Slashdot Mirror

Or possibly, shoot scenes involving visibly-spoken dialogue twice, back to back... once in English, and once in the country's official language. It would cost more, but not THAT MUCH more since you'd be using the same cast (they're all bilingual, remember), the same CGI, and could do the editing workflow in parallel... and you'd end up with two versions, both of which were a first-quality original shot in their respective languages.

How Pixar movies are changed for international audiences.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's the best choice of words, or even a good choice... If that was even the word used.

Why would it not be the word used? Enough with the "Ol Olsoc is lying" insinuation.

https://www.good.is/articles/u...

http://www.scholarcritic.com/p...

http://www.schoolingsystems.co...

The term "Cherish other cultures" is in wide use in diversity literature.

Merely that the tendency to take everything by a strict dictionary definition and avoid discussing the actual issue is just dragging the debate down into semantics and trivialities.

As I related in my true story - I asked the question of how Diversity - Cherishing other cultures - could be reconciled with women's rights. There was no discussion allowed.

There is a reason for that. The far left wing version of cognitive dissonance. Somehow, someway, the plight of women in many cultures is ignored, and a preference to attack the apparently more pressing problems of how men sit on public transportation as opposed to infibulation. or marriage to prepubescent girls is engaged. Are there crimes against women in the west? Sure. but not an integral part of the culture.

I've never been able to engage a modern feminist in a discussion of those matters. Very much like my inability to engage in discussions with far right wing social conservatives about their massive inconsistencies and contradictions.

Your's is a good example, the insinuation that I was lying about a stupid word.

Mine is a sad affirmation that feminists aren't demonstrably terribly worried about the plight of women in other countries, and more worried about men winking at them.

A few years ago a local artist improved a confusing L.A. freeway sign, making an interstate number shield in the process:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...

https://www.good.is/articles/t...

http://gizmodo.com/how-one-fed...

One down, 9,999 to go...

It may be a well made and tasty bacon (I have had TJ's bacon, its not bad at all), but it is definitely cured and definitely contained nitrites. This article explains why sometimes, it can even be labeled "Uncured" despite the fact that it is actually cured (since USDA regulations apparently don't currently include celery-curing): http://fyi.uwex.edu/meats/file...

I don't even know why you would want to eat nitrite-free bacon...it won't taste like bacon and it might give you botulism. Either stick to fresh pork or accept that nitrites are required when consuming cured/smoked/aged pork products.

The Ruhlman/Polcyn charcuterie book doesn't go deep enough into detail, but cites Harold McGee's "On Food And Cooking". I don't have a copy, so I've tried to find some other sources.

• Ruhlman writes about "Uncured" and "No Nitrites or Nitrates Added" Bacon. Of particular note is his link to his article about meat curing safety concerns where he talks about the actual dangers of nitrites (only a few grams of sodium nitrite can kill you, which is partly why curing salt is only ~6% sodium nitrite).
• Very interesting article on how little nitrites even come from cured meat

  . 400+ hotdogs (or quite a lot of bacon) has fewer nitrites than a single serving of Arugula (a whole foods favorite) or 4 servings of celery or beets.

• Fact Sheet from American Meat Institute. Possibly biased source, but has some discussion of how beets/celery are used to create cured meats (which by definition include nitrites).
• UW-Madison Meat Laboratory pamphlet. Has some good discussion of what the different terminology on meat product labeling means. Particularly of note is the USDA rules that allow you to call products cured with non-traditional sources of nitrites "uncured" despite the fact that they are cured. Also discusses how meats only make up 5% of our nitrite intake and ~90% of the nitriate and nitrite added to meats is broken down and converted to other compounds, leaving very little behind.
• Some discussion on the curing process from one of the better sausage resources online. Cited for discussion of actual quantities and ratios of curing salts needed to work. You need about 50ppm to be effective, the FDA asks for 156ppm to ensure enough curing plus a safe amount of nitrites. If whole foods is selling it, you can be sure it meets these requirements.
• I recognize that I have yet to provide a source that substantiates the claim that the celery-bacon may have more nitrates than traditional bacon. According to this abstract (can't access the full paper), it is not possible/difficult to "analytically measure the amount of nitrite produced by this [alternative] process" (since nitrites break down and while you can measure their presence after the fact, you can't measure their presence in the initial curing)
• This GOOD article references a study that found more nitrites in the alternative bacon than in traditional. Unfortunately it is not available without a subscription (I think I actually remember reading that article which is probably why I made my original post, but my paper-subscription to Cooks Illustrated does not include online access).

