Without having seen it, or even good pictures of it, I would assume the color mode would still have full resolution, but that colors would appear "wrong" but not neccessarily less detailed.
You guys do know that there is no full color pixel?
At least when i look at the recent display comparisons, it's always a matrix of different red, green, blue pixels:
Of course, but the point is that there are usually (e.g.) 1024 red pixels, 1024 green pixels, and 1024 blue pixels, per-row. This screen has 1024 color pixels per-row total, in a novel layout.
I see this argument all the time. "Oh, Joe Schmo won't know how to do this! It'll frighten them!".
And this happens absolutely everywhere. And it's true. But this problem won't go away until we start FORCING people to adapt, by adopting stricter measures everywhere.
Having read the article and the abstract of the paper in question, it seems a little.. off. For a start, it's a meta-analysis pulling from a simply massive pool. And it asks people about areas of their life from a few years upto two and a half decades.
Do YOU know how often you slept under six hours a night in the last year? 2 years? 5? 10?
Did all these people keep detailed sleep diaries every single night?
This just raises too many questions. Meta-analysis is most useful when restricted to much smaller sample sizes where a greater amount of data can be obtained and analyzed.
--
Edit for More Info:
It seems that this paper is a meta-study of OTHER papers. And that 80% of the data used came from a single study by Daniel F. Kripke of UCSD.
The conclusions of Kripke study, which were meta-analysed, were notably different than Cappuccio's, namely:
"The best survival rates were found among those who slept 7 hours per night. The study showed that a group sleeping 8 hours were 12 percent more likely to die within the six-year period than those sleeping 7 hours, other factors being equal. Even those with as little as 5 hours sleep lived longer than participants with 8 hours or more per night."
Lets attack this question from another angle then.
Why do you think that China would never do anything to a Google employee if Google the company did something that China didn't like.
It has already happened in countries that are supposedly less strict than China, See the case of Italy issuing an arrest warrant for Google employee's due to a youtube video.
What's your point? We live in a world where communication obviates the need for everyone to be first hand witnesses. The entire concept of news reporting is predicated on credible third parties.
My point is that majority of western news about China are biased and sensational and taken out of context. You form your opinion based on the source that is already filtered by the journalists.
You will have much better view of the whole story if you can read Chinese media, just for the full story. You might refuse to do so because they are controlled by the government. I ask you to talk to Chinese, you refuse as well because you think there is no need. How "sound" do you think your opinion will be?
I was reading a popular Chinese forum (tianya.cn) thread on contaminated food, and I was surprised at how anti-government the tone was. (think reddit, but more extreme) There were jokes taking direct jabs at the party and state, and I was amazed that they didn't get taken down.
I think Chinese tend to avoid talking shit about their country in front of foreigners to "save face". It seems to be part of the culture.
I'm sorry, all I see in this is that it will make food a lot safer for everyone as well as doing benefit to the environment. If small farmers can't cope with this, that's not my fault.
I WANT my food to be safer. If that means only large companies can compete, so be it.
Sorry and no offense, but your opinion is blissfully ignorant. It's a simple matter to trace obesity and other health issues to the increase in processed foods. Foods which are mostly created by the companies who influence this kind of legislation. Just a few seconds of research should convince you of this...
This bill places just one more issue on the small farmers plate. I grew up farming and ranching. As rampant development (causing increased traffic, trespassing, liability, etc) encroached on our SE Pennsylvania farm, we were forced to downsize. After selling our cows, we turned to buying milk illegally from another local farmer. Why didn't we just buy it from a store? If you'd ever had fresh, raw milk, you'd understand.
Most farmers I know, farm for the lifestyle. They're an independent lot and regulations like this is only one more reason to sell out to the highest bidder, aka, a real estate developer.
Increasing regulation in this area doesn't only hurt small farmers, it hurts communities, businesses, health, and in the end, the human spirit.
Sure there must be safe food. But I'd bet, given the food I had as a child (fresh fruit and vegetables, eggs, milk, chicken, pork and beef) along with all the 'contaminants' they must have had because they weren't irradiated, pasteurized, or processed gave me a much healthier foundation than most. You don't need your own farm for this, just go to a farmer's market. If you think it's expensive, compare it to your long-term health costs. Pretty damn cheap in the long run.
That's great when it's someone else's industry, in this case farming. What happens when tomorrow, the government mandates that all computer code be registered, digitally signed and closed source, for safety reasons, of course?
I WANT my computer to be safer. If that means only large companies can compete, so be it.
Sterilized, not sterile. Some bacteria and fungi thrive in seed collections if they get moist. Sterilization ensures you aren't then planting these seeds and allowing the bacteria/fungi to grow over and throughout the crop.
