The idea that everyone has the same brain and so goes through the same development following the same linear path is wrong.
Great that I didn't express this idea, then.
Moreover the idea that morality is in strict correlation with intelligence is also wrong
In this context, a paraphrase of my sentence "If you think that inability to control impulses is lack of demonstrable intelligence, you are the stupid guy here." YOU were the one unsuccessfully trying to convey that your "intelligence" means you were capable of control your impulses at an early age.
Sociopaths are often highly intelligent and have successful career (including in science), most don't even commit serious crimes when they are adults, it doesn't change that they are sociopaths.
Yes, there a few examples of teenagers who were rebellious and then became productive member of society. But there are an awful lot more examples of juvenile delinquent who committed crimes after crimes during all their lives. Prisons are full of them.
Schools are full of kids who never committed a serious crime (apart from trying drugs, which to me is not a serious crime) and who will never commit any. How do you explain that if they can't fully understand the consequences of their actions?
You don't understand stages of brain development. Santiago RamÃn y Cajal spent teenage years in jail and went on to receive the Nobel prize. And didn't commit any crimes after the age of 25 as far as anyone can tell.
If you think that inability to control impulses is lack of demonstrable intelligence, you are the stupid guy here.
It is unlikely that he is a statistical outlier. He hasn't even given any story about his own ability to grasp the consequences of his actions at an age under 15.
Humans are quite smart at 16 years of age. What is not developed is the reward experienced by controlling actions for a long term good consequence.
If you have a restaurant and they are trying to figure out a good meal to put on the menu, do you think they're consulting the food pyramid while they do it?
OK, so you have no clue about fat content in food before 1970s and the trend thereafter.
As to the US having a higher amount of carbs than other societies
the ratios don't matter that much so long as you don't do anything extreme.
But the food pyramid IS extremely low fat for sedentary people. The other heuristics adopted since 1970s are all extremely low fat - I recall one has something to do with plate. As soon as we go around 35-45% calories from fat, the "doing anything extreme" goes away, as most people starting balanced diet (which is a high-fat diet as per propaganda since 1970s) discover quickly.
So the AC here was pointing out this extreme high carbohydrate diet the US (and many other parts of the world too) is increasingly on, to which you didn't agree.
It is not about don't eat, it is about the proportion. Mediterranean diet traditionally has 40% calories coming from butter, cheese, cream and fish which are all low carb items. The low fat bandwagon foods have typically less than 5% calories from fat.
blanket carb hatred
There is no "carb hatred" in my post, and it is light years away from blanket carb hatred . People physically working very hard are not harmed much by carbohydrate consumption as I said clearly.
As to people eating fewer carbohydrates way back when... you do realize that the modern world was built by carbohydrates?...
Very long ago, say centuries ago, the physical activity levels were very high. Cars, computers, running water, writing, petroleum, even antibiotics and healthcare all together have reduced human body energy consumption levels hugely.
Not so long ago - say the US middle class in 1950s, rich people in India in 1890s - typically ate rich food. Because they could afford it. Which meant more fat, and proportionally less carbohydrate. These very people did much less physical activity than say the US poor people in 1910, or Indian poor people in 1890s who ate more carbohydrates. Foods were relatively suitable for their own lifestyle - carbs for work, and fat for sitting on your ass.
Fast forward to around 1990s and later - where people with least physical activity are eating the least fat.
You tell me. What sort of evidence would you like to see?
Dozens of my acquaintances, and hundreds of forum members I frequent who have reduced their own body fat by increasing proportion of dietary fat? Mediterranean diet?
There haven't been direct studies on it judging from pubmed, but at least studies indicating lack of correlation between proportion of dietary fat and blood cholesterol. This just dispels the usual bogies.
A single person "voting" in the traditional sense of the word also won't typically achieve anything. So voting with one's dollar is a valid analogy, and figure of speech. Your problem if you don't understand it.
If the negative side effects show up after 10 (+-7 years individual differences) years, and wreck life after 15 (+-9 years individual differences) - you'd be competing with them for ~12 years during which you might die of hunger. Or not earn enough to keep abreast of technology that will help you get employment after 10 years, while competing against 10 year younger drug abusers.
Nights never come as a surprise - next few years' sunset timings can be computed right now. Clouds do, sometimes as a huge surprise. There is no comparison between reactivity to nights and reactivity to clouds.
1. A few years ago, Apple's phones were outselling Android based phones. It was the largest selling "smartphone" brand - with Android, Nokia, Blackberry and a few others trailing behind. Like just demonstrated, Apple is more of a "monopoly abuser" than Android. Where were these same antitrust regulators then?
