I was aware grapes having a higher percentage of tannins, flavenoids, etc... when grown in adverse conditions. However, I thought this was a property of the fact that the plant always commented the same nutrients to the grape, but because it's restricted in how much water it can intake, the grapes never fully plump with as much water. This plumping would reduce the percentage, and then dilute the wine. I didn't realize they actually provide more nutrients. This seems counter intuitive, since the plant would on rocky hard soils, have much fewer nutrients to draw from. Do you have a citation handy, it would be a good Sunday afternoon read?
I remember reading (maybe here) about a guy who did hydroponics and comparing nutritional profiles and got better results for certain nutrients compared to conventionally grown ones. I've read long ago resveratrol especially discussing the content in different regions and grape types across in Europe and also why Muscadine grape (native to Florida) has the highest amounts - few times higher than Spanish reds. I think Oregon is also better suited for healthier wines as well. I don't have anything handy, unfortunately as I have the bad habit not to organize my findings outside of keeping the conclusions read or made in my head, but those reads made me switch to Spanish Rioja from French Pinot Noir. I never looked at the map before now, but it seems that Rioja's location is very well-situated for higher resveratrol and the wine is great. :)
I like it, I made a similar one when playing with the javascript frameworks. However, outside of play, is Angular really the right choice here? 14kloc, for a poll? Seems rather excessive to me.
Thats a good point - looks like it's built on Rails too. Switch this to Node and React and it'll smoke. With Node it would also be super easy to use websockets and remove the need for Pusher too.
Not a big deal though - this is a really nice app. I just like talking about different frameworks and tools.
Sorry, but this doesn't even come close to working in the real world. If you're on the web, then this makes sense. However, on the metal, you need to know versions.
There won't be a windows 20, or anything closet to that. If we're still using computers the way we are now in 20 years, then we've seriously failed as a species.
The first wasn't thought about, it was done to save bytes, not because people weren't going to be using the software.
IPv4 was enough, the use case changed.
640K should be enough is an urban legend.
This isn't meant to come across as rude, but you're missing the forest for the trees.
Everyone needs the post office, how else will you be able to send a letter.
Everyone needs news, newspapers will be around forever.
Everyone needs a travel agent, people like to travel. They'll be around forever.
Everyone will always have a land line.
Video stores will exist forever...
Everyone needs a watch...
Etc...
For every example you come up with, I can come up with three in which the majority of the population no longer complies. We progress more than you realize. A commercial windowing computer interface has been around for 30 years next year, it's still in it's infancy. Touch interfaces have transformed digital adoption to numbers greater than I would have ever been able to comprehend back in 92 when I sent my mom, who worked at the University of Calgary while I was at the University of Alberta, an email. It was magical. And yet, in no way did I think it would ever grow to a point where every person would hold not only email, but the internet (which existed, but not really at that point). If you're under 30, it'll be a lot harder to see the rate of increase.
If we use the term drupe, it sounds slightly less crazy. Drupe enabled reactors seems like a phrase I could get behind. Fruity Reactors, or the Coconut Reactors do not inspire confidence. Though a bag of fruity reactors does sound tasty.
I'm confused. I thought if I bought anything, I'm allowed to do with it as I will? First sale doctrine, which limits the rights trademark holders had over their products once they've been paid.
The legal complications are in importing all the stuff, making sure you're not perceived as confusing/diluting someone else's brand name, complying with a different country's labeling requirements, and most of all obtaining the goods since Trader Joe's has the right to refuse to sell to "Pirate Joe's" shoppers.
Importing the stuff, complying with Canada's labelling has nothing to do with Trader Joes. That has to do with the Canadian government, and they don't seem to get too sticky about stuff like this.
Trader Joes has a right to refuse people who shop there, but again, you can't sue someone for trying to buy from you. Trespassing perhaps. Stalking?
Which brings us to your point about dilution of a brand. They lose that right when they sell it. It's called the first sale doctrine. HBO can stop Netflix from showing Game of Thrones streaming, but they cannot stop them from renting the video out. So, rather than listing things that aren't valid, could someone explain why isn't this covered by the first sale doctrine?
