If you live in the very rural areas of the states I mentioned cell phone service, internet speed, etc... are not big priorities. The people who live there don't consider those things indispensable. Their lives don't depend on those things. They are ranchers, loggers, small farmers, etc... and when they are out working don't need those things. They have two-way radios for communication. CB radios are big. Everyone has CBs or SSB radios in the house and in the cars. No need for a cell phone.
As for groceries, and the other things you need stores for, you go into a bigger town once a month and stock up on what you need. It's a completely different lifestyle than you citified people are used to, and in my opinion, a much better, much less stressful lifestyle.
Actually, one need not even be a jerk. Simply being outed as an atheist will also do the trick.
I don't buy that at all, at least not on a general basis. It might be true in a few cases, but I don't remember anyone being discriminated against on the basis of their religion, or lack of religion. They were judged on the content of their character. They were judged on how they treated others.
Well, it's just one more way the Constitution has been ignored, to the detriment of "we the people". I can't think of a single state off the top of my head that isn't spending more than it takes in, and hasn't been doing it for some time. There's no other way to describe that than running budget deficits at the state level.
Except that neither of these CEOs are going to be using their personal income to hire new workers.
When these guys build new houses for themselves they create jobs. When they hire help to maintain those big homes they create jobs. When they buy new cars they create jobs. When they invest their money they create jobs.
I believe it was Napoleon Hill who gave the advice that if you want to get wealthy yourself you need to hang around with rich people, because just the opportunities they let slide because they might think they are "too small" will be enough to give you a good start on your way to wealth if you're ambitious enough to go after them. It wasn't stated in those exact words, but the meaning was the same.
That's a laugh. Gregoire has ruined the economy of the state of Washington with her deficit spending. In her time in office we, the state of Washington, have gone more than a $1,000,000,000,000 in debt. And then she had the gall to say that we don't even have a budget deficit.
This new bill is simply a way to get an income tax law on the books in Washington. The Progressives in power here think they can get around the will of the people by using class warfare. They say this is only for those making big bucks, but once on the books they will gradually expand this tax into the lower income brackets. You and the politicians will swear they won't, but I trust no politician's promises, and you must be a very, very rare breed if you trust anything that a politician tells about spending your money. History tells us that once you let a politician get his way with a tax that he promises will never increase, or the base for the tax will never broaden, his word is never kept. Never.
There's a reason people live in large communities, and security/services are two of the big reasons (even if both are not consistent across the board).
I guess I just don't understand this. I grew up in the more unpopulated areas of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. We never had to lock our doors and never experienced any kind of crime. It's only as I've lived in more populated areas that I've had to lock up the house when we leave and the car any time I walk into a store, worry about vandalism, lock up the lawnmower and yard tools to keep them from being stolen, etc.... My experience has always been that the fewer people there are around, the smaller the community, the fewer security concerns there are. Small communities tend self-police because everybody knows everybody and it's very hard to keep theft of property or money a secret for very long. It always comes out, and when it does, being a thief in a small community is a very uncomfortable position to be in. Nobody will trust that person, do business with them, talk to them, they will probably lose their job, etc... They become a pariah and they either leave the area or make things right and change their ways. In fact, just being a major jerk in a small community will bring about enough consequences that either the behavior changes or the person ends up moving away.
That's security that police can never provide in heavily populated areas because it's people policing themselves, and that's always the preferable solution to any problem.
Your mistake here is that you look at a number and say, that's a low number. The facts are that these numbers are larger than any numbers in Republican primaries since the 1930's and, more importantly, larger than the turnouts for Democrat primary turnouts this year.
He must be a member of one of the more radical groups in Islam. It doesn't look to me as if he is correct for mainstream Islam as their teaching in this area seems close to Christian teaching. Take a look at the following link for more info.
If you murder 100 people, god will still forgive you.
This is a straw man argument. While it is true that God will forgive murder, he will not forgive murder without repentance, and that repentance must come from the heart and lead to a changed life. God will not forgive a murderer who has no genuine sorrow for the act nor desire to change his life.
Isaiah 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
The less you tax the citizenry the more disposable income a person has to spend. The more they spend, the more money there is in circulation in the private sector. That means there are more jobs created to produce the increased goods the citizens are buying. That increases overall tax revenue as well as decreases government spending on entitlement programs as more people are supporting themselves rather than relying on government hand outs.. That's a win-win proposition for the entire country. Those who now support themselves once again also get the added value of increased confidence in themselves.