Hope some of this answers your questions (or points you in the right direction if you have journal access). My takeaway from it all is that it really doesn't matter. There is so little of it present in cured meats compared to other foods that are never even questioned that it seems like a total red-herring used to sell one brand over another (like

There is only so much bias you can remove from certain articles. Especially when this is a massive crowd sourced project. In all honesty, I trust the large amount of people who frequent these articles to help keep astroturfing to a minimum. You'd think by now, people would be good at critically looking at a piece of information and being able to identify the bias of the writer.

On a completely random side note, the value wikipedia provides for FREE is immense. Trust me, it is one of the best resources we have and the citations can help me find other details and continue reading if I so wish. If I was forced to go back in time to the 1500s and could only take one thing, I'd take this http://www.good.is/posts/wikip...

25 % of Americans consume fast food every day

20% of meals are eaten in the car

88 percent of young Americans couldn't find Afghanistan on a map, 75 percent couldn't locate Iran or Israel, and 63 percent couldn't identify Iraq

More Than 40 Percent of Americans Believe the Rapture Is Coming

That 71% think we have an extra trillion dollars or two to go to Mars for no useful or compelling purpose is no great surprise. Depressing? Disconcerting? Tragic? Sure, but not surprising.

I'll just mention as someone who handles money, including (by US federal mandate) a small number of dollar coins, that I see a huge desire among the vast majority of my customers to completely avoid dollar coins. They will get rid of coins the moment they get them. I received over last summer less than one dollar coin per thousand bills.

So there is this vast preference for dollar bills.

Now consider that the US is storing indefinitely somewhere around a billion dollar coins. How did they get this so wrong?

So why do dollar coins have such a big negative preference? I believe it's because of how heavy and bulky they are. They mass 8 grams compared to 1 gram for the bill. Eight times as heavy. Bulkwise the two are probably comparable in density per $. But the bill can be folded while the coin is a rigid circular shape. I don't see myself putting 25 dollar coins in my wallet any time soon.

And we see the usual rather unthinking authoritarian pattern of burdening hundreds of millions of people to save a few bucks. It's worth noting that dollar coins are currently worth as metal about 6% of their face value. If the US gets a large bout of inflation, that's going to make these coins very expensive to produce. Paper bills just don't have that problem.

I imagine I won't surprise many people by saying that I don't see a case for phasing out the dollar bill under these circumstances. Maybe if the dollar coin was much smaller, cheaper, and had a more convenient form factor with actually adoption from some portion of the public.

That's not consistent with what I've read about this subject. For instance:

...in some quarters outright disbelief remains regarding the launch prices actually posted on the SpaceX website for the Falcon Heavy. No other company has posted fixed launch prices on the Internet — only SpaceX. The actual taxpayer cost of US government launches can only be guessed by calculating from the cost-plus contract costs, which are usually for multiple launches from the same customer. If SpaceX does multiple launches, the posted price would be reduced depending on the number of launches.

Or this:

Rather than the traditional cost-plus model, in which companies are reimbursed the cost of a project plus an additional amount that guarantees them a profit, SpaceX and Orbital are working under newly established Space Act Agreements, in which NASA pays increments of a fixed price once the companies accomplish previously agreed upon milestones.

To reiterate, this is no guarantee that it will actually work better (and not just more cheaply) than the old system. For it to really be a success there needs to be a competitive market, a sustainable business model, and a lack of heavily subsidized competition from the Chinese. But I really hope it does succeed.

http://www.good.is/post/conservative-darling-ayn-rand-died-loving-government-handouts/

And more in depth:
http://www.patiastephens.com/2010/12/05/ayn-rand-received-social-security-medicare/

Wow....googled this and it appears to be somewhat right: apparently more soliders killed themselves than died in combat in 2010

I wonder why there isn't more public transport going on here as the "Driving Under the Influence" laws get worse and worse.

there is plenty of public transport here (if by here you mean the US) it is just that here is a MUCH larger land mass (than the UK) and we're spread out all over the place. The US has a nationwide railway system similar to Europes for transcontinental travel but it isn't used much for passenger transport anymore which might be partially explained by this article

Inaccurate unscientific ramblings, sound bites and clichés do not support your argument. That not only goes for hkmwbz but also Soulskill (the author of this topic who so brazenly declares the science is all but settled), JD, Shavano and Blueg3 below. Global Warming / Climate Change is NOT scientific fact, it is THEORY presently being developed and there is still much to learn. Blind supporters of global warming make outrageous claims and forget that all of this is THEORY which must be backed up with evidence. There are no 'denialists' - that is not even a word! You offer NO LINKS to scientific studies to back up your outrageous claims, so I will.

