My opinion was just the opposite. If their goal was to make a fresh universe, to give them room for brand-new story lines, then the first movie was excellent. And again, if that was their goal, then they threw it all away with the second movie.
"That's an education issue and not a problem of what is sold at the grocer. Stick to things like rice, potatoes and pasta as a base, add in fresh or frozen vegetables, along with beans/lentils."
White rice and potatoes are both terrible. You might as well be eating raw sugar. They are some of the highest glycemic-index foods out there (i.e., diabetes-inducing). The glycemic index goes from 1 to 100, with sugar being close to 100. Potatoes (the starchy kind particularly) are 98. Rice is not even close to potatoes, but it's still way up there.
Pasta is not quite as bad, but still high. Rice and pasta can be made better if you use brown instead of white rice, and whole-grain pasta. If you must eat a potato, make it the "waxy" kind with the smooth skins, like the red and golden potatoes. They are still very bad, but not as bad.
I agree with pretty much all the rest of what you say. But shitcan the white rice and potatoes, and reduce your pasta intake unless it's whole grain.
Look at the latest Start Trek movie. Bleccchh. After that great re-start, the second movie was a re-make of The Wrath of Khan... arguably the most successful of the prior run of movies... but so what?
I was wondering where this year's "blockbusters" are... so far they have seemed formulaic to the point of boredom.
"In very rare cases does someone need to take any supplements at all. If one pays attention to having a proper diet one can get all the vitamins needed naturally. Part of the whole vitamin craze is how lazy people are. It can take some thought and effort to eat a healthy diet containing all the nutrients a body needs to thrive. It's quite worth doing so though."
It isn't just laziness. It's also money. It is difficult to get a balanced diet on a low budget. (Not impossible, but difficult.)
And the cases where vitamins are necessary are not all that rare. For example while as the article says, everyday free radicals may not be as terrible as they have been made out to be, when there is a flood of them they can do severe damage.
Case in point: you get a bad sunburn. A lot of the pain and damage of sunburn is caused by free radicals. If you get a sunburn, a proven method of mitigating the damage is by taking large does of vitamin C and some aspirin, both of which are strong free-radical fighters.
Another case is physical injury. (Granted, sunburn is physical injury too but I mean more like severe bruises or broken bones). Double-blind studies have shown that large doses of vitamin C can dramatically shorten the healing time. In one study done with guinea pigs (obviously, they are not humans but still), carefully controlled injuries to broken limbs healed in half the time of the control group when given large doses of vitamin C.
However, those ARE exceptions, and not everyday occurrences. And they have never been shown to lessen the severity of, much less cure, colds and the like.
Well, sale of high-risk derivative bundles that the banks know are high-risk but that are marketed as "conservative" investments might be construed as price-fixing.
And the Fed, while it has some other functions, is essentially price-fixing on a vast scale.
"I would hold that you are making assertions about the science,"
Saying that something "might be" is not making an assertion. It is speculation, nothing more. They are not the same things.
"Why would you have to ask about their motives?"
Please see the question I posted that started this whole thread. The motives are made questionable by the very act referred to.
And I repeat: I am not making assertions about those motives; I am merely questioning them. I will also note that nobody yet has presented a straightforward answer that convincingly offers a motive while supporting the honesty of their intentions. I admit that "convincingly" is subjective, but I stand by it.
One person did say that it was a Republican adviser who came up with the idea of "playing down" the "global warming" phrase. But that was one individual; I know of no others who proposed the same thing. And it was quite a few years before the phrase was actually shifted to "climate change".
"You aren't in a position to be dictating the conditions of the conversation to others."
Bullshit. I *AM* in a position to decide whether I ignore you. And just so you know, that sentence is as far as I went. The rest has been ignored; I haven't read it.
"These investigations illustrate our efforts to ensure market fairness for U.S. businesses by bringing corporations to justice when their commercial activity violates antitrust laws."
Then they should pretty much all go to jail.
Oops. Almost forgot Obama. I mean, it's not like the revolving door had anything to do with this stuff, right? (/sarcasm)
"The psychology you posit is sound--the prestige of public support for one's views can be a powerful motivator--but notice it's predicated on the assumption that there is no broader warming trend and therefore some other theory must be advanced."
No, it isn't. That was just one of the hypothetical examples. Repeat: I'm not making assertions about the science, I'm simply asking about their motives.