2. Even then, the stickiness of Google Play monopoly is low. The banks and other organizations already advertize their Play Store availability on their main web pages. At the same spot they could make an APK downloadable - to which they still retain the copyright and all the means to exercise it, unlike some other distribution systems of mobile applications.
"guaranteed" (by mathematics, not rigged programming)
Even if a mathematically fair virtual dice is rolled, mathematics doesn't guarantee anything within a lifetime of the universe. Laws made by humans on the other hand have to be obeyed in minutes / hours.
Seriously, the stuff is all around us, from axle grease and lubricants
Many lubricants I see advertized lately are synthetic - promising stability at gazillion degrees C that the ones based directly on petroleum couldn't. This same stability makes them bad fuels.
to existing-but-unused reservoirs sitting around idle
If the previous destruction of civilization was in a giant fireball, these reservoirs might be destroyed at the same time.
If you're going to calculate it like that, then contribution of farmers to GDP is much higher too, so fix your numbers.
No. Farmers sell their produce to "city dwellers". Once sold, produce (food) belongs to the city dwellers and their eating it and producing wealth doesn't contribute to farmers' contribution to GDP at all.
Farmers are free to raise the price of their produce and hence increase their contribution to GDP.
A ringing phone can be ignored, silenced, numbers blacklisted. An employee who chose to not do any of these can reply to a text message/email as well. So no, this lack of confirmation is not the problem with text/email. Problem is expressiveness - human beings are mostly much more expressive in the spoken word rather than quickly written text, especially in rare complex emergencies. Human employees are typically paid for on-call access to mainly troubleshoot rare complex emergencies.
In any case, text message and emails are convenient to schedule a quick ad-hoc voice call on phone. So voice and text are not only not mutually exclusive but highly complementary.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that everyone has the same brain and so goes through the same development following the same linear path is wrong.
Great that I didn't express this idea, then.
Moreover the idea that morality is in strict correlation with intelligence is also wrong
In this context, a paraphrase of my sentence "If you think that inability to control impulses is lack of demonstrable intelligence, you are the stupid guy here." YOU were the one unsuccessfully trying to convey that your "intelligence" means you were capable of control your impulses at an early age.
Sociopaths are often highly intelligent and have successful career (including in science), most don't even commit serious crimes when they are adults, it doesn't change that they are sociopaths.
Yes, there a few examples of teenagers who were rebellious and then became productive member of society. But there are an awful lot more examples of juvenile delinquent who committed crimes after crimes during all their lives. Prisons are full of them.
Schools are full of kids who never committed a serious crime (apart from trying drugs, which to me is not a serious crime) and who will never commit any. How do you explain that if they can't fully understand the consequences of their actions?
Got educated yet?
It (Cygnus atratus) is a million years old, or more.
You don't understand stages of brain development. Santiago RamÃn y Cajal spent teenage years in jail and went on to receive the Nobel prize. And didn't commit any crimes after the age of 25 as far as anyone can tell.
If you think that inability to control impulses is lack of demonstrable intelligence, you are the stupid guy here.
Get Educated
It is unlikely that he is a statistical outlier. He hasn't even given any story about his own ability to grasp the consequences of his actions at an age under 15.
Humans are quite smart at 16 years of age. What is not developed is the reward experienced by controlling actions for a long term good consequence.
And as I keep pointing out to you, the Egyptians were pounding liquid bread
Repeating for the second time : People physically working very hard are not harmed much by carbohydrate consumption as I said clearly.
If you have a restaurant and they are trying to figure out a good meal to put on the menu, do you think they're consulting the food pyramid while they do it?
OK, so you have no clue about fat content in food before 1970s and the trend thereafter.
As to the US having a higher amount of carbs than other societies
Let me know where I said that.
the ratios don't matter that much so long as you don't do anything extreme.
But the food pyramid IS extremely low fat for sedentary people. The other heuristics adopted since 1970s are all extremely low fat - I recall one has something to do with plate. As soon as we go around 35-45% calories from fat, the "doing anything extreme" goes away, as most people starting balanced diet (which is a high-fat diet as per propaganda since 1970s) discover quickly.
So the AC here was pointing out this extreme high carbohydrate diet the US (and many other parts of the world too) is increasingly on, to which you didn't agree.
Italians don't eat wheat
It is not about don't eat, it is about the proportion. Mediterranean diet traditionally has 40% calories coming from butter, cheese, cream and fish which are all low carb items. The low fat bandwagon foods have typically less than 5% calories from fat.
blanket carb hatred
There is no "carb hatred" in my post, and it is light years away from blanket carb hatred . People physically working very hard are not harmed much by carbohydrate consumption as I said clearly.
As to people eating fewer carbohydrates way back when... you do realize that the modern world was built by carbohydrates?...