If Pirate Joes is a Trademark violation, then every single small business that includes a persons name is a trademark violation. Regardless, settle a name change, and done. My point is there is zero need to be litigious here, and there is no logical legal justification.
Trader Joeys, clear trademark violation. Pirate Joes, no fucking way. Not in this country.
If the store named "(thing) Joe's" builds its entire business on "we sell Trader Joe's products", there is a very reasonable case that they're confusing (possibly deliberately confusing) the public about whether they are or are not an actual Trader Joe's. Which... brings trademark law into play.
So, like I said. Maybe it's time for you to go back to law school.
It is not plausible that "Pirate Joe's" is confusing. You can't simply discard "(thing)" and focus on "Joe's", trademarks are taken with their entire context.
"A grey market (sometimes called a parallel market,[1] but this can also mean other things;[2] not to be confused with a black market or a grey economy) is the trade of a commodity through distribution channels which, while legal, are unofficial, unauthorized, or unintended by the original manufacturer."
We quickly realized that bacteria have evolved to eat oil, so it wasn't quite as big of an environmental disaster as first expected. I would not expect radiation to improve the situation at all.
Around the time of the Deepwater Horizon accident, I recall that there was some speculation about the ocean floor being fragile and breaking, causing a vast release of oil and methane.
So the answer to "into what" would be to collapse into the oil-filled voids within the floor.
It's just something I heard on the news when this was news. Maybe it was complete nonsense. Sorry if I offended anyone with my comment!
There aren't any oil-filled voids within the ocean floor. Oil and gas is contained in pourous rock, but the oil-containing rock is mostly solid. In the Deepwater Horizon case, it was also more than five kilometers below the ocean floor, so in other words very far underground.
I have heard the same speculations you refer to in the news, but I think they instead refered to the topmost portion of the well being destroyed, creating cracks in the top of the shaft of the well and allowing oil to leak in all directions. I am not a geologist, so I don't know how plausible these worries were.
I note that the FDA didn't find a problem with food safety (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencie...) the Wikipedia page references an unreliable Vice/MotherJones article. Not finding much on its side effects from research though. Do you have some additional pointers?
I was mostly using Google Scholar to look for peer reviewed work with the keywords 'corexit toxicity' There are a about a dozen papers on the first page, of the ones I could read without jumping various firewalls the conclusions tended toward 'less toxic' than 'more toxic'. Would love to see a meta analysis too but didn't dig one up.
Obviously, but what does that comment have to do with anything? So corexit is harmful. My gp was talking about nuclear explosions and bacteria, not corexit.
The grandparent also said, "so it wasn't quite as big of an environmental disaster as first expected." The comment about corexit would appear to refer to that part.
You could argue that it was or wasn't as big of a disaster as expected, but the corexit comment was certainly relevant regardless.
There are people who don't understand what a big deal this is. They think that because this small blue dot happens to have a lot of water, and there is evidence of water elsewhere in the solar system, that water must be common. That is a huge unjustified leap, comparable to "everything I see falls toward the centre of the Earth so everything in the universe must be falling toward the centre of the Earth or moving around it in a perfect circle". That kind of leap rarely works out especially well.
These sorts of observations that demonstrate that water actually is relatively common in the universe, and that is extremely exciting insofar as the prospects of life-as-we-know-it are concerned.
its worth noting that all this article did was show that hydrogen (not water) was present in abundance? Unless I am taking that wrong. and if i am taking it right, a great big 'DUH' as hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
Neither article focuses solely on hydrogen. The Discover article is about interstellar ice, while the Guardian article above is about the observation of water vapor:
> Scientists from the University of Maryland used Hubble’s wide field camera to analyse light from HAT-P-11b’s host star through the planet’s atmosphere. They found that light with a wavelength of 1.4 micrometres was absorbed, matching the absorption spectrum of water molecules.
Careful. Don't miss the precedent to the "every planet could have a drink". It all hinges on "if the solar system’s formation was typical", which is a question that has not been answered.
Also, why don't they address the implications if the solar system's formation was not typical?
Is the common idea currently that our solar system's formation was atypical? Or do you just mean "we just need to be sure that's the case" out of due diligence?
I firmly went the other way a few years back, and haven't regretted it. Looking at this how-to, I have no real urge to back, though it is a good writeup.