"What, exactly, do you think they're getting out of it?"
First, I want to note that I am not asserting that they get anything out of it other than to further their own interest, "their own interest" being public support of their theories.
And I suggest (although I am not making the claim that they are... just asking) that one reason MIGHT BE that it keeps people interested in the subject even after their predictions have gone so demonstrably awry. After all; it's hard to harp on "Global Warming" when there has been little if any overall warming for a long time.
Example: I can promote further interest in a gadget if I promote it as "overunity" than if I try to claim it is perpetual motion. I'm not making any claims about the science of either one here; I'm simply speculating about the psychology.
"Propose something that is demonstrably false, someone will helpfully correct you. Propose it again, perhaps no-one will bother.
Propose it multiple times, after it has been repeatedly corrected, and people will suspect that you know your premise is wrong and therefore that you are trolling, and will mark you as troll."
Hardly. Your response is pretty laughable.
I asked an honest, stand-alone question. Period. I specifically stated that if you insist on dragging other shit into the conversation, you will be ignored.
My "subsequent" comment was directly addressing the comment you made. How can you honestly blame that on me?
And Luntz' antics were many years ago... LONG before the media started calling it "Climate Change" in any serious way. Most conservatives I have read about have chosen your #1. I had never even heard about any of them doing #2 until just now.
To be more clear about the other comment I just made:
You are quite clearly guilty of doing exactly the thing you accused me of doing. And the proof that I did not (and that you did) are right here in print.
"I am amazed at how people love to attribute the worst possible motives to scientists (lying for what? to get a 20K-100K grant?) but refuse to see the motives of those who fund climate CHANGE deniers, which would be oil companies, investment fund managers with big stakes in petroleum, etc. with billions at stake."
Except that is not what I did, as you would know if you bothered to read more carefully and cease attributing motives to ME that equally do not exist.
I simply stated that it was the media following the scientists, not the other way around. I did not attribute any motives to anybody.
"That's not how I remember it. Climate change was put forward by the greenies because the results were not agreeing with the predictions. Once you can attribute temperatures going up, going down or staying the same to the same cause, you're golden"
Glad YOU got it, at least. Some a**holes marked me "troll" for daring to ask a completely sensible question.
"The term "Climate Change" has been around since at least the 1950's"
That has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. The phrase "climate change" has almost certainly been around a lot longer than that. So what?
"Climate Change" is more common now thanks to conservative think tanks who made a concerted effort to use that term in the early 2000s because it was considered "less scary" than global warming. Scientists went along with it because "Climate Change" is technically more accurate anyway and they are not particularly good at playing politics.
I doubt that very much. Your argument sounds nice but logically it makes no sense. The "conservatives" would have wanted to make it sound MORE scary, not less.
Since largely speaking it was the liberals, not the conservatives, who were pushing the "global warming" agenda, it would only make sense that THEY were behind the change to make it "less scary" to the public.
"Because climate change is a more accurate descriptor. The record shows that increased CO2 levels accompany periods of instability (e.g. rapid growth and reduction in glacier size) even if the trend tends toward warming."
I don't really think that's an adequate answer. Just being honest. It still seems to me that THEY (scientists, followed by the media) are playing self-serving word games.
I suppose it's possible, but I would be surprised, because on every other OS, it informs you that if you want that functionality it needs an external library and tells you to download it.
The fact remains that the De-CSS functionality is not in VLC, but in a separate program.
"Why would I care? Run samba server (it's an app) on your device, and copy files to/from it using your PC, or run any file manager on your device, and copy files to/from your PC using it."
I was referring to file transfer controlled by the mobile device. And I don't particularly want to run Samba Server on my dev machine.
Slashdot Mirror
My opinion was just the opposite. If their goal was to make a fresh universe, to give them room for brand-new story lines, then the first movie was excellent. And again, if that was their goal, then they threw it all away with the second movie.
"That's an education issue and not a problem of what is sold at the grocer. Stick to things like rice, potatoes and pasta as a base, add in fresh or frozen vegetables, along with beans/lentils."
White rice and potatoes are both terrible. You might as well be eating raw sugar. They are some of the highest glycemic-index foods out there (i.e., diabetes-inducing). The glycemic index goes from 1 to 100, with sugar being close to 100. Potatoes (the starchy kind particularly) are 98. Rice is not even close to potatoes, but it's still way up there.