The reverse of that argument is that for every penny the government spends they take that penny out of your pocket and mine. If they spend a few trillion dollars those "few trillion dollars" have to be paid for by you and I, the citizenry. That means when the government goes deeply into debt you and I are deeply in debt too. Do you consider being deeply in debt a good thing? Do you consider that wealth? That debt is what those high taxes are for, to pay off that debt the government created. Also, the more the government goes into the debt the less credit/money there is available for businesses to spend on creating more/better business opportunities, and businesses as a result of this normally either contract or sit on cash because times are hard and they must have cash reserves to operate on if things get even worse. This scenario is a lose-lose for the entire country.
Would you mind explaining what you see as a contradiction? How and why is it a contradiction? Read the following and then comment:
KJV: Mark Chapter 10
[1] And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judæa by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
[2] And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
[3] And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
[4] And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
[5] And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
[6] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
[7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
[8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
[9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
The word "hardness" in verse 5 means destitution of spiritual perception. So, what Christ is telling the Pharisees is that God allowed divorce because the people didn't understand their own spiritual natures and thus had no spiritual perception. This led to bad marriages that became hell on earth. Thus he allowed them the ability to get a divorce. It wasn't God;s ideal, but was allowed by God to reduce suffering. But, if the people would have actually understood their own spiritual natures there would have been no need of divorce because they would have been capable of becoming the "one flesh" that God had designed marriage to lead to.
The point being is that if you understand you also remember. Without the memory your involvement and understanding is useless because all of that will be lost to you.
This is not the first time technology has been_blamed/at_fault for reducing human intellect. When written languages were first invented it was said that having things written down would reduce the ability of humans to remember things. Why? Because before that all information was memorized and transmitted to others orally, now there was a crutch to lean on.
I most certainly have. I've had a total of 4 dogs and none of my dogs would shit in their own back yard. In fact, none of my dogs would shit in the neighbor's back yard either. Well, at least not where it could be walked on. My dogs would stick their butts underneath a shrub or bush and do their business there where it was out of normal walkways. They would even get embarrassed if you saw them taking a dump and asked them what they were doing in a laughing tone of voice. They would hang their heads and look the other way. When they were done they would slink off as if you had just beaten them....
All of the dogs were mutts. One was a Cocker Spaniel and Hienz57 mix. One was a Shepard/Husky Cross. One was part Blue Heeler and who knows what else. The last was a White Wolf/ Malamute/German Shepard cross. All were exceptionally smart dogs that I got as pups and taught how to solve problems by giving them problems and then praising them when they would figure out a solution. At first I'd have to help them by pointing out the first step to solve the problem, but as they got older they figured out more difficult problems on their own. I did that rather than just play with them, although I did play with them too. The Shepard/Husky cross was probably the smartest dog I've ever seen. I taught him to heel in about 15 minutes when he was pup. I also taught him not to chew up his frisbee by doing nothing more than taking the first frisbee he put his teeth through, throwing it into a covered garbage can in front of him and telling him why I did it. He was maybe 6 months old at the time. He never put another tooth mark in a frisbee and he played frisbee at a very high level until he was an old dog..
The Blue Heeler cross didn't shit in her own backyard, but never did learn to take a dump under a bush. She was stolen when she was less than a year old though so I don't know what she might have learned later on.
The White Wolf cross was exceptionally smart too. From the time he was 4 or 5 months on I never found a pile of his. He never needed a leash or a fence to make him stay in his yard either. We never licensed him and the dog catcher would try to lure him out into the street so he could haul him off but could never accomplish the deed. He finally came up to us and said he'd never seen a dog as smart as Duke as he would lie beside the curb on his own lawn and just look at the dog catcher. After that he left Duke alone. If we wanted Duke to stay outside we had to lock the door as he figured out at about 6 months old how to open the door. He'd grab the knob with his teeth and turn it until the door opened. He was also one of those dogs who would very rarely bark. He'd "talk" to you a lot though. I never saw him pick a fight or or be anything less than friendly to anyone, unless he thought someone was attacking someone in his family. Then it was Katy-bar-the-door. Even then a word from me would stop him in his tracks. He was an amazing dog.
