/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3325894
>>3325894
>>3325894
Three hours is a bit much.

Try a few minutes.

>>3280353
>>3280483
>>3280483
>Oh look, insecure conspiracy nut is upset that no one gives a shit about his bullshit thread and he can't feel superior for spreading the obvious truth that we sheep are too stupid to comprehend

>>3280468
I'm glad it's gone. It was completely useless, and a terrible chore to scroll past to see the first post.

>>3280440
>>3280440
>>3280420
>>3280420
I don't think you can classify these as "generic state universities"

Penn state has a great reputation. Compare it with something like FSU.

>>3280364
>>3280364
>companies only through you loot when you prove you are worth it (which usually takes time)

Are you implying that this is different for other degrees?
Also:
>through you loot
>through

This is why no one will ever throw you any loot.

>>3280331
>>3280331
The point isn't that one degree is real and one degree is fake. The fact is that a hierarchy exists, and I'm surprised that you don't understand this.

>Same goes for bachelor level jobs, all those schools teach with the same textbooks.

It may be true that the textbooks are the same, but the quality of the teachers, the quality of the programs, the depth of the programs, and especially the latent abilities of the students that make it into and through programs at schools like Harvard, Columbia, MIT, completely justify preferential treatment for Ivy League schools over state schools. You absolutely cannot say that a 4.0 is the same from either school.

Even if graduate schools aren't concerned with what schools students come from businesses absolutely are. MIT on your resume looks many times better than FSU.

Even interacting with students from other colleges, I've seen differences in depth between my school and theirs. Schools are respected for a reason.

>>3280321
I imagine in a rotating cylinder you could still have debris accumulating above the surface, although a much smaller amount.

Regardless, what's the point of having a factory in space?

>>3280326
>>3280326
>They are make for a wonderful home.

I take it you also live in a trailer?

>>3280300
>>3280300
How do you know the bumps on your head aren't hallucinations?

>>3280290
>>3280290
>>3280290
>A 4.0 from Generic State University looks as good as a 4.0 from Harvard, that's what they don't tell you.

I do believe someone told you wrong. If you agree that a 4.0 from ITT tech is nowhere near as useful as a 4.0 from a state college, I expect you'd understand that the same relationship exists between state and ivy league colleges.

How do you know your visit to the doctor wasn't a hallucination?

>>3280150
>become a conservation officer
>make shit money

>become a wildlife/fisheries/marine biologist
>make shit money

>private business
>lose shitload of money when business fails

>>3280148
>>3280148
On the other hand, even this is questionable.

Due to the slow nature of climate change, no one is likely to experience any radical changes within his or her lifetime. People tend to be happy in the environments they grow up in, provided they have food, water, and shelter. You can't miss something you've never had. Thus even in a future relatively bleak by our standards, people will continue living just as they do now, whether we stop climate change or not. There just may be fewer of them, but the shift in population is likely to be gradual, mirroring the rate of climate change, once food and space become scarce and technology cannot keep up with demand.

>>3280146
>>3280146
No, my body doesn't tell me to do things.

Even at 250% increased risk of developing kidney stones, the risk is very small. So chances are you're not going to get kidney stones. But I suspect you're just trolling at this point.

>>3280125
>>3280125
This.

On the other hand, we by nature tend to be empathetic beings, and things like charity and general good will are pleasurable, whether you are performing good deeds for people around now or people around in 1000 years. Therefore it is indirectly justifiable on a personal level, for some people, but certainly not all people.

Hence the need for alarmist propaganda to get people to pay attention to the potential issue of climate change.

>>3280086
>>3280086
>>3280086
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_%28nutrient%29#Excess_consumption
>durr derpa herp derp

At worst, according to the article, you have a 250% increased chance of having kidney stones. But buying 3 lottery tickets increases my chances of winning by 300%.

>>3280061
>>3280061
If the whey protein is complete, I don't see any reason you wouldn't gain muscle. And even if it isn't, completeness of a protein refers only to the ratio of amino acids, not their actual presence/absence, so if worse comes to worst you wouldn't see large gains, but I think there would still be something there.

Still, I think you're better off spending the money on beef and chicken from cheap fast food places.

In fact, based on your body type, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd come out just fine. I'm sure people in third world countries survive on much less.

>>3279989
>>3279989
Greasy, fatty meat may be somewhat difficult to digest. Lean meat is not. This includes lean beef, and especially chicken.

Now in the particular case that you're looking to gain muscle and are not aiming for low body fat, you absolutely want to eat meat. The key to muscle building, in addition to protein, is caloric excess. This is why you hear of people cycling between bulking and cutting, where cutting is essentially dieting to reduce body fat percentage and make muscles more defined, but not any stronger or larger.

>>3279989
>>3279989
>you will burn out your kidneys and liver if you do.

You're not going to "burn out your kidneys and liver" from eating too much whey protein. At worst your body will just store the excess as fat.

>>3279995
>>3279995
I don't think whey protein by itself contains all of the nutrients your body needs and doesn't get from ramen, chips, and soda. You might still gain some muscle, but in the long run it may not be healthy.

>>3238087
When a galaxy or a planetary system forms, its material takes the shape of a disk. Most of the material orbits and rotates in one direction. This uniformity of motion is due to the collapse of a gas cloud.[1] The nature of the collapse is explained by the principle called conservation of angular momentum. In 2010 the discovery of several hot jupiters with backward orbits called into question the theories about the formation of planetary systems

>>3238120
>>3238120
>Implying that women are not driven by the urge to be better than their peers, and/or their peers aren't men

>>3238115
>>3238115
Imagine if Stan from American Dad wrote his own version of wikipedia.

Now imagine that there are a couple hundred (thousand?) people who spend time and effort taking it seriously.

Welcome to conservapedia.com

I encourage you to try to spend more than 5 minutes on it without raging. To say that it is biased is a tremendous understatement.

>>3238081
Obviously men are going to make better decisions when they are well-fed, and what better way to stay healthy than to employ women to ensure sandwiches are available at critical decision making times?

This certainly is not news to me, OP.