Very long ago, say centuries ago, the physical activity levels were very high. Cars, computers, running water, writing, petroleum, even antibiotics and healthcare all together have reduced human body energy consumption levels hugely.
Not so long ago - say the US middle class in 1950s, rich people in India in 1890s - typically ate rich food. Because they could afford it. Which meant more fat, and proportionally less carbohydrate. These very people did much less physical activity than say the US poor people in 1910, or Indian poor people in 1890s who ate more carbohydrates. Foods were relatively suitable for their own lifestyle - carbs for work, and fat for sitting on your ass.
Fast forward to around 1990s and later - where people with least physical activity are eating the least fat.
You tell me. What sort of evidence would you like to see?
Dozens of my acquaintances, and hundreds of forum members I frequent who have reduced their own body fat by increasing proportion of dietary fat? Mediterranean diet?
There haven't been direct studies on it judging from pubmed, but at least studies indicating lack of correlation between proportion of dietary fat and blood cholesterol. This just dispels the usual bogies.
A single person "voting" in the traditional sense of the word also won't typically achieve anything. So voting with one's dollar is a valid analogy, and figure of speech. Your problem if you don't understand it.
If the negative side effects show up after 10 (+-7 years individual differences) years, and wreck life after 15 (+-9 years individual differences) - you'd be competing with them for ~12 years during which you might die of hunger. Or not earn enough to keep abreast of technology that will help you get employment after 10 years, while competing against 10 year younger drug abusers.
Nights never come as a surprise - next few years' sunset timings can be computed right now. Clouds do, sometimes as a huge surprise. There is no comparison between reactivity to nights and reactivity to clouds.
You need to learn a lot from another AC post about economically infeasible
Samsung Android phones come with Google Play with maps, keep and youtube - all replaced with "competing apps".
Rights are a legal fiction, because any right you cannot protect yourself and that nobody will protect for you is not a right at all.
Apples are a botanical fiction, because any apple you cannot protect yourself and that nobody will protect for you is not an apple at all.
Apples can be taken away so apples don't exist.
1. A few years ago, Apple's phones were outselling Android based phones. It was the largest selling "smartphone" brand - with Android, Nokia, Blackberry and a few others trailing behind. Like just demonstrated, Apple is more of a "monopoly abuser" than Android. Where were these same antitrust regulators then?
2. Even then, the stickiness of Google Play monopoly is low. The banks and other organizations already advertize their Play Store availability on their main web pages. At the same spot they could make an APK downloadable - to which they still retain the copyright and all the means to exercise it, unlike some other distribution systems of mobile applications.
"guaranteed" (by mathematics, not rigged programming)
Even if a mathematically fair virtual dice is rolled, mathematics doesn't guarantee anything within a lifetime of the universe. Laws made by humans on the other hand have to be obeyed in minutes / hours.
Your post equates "coming for" with murder. Worse reasoning.
Seriously, the stuff is all around us, from axle grease and lubricants
Many lubricants I see advertized lately are synthetic - promising stability at gazillion degrees C that the ones based directly on petroleum couldn't. This same stability makes them bad fuels.
to existing-but-unused reservoirs sitting around idle
If the previous destruction of civilization was in a giant fireball, these reservoirs might be destroyed at the same time.
Cloud is free. Self-encrypted cloud storage is leak proof.
This guy (aka_bigred) is asking for under 5 GB. You can use free cloud storage - multiple dropbox accounts, gmail filesystem etc.
Importance of exportable food is, idiot. US is one of the biggest exporters of food. Almonds bring discussed here are mostly exported.
No, you don't seem to understand my logic at all. Or economics, for that matter.
If you're going to calculate it like that, then contribution of farmers to GDP is much higher too, so fix your numbers.
No. Farmers sell their produce to "city dwellers". Once sold, produce (food) belongs to the city dwellers and their eating it and producing wealth doesn't contribute to farmers' contribution to GDP at all.
Farmers are free to raise the price of their produce and hence increase their contribution to GDP.
Also, many good file systems are in Linux kernel tree, and many others can be compiled in. Windows kernel has poor choice of file systems.
A ringing phone can be ignored, silenced, numbers blacklisted. An employee who chose to not do any of these can reply to a text message/email as well. So no, this lack of confirmation is not the problem with text/email. Problem is expressiveness - human beings are mostly much more expressive in the spoken word rather than quickly written text, especially in rare complex emergencies. Human employees are typically paid for on-call access to mainly troubleshoot rare complex emergencies.
In any case, text message and emails are convenient to schedule a quick ad-hoc voice call on phone. So voice and text are not only not mutually exclusive but highly complementary.
Read your post I replied to -http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7166981&cid=49367041
YOU are now using a strawman by making "here the pilot ..." the topic; because there is no relevance of "here" in the context in which I was replying.