hand in hand with our traditional culture."O'Flannigans new Guinness meatpie recipie that'll knock you out of your chairIngredients:
5 bottles of Guinness
Preparation:
Drink the first bottle. Repeat until all bottles are used. After thorough mixing, go to the pub to catch the game with your shams. Order a meatpie and another Pint. any resemblance to every nasa press realease ever is purely coincidential New scientist, CNN, the sun. They are all the same. I haven't read many NASA releases, but from your comment it seems like they are the same as well. You don't sell copies by being scientifically accurate.
well no, they are not scientifically inaccurate in a way that journalist can be, they just overhype every annoucement like it's a major breakthrough unlike anything ever seen before. Which is very rarely the case in science
|
Is affirmative action racist against asians? when asians have to study twice as hard so they can score 500 more points the SAT than a Black or Latino student, it doesn't seem very fair.
|
On October 01 2015 03:19 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Is affirmative action racist against asians? when asians have to study twice as hard so they can score 500 more points the SAT than a Black or Latino student, it doesn't seem very fair.
Discrimination =/= racism.
|
On October 01 2015 03:52 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2015 03:19 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Is affirmative action racist against asians? when asians have to study twice as hard so they can score 500 more points the SAT than a Black or Latino student, it doesn't seem very fair. Discrimination =/= racism.
Discrimination based on race = racism
|
In 2012 there was a case in SCOTUS, but it got sent back to the lower courts which have now sent it back to SCOTUS and it will be heard next term. Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
