It does not matter. There is no reason to suppose that Neanderthals preferred vegetables, nor that they preferred meat, since they ate both. While it is possible, probably even likely, that their diet consisted primarily of whatever they could find that was edible, it is unlikely that they chose vegetables ONLY because that was all they could get or because they preferred them to meat.
You are asking the wrong question. There is no reason to suppose that Neanderthals preferred vegetables, since the conclusion is that they ate both vegetables and meat. I like meat, but I also eat vegetables. I do not eat vegetables because I prefer them to meat. Nor do I eat vegetables because I have nothing else around to eat. I eat vegetables because I like them (and sometimes because they are good for me).
UM, this story is about the U.S. Marshalls Service telling the police to lie in court. The U.S. Marshalls Service is part of the Department of Justice, which answers to the President, who is a Democrat. How exactly is this the Republicans doing anything?
Citizen's United brought the case because they believed, correctly, that campaign finance rules, as they existed at that time, were unconstitutional. Citizen's United did not want to "reform" campaign finance rules. They wanted to overturn unconstitutional campaign finance rules. This Mayday Super PAC wants to do more of what gave us the situation we have now.
Citizens United was a group of people who pooled their money in order to campaign against Hillary Clinton. The campaign finance reform said that they could not do so. So they went to court. Their win means that other groups of people may do the same. Their loss would have meant that only those already wealthy would have a say in political campaigns because only the wealthy would have enough money to launch coordinated campaigns to win or defeat electoral contests. Those with less money would have been forbidden from pooling their money in order to do so.
How do you get that Citizens United was part of campaign finance reform? Citizens United was a case where the Supreme Court found that the last "campaign finance reform" law over-reached and violated the Constitution.
You may not know if this will work, but I've seen this same song and dance played before, so I know that it will not work. None of the people who cry about the money in politics want to do what it takes to actually fix the problem. The only way to get money out of politics is to reduce the power of government. If government has less power, the return on investment for buying access to politicians goes down and people with money will always choose to spend their money where they get the best return on investment. Right now, if you don't invest in politics, your return on investment for everything else approaches zero (or negative).
If the map in your self-driving car says that there is no such address as 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC, your self-driving car will not be able to go there. It is a lot easier to limit people in that fashion than any method they can use today.
At which point, great, you will only be able to travel to those places which your betters determine that it will be good for you to travel (primarily so that you do not pollute the places they want to be by your presence).
Good grief, I have already seen posters on slashdot saying that people should be forced into self-driving cars as soon as they are available. Are you trying to say that politicians and bureaucrats will not encourage such sentiments so that they can control where we go?
Except it means that while the people who were buying hybrids are now buying pure-electric vehicles, the people who weren't buying hybrids, still aren't buying hybrids. That means that the number of people who stopped buying ordinary gas vehicles has peaked.
As others have pointed out, it is not that straightforward. I have a good friend who used to eat a high carbohydrate, low fat diet, as was the recommendation of dieticians at the time. She had to eat something every two hours or she would begin to get tunnel vision and other symptoms of low blood sugar. Then she changed her diet to one significantly higher in fat. By doing so, she was able to eliminate the need to eat so frequently. Several other minor health issues went away for her as well. This is just one example. Some people should eat a diet with a different balance of calorie sources than that which others should eat. The same is certainly true of fiber and other aspects of one's diet.
I think you are touching on the heart of the problem, but not stating it explicitly. The main reason that it is so hard to determine what the ideal diet is is that the answer is different for everyone.While there are groups of people whose dietary needs are close enough that they can follow the same basic nutritional plan, there are other groups of people for whom that basic nutritional plan is not healthy.
Interestingly enough, using the term "Inuit" to refer to a single group of people is racist, since "Inuit" translates as "people". If you refer to one group as "people" you are in essence saying no one else is a person.
Unfortunately for them, the voters did not allow them to sway their votes and they voted for Brat anyway...or didn't you know that Cantor outspent Brat 25:1?
I will accept that the science is settled when the scientists and politicians who claim that the science is settled stop jetting around the world to meetings to discuss how they can get other people to stop jetting around the world to meetings.