The Cocker Spaniel mix was dynamite in a small package. He weighed about 25 lbs soaking wet, and he would routinely kick the butts of dogs several times his size. Here's an example of one of his fights. We lived out in the country during my high school years and one day a German Shepard that weighed around 100 lbs came loping down our driveway on his way across our property. Prince was lying on the front porch just quivering in anticipation of a fight because that dog was on his property. I opened the door a crack and whispered to Prince, Get him. He never made a sound but was at full speed in one leap off the porch. He hit that Shepard at full speed with his chest--we clocked him on our motorcycles at 35 mph--before that Shepard knew he was coming and knocked that Shepard ass over tea kettle. While that dog was rolling over from the impact old Prince was on him snarling and biting. When the Shepard finally made it to his feet he lit out with his tail between his legs and yelping like he was getting killed. Prince just sat down and wat
That a human being would teach a robot to deceive only proves that we humans are dumber than dogs, as dogs don't shit in their own backyard unless they have to. We humans will shit in our own backyard by choice.
As a diabetic, I find most legumes tend to have low a low glycemic load and don't cause my blood sugar to spike. They may have quite a few carbs, but they also have quite high levels of fiber and when you subtract the fiber from the total carbohydrates the carbohydrate levels aren't so high.
I know that all diabetics don't react quite the same as I do, but going off glycemic load rather than glycemic index is usually the right thing to do. Eating certain beans and lentils, cooked with low amounts of sugars and combined with soy proteins and other high fiber vegetables, will often lower my blood glucose levels. What I look for in beans are beans with levels of protein about 70% of net carbs. Cook them with other high fiber vegetables, some more protein, and use only good fats, and you have a dish is good for a diabetic. Why? The mixture then becomes much lower on the glycemic load scale as it is a combination of fats, carbs, and proteins and is digested as such lowering the spike in glucose levels.
Lentils I find to be, as well as avocados, almost perfect food for a diabetic.
People are also lactose intolerant and the fats, steroids, chemicals, and cholesterol in most meats are very unhealthy, as well as them being allergens to some people with reactions ranging from anaphylactic shock to digestive track issues, and that doesn't stop the vast majority of people, including you, from recommending them as a part of a healthy diet. So what's your point?
Any vegetable, well, almost any vegetable other than okra, can be made to be palatable to almost anyone. The trick is in the ability to cook and knowing how to use herbs and spices for flavoring and aroma, and how to present foods. I like my steak and hamburger, but I can eat vegetarian for months on end without missing it because I have at least some sense of how to build flavors into vegetarian dishes. As I'm no trained chef anyone can do the same thing I do. It's just a matter of desire.
I can make vegetarian "steaks" out of wheat flour with high levels of gluten that I like just as well as beef, chicken, or fish, and cost about a quarter to make. That's right, four tasty, highly nutritious, high in protein "steaks" for a dollar, with no cholesterol, none of the "bad" fats, and moderate levels of carbohydrates and "good" fat. Total amount of my time to make a batch of vegetarian steaks is maybe 45 minutes whether I make 10 or 30 steaks at a time. I can also make fully vegetarian lasagna, spaghetti, and a whole lot of other Italian dishes using soy products for protein that the vast majority, probably close to 90%, of meat eaters will say was very good and ask what was in it, unless I tell them up front that there is no "real" meat in it. Then they will complain, but that just shows their own prejudices and a lack of willingness to try anything new.
Vegetarians are more healthy overall, live longer, have fewer heart attacks and strokes, than meat eaters. I've lived both life styles and my health is much when I eat as vegetarian.
No, executives make all the money while doing nothing useful(they spend more time trying to figure out how to enrich themselves than they do the company). Case in point, over the past 10 years executive pay has skyrocketed in the US while stocks are, at best, stagnant. This is why I always laugh whenever the Republicans complain about taxing the richest 10% is placing an unfair "burden" on the most "productive" people. Beyond a certain point the relationship between salary and productivity is tenacious, at best. Case in point, pretty much every single major bank in the US.
I had to laugh after reading this post. You didn't even come close to saying what you thought you did. It shows your inability to comprehend the words you use/read/write very clearly(and also those of your very liberal buddies on this site who are so quick to agree with you). You think you're being really smart, but instead you end up showing just how poorly you comprehend even what you say, let alone what someone says to you.. You complain about the Republicans, say their view of taxation is wrong, and then go on to say they are correct.
Here's a clue. If a relationship between two things is tenacious it means that relationship is very strong, that the relationship is very hard to break.
Here's the definition of tenacious from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.