Pasta is not quite as bad, but still high. Rice and pasta can be made better if you use brown instead of white rice, and whole-grain pasta. If you must eat a potato, make it the "waxy" kind with the smooth skins, like the red and golden potatoes. They are still very bad, but not as bad.
I agree with pretty much all the rest of what you say. But shitcan the white rice and potatoes, and reduce your pasta intake unless it's whole grain.
I think they'll find that they can't prove it... because people will stop going. Not all of them, or maybe even most. But a lot.
The movies that have made the MOST money, were not rubber-stamps like the majority of others.
This.
Or mostly this, anyway.
Look at the latest Start Trek movie. Bleccchh. After that great re-start, the second movie was a re-make of The Wrath of Khan... arguably the most successful of the prior run of movies... but so what?
I was wondering where this year's "blockbusters" are... so far they have seemed formulaic to the point of boredom.
"In very rare cases does someone need to take any supplements at all. If one pays attention to having a proper diet one can get all the vitamins needed naturally. Part of the whole vitamin craze is how lazy people are. It can take some thought and effort to eat a healthy diet containing all the nutrients a body needs to thrive. It's quite worth doing so though."
It isn't just laziness. It's also money. It is difficult to get a balanced diet on a low budget. (Not impossible, but difficult.)
And the cases where vitamins are necessary are not all that rare. For example while as the article says, everyday free radicals may not be as terrible as they have been made out to be, when there is a flood of them they can do severe damage.
Case in point: you get a bad sunburn. A lot of the pain and damage of sunburn is caused by free radicals. If you get a sunburn, a proven method of mitigating the damage is by taking large does of vitamin C and some aspirin, both of which are strong free-radical fighters.
Another case is physical injury. (Granted, sunburn is physical injury too but I mean more like severe bruises or broken bones). Double-blind studies have shown that large doses of vitamin C can dramatically shorten the healing time. In one study done with guinea pigs (obviously, they are not humans but still), carefully controlled injuries to broken limbs healed in half the time of the control group when given large doses of vitamin C.
However, those ARE exceptions, and not everyday occurrences. And they have never been shown to lessen the severity of, much less cure, colds and the like.
"The thing is, even if you have a horrible diet you probably still get all the essential vitamins and minerals."
Not really. You can eat at McDonald's every day, and still get scurvy.
Well, sale of high-risk derivative bundles that the banks know are high-risk but that are marketed as "conservative" investments might be construed as price-fixing.
And the Fed, while it has some other functions, is essentially price-fixing on a vast scale.
s/no others/no other conservatives
"I would hold that you are making assertions about the science,"
Saying that something "might be" is not making an assertion. It is speculation, nothing more. They are not the same things.
"Why would you have to ask about their motives?"
Please see the question I posted that started this whole thread. The motives are made questionable by the very act referred to.
And I repeat: I am not making assertions about those motives; I am merely questioning them. I will also note that nobody yet has presented a straightforward answer that convincingly offers a motive while supporting the honesty of their intentions. I admit that "convincingly" is subjective, but I stand by it.
One person did say that it was a Republican adviser who came up with the idea of "playing down" the "global warming" phrase. But that was one individual; I know of no others who proposed the same thing. And it was quite a few years before the phrase was actually shifted to "climate change".
"You aren't in a position to be dictating the conditions of the conversation to others."
Bullshit. I *AM* in a position to decide whether I ignore you. And just so you know, that sentence is as far as I went. The rest has been ignored; I haven't read it.
Wall Street
Studios (music & movie)
Cable Internet Providers
. . .
If they really mean
"These investigations illustrate our efforts to ensure market fairness for U.S. businesses by bringing corporations to justice when their commercial activity violates antitrust laws."
Then they should pretty much all go to jail.
Oops. Almost forgot Obama. I mean, it's not like the revolving door had anything to do with this stuff, right? (/sarcasm)
"The psychology you posit is sound--the prestige of public support for one's views can be a powerful motivator--but notice it's predicated on the assumption that there is no broader warming trend and therefore some other theory must be advanced."
No, it isn't. That was just one of the hypothetical examples. Repeat: I'm not making assertions about the science, I'm simply asking about their motives.
"What, exactly, do you think they're getting out of it?"
First, I want to note that I am not asserting that they get anything out of it other than to further their own interest, "their own interest" being public support of their theories.