Of course, since then things have gotten worse...Actually, I would question your suggestion that a teaching position was a super sweet patronage position or that teachers did not actually do anything. Especially when you consider that Americans were in general better educated when tenure was introduced than they are today. The purpose of tenure was to reduce the level to which teachers were accountable to the people who pay their salaries (the voters). This allows teachers to focus more on indoctrinating children into progressive ideals (which the parents may not approve of) than on actually teaching them unimportant things like how to read or do basic math.
The basic theory of progressivism is that the "elites" (in other words, the bureaucrats) know better than everyone else how things should be done. The progressive solution to government corruption is to reduce the accountability of government workers to the voters. Tenure for teachers grows out of that the theory that a government worker who is unaccountable to anyone will be less corrupt than one who has to answer to an elected politician.
Except that people on this thread have been arguing that the negative correlation between increased gun ownership and incident rate of violent crime does not disprove that increased gun ownership increases violent crime. A completely different argument than arguing that increased gun ownership decreases violent crime. While the fact of increased gun ownership coupled with decreased violent crime does not prove that it causes the decrease, it does prove that it does not cause it to increase. People are arguing that this is flawed logic. It is not. While it is still possible that increased gun ownership may contribute to increased violent crime (A position I believe is wrong), it is clear that it does not cause it.
Incumbents are not using public campaign finance. They are sending out information to their constituents about laws that have been passed. They are appearing at ribbon cutting ceremonies. They are mentioned in news articles about laws they proposed. They are mentioned in news articles about current events. You cannot prevent incumbents from gaining publicity due to the fact that they are in office without making them completely unaccountable for their actions.
What other factors need to be controlled for? In order for your argument to carry weight, you must propose factors that might account for the observed facts in such a way as to support the theory. It is not enough to say, "Well, there might be unaccounted for variables." You have to specify what those variables are and explain why they might account for the observed facts. Otherwise, I can just say about any discredited scientific theory , "Well, there might be variables which haven't been accounted for."
Slashdot Mirror
It does not matter. There is no reason to suppose that Neanderthals preferred vegetables, nor that they preferred meat, since they ate both. While it is possible, probably even likely, that their diet consisted primarily of whatever they could find that was edible, it is unlikely that they chose vegetables ONLY because that was all they could get or because they preferred them to meat.
You are asking the wrong question. There is no reason to suppose that Neanderthals preferred vegetables, since the conclusion is that they ate both vegetables and meat. I like meat, but I also eat vegetables. I do not eat vegetables because I prefer them to meat. Nor do I eat vegetables because I have nothing else around to eat. I eat vegetables because I like them (and sometimes because they are good for me).
UM, this story is about the U.S. Marshalls Service telling the police to lie in court. The U.S. Marshalls Service is part of the Department of Justice, which answers to the President, who is a Democrat. How exactly is this the Republicans doing anything?
Citizen's United brought the case because they believed, correctly, that campaign finance rules, as they existed at that time, were unconstitutional. Citizen's United did not want to "reform" campaign finance rules. They wanted to overturn unconstitutional campaign finance rules. This Mayday Super PAC wants to do more of what gave us the situation we have now.
Citizens United was a group of people who pooled their money in order to campaign against Hillary Clinton. The campaign finance reform said that they could not do so. So they went to court. Their win means that other groups of people may do the same. Their loss would have meant that only those already wealthy would have a say in political campaigns because only the wealthy would have enough money to launch coordinated campaigns to win or defeat electoral contests. Those with less money would have been forbidden from pooling their money in order to do so.
How do you get that Citizens United was part of campaign finance reform? Citizens United was a case where the Supreme Court found that the last "campaign finance reform" law over-reached and violated the Constitution. You may not know if this will work, but I've seen this same song and dance played before, so I know that it will not work. None of the people who cry about the money in politics want to do what it takes to actually fix the problem. The only way to get money out of politics is to reduce the power of government. If government has less power, the return on investment for buying access to politicians goes down and people with money will always choose to spend their money where they get the best return on investment. Right now, if you don't invest in politics, your return on investment for everything else approaches zero (or negative).
We've had campaign finance reform in the past. It made matters worse, not better. So what makes you think that this time will be different?
If the map in your self-driving car says that there is no such address as 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC, your self-driving car will not be able to go there. It is a lot easier to limit people in that fashion than any method they can use today.