Definition of TENACIOUS 1 a : not easily pulled apart : cohesive b : tending to adhere or cling especially to another substance 2 a : persistent in maintaining, adhering to, or seeking something valued or desired
The word you were looking for is tenuous. Once again from Merriam-Websters online dictionary:
Definition of TENUOUS 1 : not dense : rare 2 : not thick : slender 3 a : having little substance or strength : flimsy, weak b : shaky 2a
Maybe the reason so many of you liberals don't understand what the conservatives are saying is that your reading comprehension levels are so low.... You just don't get what they say because when the conservatives say white you think they meant black. You just proved the correctness of this assertion by thinking tenacious meant tenuous, as those two words are polar opposites in meaning. You know, like black and white.....
No, I'm not a Republican, and, no, I don't belong to any of the Tea Parties. I'm a registered Independent who comprehends what I read, and what I write. Hell, I've written so many misunderstood sentences on this site it isn't funny. The often misunderstand sentences fit the following model: A is true, if conditions b, c, and d are met. That type of sentence is very often read on/. as "this is true", period. The lack of language comprehension skills really scares me because if the people in our society can't comprehend what they read they base all their views on incorrect assumptions, and end up with beliefs based on wrong information just as surely as night follows day and then go on to want to transform our society into something that just cannot work in the real world.... They do this with great levels of arrogance calling anyone who disagrees with them stupid, a troll, mindless, etc.... It happens every day on/..
Now, if you're going to say that mistakenly used words don't really matter, or that it was a typo, think again. You just blew up your own argument, and if you realized it didn't think it was important enough to correct. If you blew up your argument and didn't realize it because you weren't sure of the correct wording, and didn't bother to use a dictionary or thesaurus to make sure, just how careful are you to communicate what you mean? Either excuse calls into question the quality of your reasoning ability.
One thing I didn't respond to in your post.... Where did I say that either a 35mm or a large format camera would need to have this sensor for the comparison I made to be a valid comparison? I was comparing one type of camera to another for very specific uses. Whether this new sensor is there or not is of no consequence. I wasn't even thinking about the sensor in the comparison.
You're the idiot. My statement was a conditional statement. The comparison included an if.... Thus you're reading into my words something I never said.
It seems you have a pretty severe reading comprehension problem.
Slashdot Mirror
If you live in the very rural areas of the states I mentioned cell phone service, internet speed, etc... are not big priorities. The people who live there don't consider those things indispensable. Their lives don't depend on those things. They are ranchers, loggers, small farmers, etc... and when they are out working don't need those things. They have two-way radios for communication. CB radios are big. Everyone has CBs or SSB radios in the house and in the cars. No need for a cell phone.
As for groceries, and the other things you need stores for, you go into a bigger town once a month and stock up on what you need. It's a completely different lifestyle than you citified people are used to, and in my opinion, a much better, much less stressful lifestyle.
I don't buy that at all, at least not on a general basis. It might be true in a few cases, but I don't remember anyone being discriminated against on the basis of their religion, or lack of religion. They were judged on the content of their character. They were judged on how they treated others.
Well, it's just one more way the Constitution has been ignored, to the detriment of "we the people". I can't think of a single state off the top of my head that isn't spending more than it takes in, and hasn't been doing it for some time. There's no other way to describe that than running budget deficits at the state level.
When these guys build new houses for themselves they create jobs. When they hire help to maintain those big homes they create jobs. When they buy new cars they create jobs. When they invest their money they create jobs.
I believe it was Napoleon Hill who gave the advice that if you want to get wealthy yourself you need to hang around with rich people, because just the opportunities they let slide because they might think they are "too small" will be enough to give you a good start on your way to wealth if you're ambitious enough to go after them. It wasn't stated in those exact words, but the meaning was the same.
That's a laugh. Gregoire has ruined the economy of the state of Washington with her deficit spending. In her time in office we, the state of Washington, have gone more than a $1,000,000,000,000 in debt. And then she had the gall to say that we don't even have a budget deficit.
This new bill is simply a way to get an income tax law on the books in Washington. The Progressives in power here think they can get around the will of the people by using class warfare. They say this is only for those making big bucks, but once on the books they will gradually expand this tax into the lower income brackets. You and the politicians will swear they won't, but I trust no politician's promises, and you must be a very, very rare breed if you trust anything that a politician tells about spending your money. History tells us that once you let a politician get his way with a tax that he promises will never increase, or the base for the tax will never broaden, his word is never kept. Never.