Urban Heat Islands are definitely real, especially in rapidly growing countries like China. See this paper published by the Journal of Geophysical Research:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/new-paper-uhi-alive-and-well-in-china/

So hkmwbz you are certifiably wrong there. Then you persist with your clichés

there's a huge amount of evidence that the warming is caused by humans.

Really? Show us your evidence. Where are your links? What is definitely an undisputed scientific fact is how little scientists know and how much they are still learning today.

Then we have JD (below) making ridiculous statements like:

The current imbalanced rise in CO2 is much more troubling because studies show that plants do NOT like massive levels of CO2 unless they come combined with massive levels of O2.

JD what makes you think CO2 is presently imbalanced? Where is the evidence for your statement? Do you actually know what the present percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is??? It presently is around 0.039445%. Do you have any idea how the increase in CO2 has increased during the last 50 years? It has increased from 0.032 to 0.0395, or by approximately 25%. Here is the data:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Look at that graph. Its a fairly straight line over a period of 50 years. Fairly straight line despite the dramatic jump in CO2 emissions since the mid-1800's (PDF). Even though human population has more than doubled during the last 50 years! Even though the number of cars has increased 800% from 122 Million in 1960 to over 1 Billion today. And yet somehow our planet's climate just keeps on balancing things out and the rate of increase of CO2 is fairly constant. But wait, JD definitely said "imbalanced rise".

JD continues:

CO2 rises alone, without any other alteration to the environment, will cause plant growth to decline and is eventually toxic.

Really? Where is your scientific evidence? The reality is CO2 is a fertilizer to plants. Plants LOVE CO2, even without a corresponding rise in O2 (wrong again). Even in high concentrations CO2 continues to act as a fertilizer. Here are some links from climate change advocates which you seem to blindly trust:

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/fertilizationeffect
http://www.good.is/post/rick-santorum-thinks-carbon-dioxide-isn-t-harmful-to-plants-tell-that-to-a-plant/

Appeal to authority works in the other direction too, you know. Especially when the source in question was just reporting on the release as published by NASA.

Yeah, whatever. NASA's just part of the leftist lamestream media, amirite?

Some points to consider:

Total outstanding student loan debt recently topped $1 trillion (e.g. see link).

Student loan debt now exceeds household credit card debt (see link).

It isn't possible to escape student loans via bankruptcy - they will follow you your whole life, no matter what. This puts them in a class by themselves.

Obviously, the current system is badly broken. Why should the federal govt be in the business of hooking young adults on these onerous loans? If the goal is social leveling (a goal I can get behind), then we should be talking about grants, not loans. What we're doing is creating a new class of indentured servants.

I didn't say that was my view on the US public in regards to US foreign policy, but those are the things American citizens and voters typically care about.

For 2010 the big topics for voters are - the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, education, medicare, the deficit. Social Security, Economy, Education, Medicare, the Deficit all tie into the tax rate/economy really.

http://www.good.is/post/interactive-infographic-what-issues-do-american-voters-care-about/

Here's an Ayn Rand quote that I have to bring whenever she is mentioned: "I love handouts from the government."

http://www.good.is/post/conservative-darling-ayn-rand-died-loving-government-handouts/

How about Panera?

I find it interesting that the Yellow Pages aren't mentioned, which may as well have an even lower saturation rate. I really enjoyed this post on GOOD yesterday.

Video: Canadians Return Hundreds of Phone Books to Yellow Pages Office
http://www.good.is/post/video-canadians-return-hundreds-of-phone-books-to-yellow-pages-office/

Other awards were given for Best Design ('We also like how the chubby typeface is evocative of obesity') and Best Information ('Bonus points for the great smaller serving of spaghetti').

Other awards were given for Best Design ('We also like how the chubby typeface is evocative of obesity') and Best Information ('Bonus points for the great smaller serving of spaghetti').

Here's a very edifying collection of those statistics. The "libertarians" amongst us are actually receiving the most benefit from our socialist policies, while the "socialists" amongst us are actually those that are quite self sufficient.

http://www.good.is/post/the-anti-tax-states-get-a-great-deal-on-taxes/

The largest advantage of traveling by rail vs air is not having to spend time getting from a city center to a suburban airport. Train stations tend to be in the city center and better connected to local mass transit (in my experience).

For those of us in the northeastern US having local transit agencies link there payment cards also seems like a good idea.