At which point, great, you will only be able to travel to those places which your betters determine that it will be good for you to travel (primarily so that you do not pollute the places they want to be by your presence).
Good grief, I have already seen posters on slashdot saying that people should be forced into self-driving cars as soon as they are available. Are you trying to say that politicians and bureaucrats will not encourage such sentiments so that they can control where we go?
Except it means that while the people who were buying hybrids are now buying pure-electric vehicles, the people who weren't buying hybrids, still aren't buying hybrids. That means that the number of people who stopped buying ordinary gas vehicles has peaked.
We were discussing the IDEAL diet, not just the diet you could survive on.
As others have pointed out, it is not that straightforward. I have a good friend who used to eat a high carbohydrate, low fat diet, as was the recommendation of dieticians at the time. She had to eat something every two hours or she would begin to get tunnel vision and other symptoms of low blood sugar. Then she changed her diet to one significantly higher in fat. By doing so, she was able to eliminate the need to eat so frequently. Several other minor health issues went away for her as well. This is just one example. Some people should eat a diet with a different balance of calorie sources than that which others should eat. The same is certainly true of fiber and other aspects of one's diet.
I have the same problem. I currently have a BMI of 30.5 and a body fat of under 10%.
Does this solution exist at this time? If the answer is "Yes", than the OP was using the normal definition of the word "already".
I think you are touching on the heart of the problem, but not stating it explicitly. The main reason that it is so hard to determine what the ideal diet is is that the answer is different for everyone.While there are groups of people whose dietary needs are close enough that they can follow the same basic nutritional plan, there are other groups of people for whom that basic nutritional plan is not healthy.
Interestingly enough, using the term "Inuit" to refer to a single group of people is racist, since "Inuit" translates as "people". If you refer to one group as "people" you are in essence saying no one else is a person.
The Tea Party is not an actual political party. It is not even an organization.
Unfortunately for them, the voters did not allow them to sway their votes and they voted for Brat anyway...or didn't you know that Cantor outspent Brat 25:1?
We are not talking about tenure at a university, we are talking about tenure in k-12.
I will accept that the science is settled when the scientists and politicians who claim that the science is settled stop jetting around the world to meetings to discuss how they can get other people to stop jetting around the world to meetings.
Nobody was learning!
Of course, since then things have gotten worse...Actually, I would question your suggestion that a teaching position was a super sweet patronage position or that teachers did not actually do anything. Especially when you consider that Americans were in general better educated when tenure was introduced than they are today. The purpose of tenure was to reduce the level to which teachers were accountable to the people who pay their salaries (the voters). This allows teachers to focus more on indoctrinating children into progressive ideals (which the parents may not approve of) than on actually teaching them unimportant things like how to read or do basic math.
The basic theory of progressivism is that the "elites" (in other words, the bureaucrats) know better than everyone else how things should be done. The progressive solution to government corruption is to reduce the accountability of government workers to the voters. Tenure for teachers grows out of that the theory that a government worker who is unaccountable to anyone will be less corrupt than one who has to answer to an elected politician.
Except that people on this thread have been arguing that the negative correlation between increased gun ownership and incident rate of violent crime does not disprove that increased gun ownership increases violent crime. A completely different argument than arguing that increased gun ownership decreases violent crime. While the fact of increased gun ownership coupled with decreased violent crime does not prove that it causes the decrease, it does prove that it does not cause it to increase. People are arguing that this is flawed logic. It is not. While it is still possible that increased gun ownership may contribute to increased violent crime (A position I believe is wrong), it is clear that it does not cause it.
Incumbents are not using public campaign finance. They are sending out information to their constituents about laws that have been passed. They are appearing at ribbon cutting ceremonies. They are mentioned in news articles about laws they proposed. They are mentioned in news articles about current events. You cannot prevent incumbents from gaining publicity due to the fact that they are in office without making them completely unaccountable for their actions.
However, they have increased in cities which enact tougher gun laws and decrease faster in cities which loosen their gun laws.
What other factors need to be controlled for? In order for your argument to carry weight, you must propose factors that might account for the observed facts in such a way as to support the theory. It is not enough to say, "Well, there might be unaccounted for variables." You have to specify what those variables are and explain why they might account for the observed facts. Otherwise, I can just say about any discredited scientific theory , "Well, there might be variables which haven't been accounted for."