And I suggest (although I am not making the claim that they are... just asking) that one reason MIGHT BE that it keeps people interested in the subject even after their predictions have gone so demonstrably awry. After all; it's hard to harp on "Global Warming" when there has been little if any overall warming for a long time.
Example: I can promote further interest in a gadget if I promote it as "overunity" than if I try to claim it is perpetual motion. I'm not making any claims about the science of either one here; I'm simply speculating about the psychology.
"Propose something that is demonstrably false, someone will helpfully correct you. Propose it again, perhaps no-one will bother. Propose it multiple times, after it has been repeatedly corrected, and people will suspect that you know your premise is wrong and therefore that you are trolling, and will mark you as troll."
Hardly. Your response is pretty laughable.
I asked an honest, stand-alone question. Period. I specifically stated that if you insist on dragging other shit into the conversation, you will be ignored.
From here out, consider yourself ignored.
My "subsequent" comment was directly addressing the comment you made. How can you honestly blame that on me?
And Luntz' antics were many years ago... LONG before the media started calling it "Climate Change" in any serious way. Most conservatives I have read about have chosen your #1. I had never even heard about any of them doing #2 until just now.
To be more clear about the other comment I just made:
You are quite clearly guilty of doing exactly the thing you accused me of doing. And the proof that I did not (and that you did) are right here in print.
"I am amazed at how people love to attribute the worst possible motives to scientists (lying for what? to get a 20K-100K grant?) but refuse to see the motives of those who fund climate CHANGE deniers, which would be oil companies, investment fund managers with big stakes in petroleum, etc. with billions at stake."
Except that is not what I did, as you would know if you bothered to read more carefully and cease attributing motives to ME that equally do not exist.
I simply stated that it was the media following the scientists, not the other way around. I did not attribute any motives to anybody.
"That's not how I remember it. Climate change was put forward by the greenies because the results were not agreeing with the predictions. Once you can attribute temperatures going up, going down or staying the same to the same cause, you're golden"
Glad YOU got it, at least. Some a**holes marked me "troll" for daring to ask a completely sensible question.
"The term "Climate Change" has been around since at least the 1950's"
That has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. The phrase "climate change" has almost certainly been around a lot longer than that. So what?
"Climate Change" is more common now thanks to conservative think tanks who made a concerted effort to use that term in the early 2000s because it was considered "less scary" than global warming. Scientists went along with it because "Climate Change" is technically more accurate anyway and they are not particularly good at playing politics.
I doubt that very much. Your argument sounds nice but logically it makes no sense. The "conservatives" would have wanted to make it sound MORE scary, not less.
Since largely speaking it was the liberals, not the conservatives, who were pushing the "global warming" agenda, it would only make sense that THEY were behind the change to make it "less scary" to the public.
"Because climate change is a more accurate descriptor. The record shows that increased CO2 levels accompany periods of instability (e.g. rapid growth and reduction in glacier size) even if the trend tends toward warming."
I don't really think that's an adequate answer. Just being honest. It still seems to me that THEY (scientists, followed by the media) are playing self-serving word games.
"Actually nubnuts the scientists just do the science - blame the media for all the different phrases."
Bullshit. "The media" did not make this change, the scientists themselves did. They media just picked it up, as they always do.
"Now do you actually have anything useful to contribute or is playing silly semantic games your best shot?"
I asked a legitimate question, you did not answer it. You can take your insults and stuff them where the warming doesn't shine.
I suppose it's possible, but I would be surprised, because on every other OS, it informs you that if you want that functionality it needs an external library and tells you to download it.
The fact remains that the De-CSS functionality is not in VLC, but in a separate program.
If they were honest, why are they calling it "Climate Change" now, rather than Global Warming?
Seems to me they're trying to have it both ways.
(Note: This is just an observation, nothing more. If you try to argue with me about issues I haven't raised here today, I'm going to ignore you.)
"Why would I care? Run samba server (it's an app) on your device, and copy files to/from it using your PC, or run any file manager on your device, and copy files to/from your PC using it."
I was referring to file transfer controlled by the mobile device. And I don't particularly want to run Samba Server on my dev machine.
"TeamViewer traffic gets routed through their servers too (unless you are using it on the same network, but you don't control that)."
That may be true; but the point is that it doesn't go through GOOGLE servers.