I guess I just don't understand this. I grew up in the more unpopulated areas of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. We never had to lock our doors and never experienced any kind of crime. It's only as I've lived in more populated areas that I've had to lock up the house when we leave and the car any time I walk into a store, worry about vandalism, lock up the lawnmower and yard tools to keep them from being stolen, etc.... My experience has always been that the fewer people there are around, the smaller the community, the fewer security concerns there are. Small communities tend self-police because everybody knows everybody and it's very hard to keep theft of property or money a secret for very long. It always comes out, and when it does, being a thief in a small community is a very uncomfortable position to be in. Nobody will trust that person, do business with them, talk to them, they will probably lose their job, etc... They become a pariah and they either leave the area or make things right and change their ways. In fact, just being a major jerk in a small community will bring about enough consequences that either the behavior changes or the person ends up moving away.
That's security that police can never provide in heavily populated areas because it's people policing themselves, and that's always the preferable solution to any problem.
Your mistake here is that you look at a number and say, that's a low number. The facts are that these numbers are larger than any numbers in Republican primaries since the 1930's and, more importantly, larger than the turnouts for Democrat primary turnouts this year.
He must be a member of one of the more radical groups in Islam. It doesn't look to me as if he is correct for mainstream Islam as their teaching in this area seems close to Christian teaching. Take a look at the following link for more info.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/athar12.htm
If you murder 100 people, god will still forgive you.
This is a straw man argument. While it is true that God will forgive murder, he will not forgive murder without repentance, and that repentance must come from the heart and lead to a changed life. God will not forgive a murderer who has no genuine sorrow for the act nor desire to change his life.
Isaiah 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Wow. How bad can an argument be?
The less you tax the citizenry the more disposable income a person has to spend. The more they spend, the more money there is in circulation in the private sector. That means there are more jobs created to produce the increased goods the citizens are buying. That increases overall tax revenue as well as decreases government spending on entitlement programs as more people are supporting themselves rather than relying on government hand outs.. That's a win-win proposition for the entire country. Those who now support themselves once again also get the added value of increased confidence in themselves.
The reverse of that argument is that for every penny the government spends they take that penny out of your pocket and mine. If they spend a few trillion dollars those "few trillion dollars" have to be paid for by you and I, the citizenry. That means when the government goes deeply into debt you and I are deeply in debt too. Do you consider being deeply in debt a good thing? Do you consider that wealth? That debt is what those high taxes are for, to pay off that debt the government created. Also, the more the government goes into the debt the less credit/money there is available for businesses to spend on creating more/better business opportunities, and businesses as a result of this normally either contract or sit on cash because times are hard and they must have cash reserves to operate on if things get even worse. This scenario is a lose-lose for the entire country.
Would you mind explaining what you see as a contradiction? How and why is it a contradiction? Read the following and then comment:
KJV: Mark Chapter 10
[1] And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judæa by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
[2]
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
[3] And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
[4] And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
[5] And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
[6] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
[7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
[8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
[9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
The word "hardness" in verse 5 means destitution of spiritual perception. So, what Christ is telling the Pharisees is that God allowed divorce because the people didn't understand their own spiritual natures and thus had no spiritual perception. This led to bad marriages that became hell on earth. Thus he allowed them the ability to get a divorce. It wasn't God;s ideal, but was allowed by God to reduce suffering. But, if the people would have actually understood their own spiritual natures there would have been no need of divorce because they would have been capable of becoming the "one flesh" that God had designed marriage to lead to.
The point being is that if you understand you also remember. Without the memory your involvement and understanding is useless because all of that will be lost to you.
I'd love to see you solve problems without any memorization skills. Can't be done.
This is not the first time technology has been_blamed/at_fault for reducing human intellect. When written languages were first invented it was said that having things written down would reduce the ability of humans to remember things. Why? Because before that all information was memorized and transmitted to others orally, now there was a crutch to lean on.
I most certainly have. I've had a total of 4 dogs and none of my dogs would shit in their own back yard. In fact, none of my dogs would shit in the neighbor's back yard either. Well, at least not where it could be walked on. My dogs would stick their butts underneath a shrub or bush and do their business there where it was out of normal walkways. They would even get embarrassed if you saw them taking a dump and asked them what they were doing in a laughing tone of voice. They would hang their heads and look the other way. When they were done they would slink off as if you had just beaten them....
All of the dogs were mutts. One was a Cocker Spaniel and Hienz57 mix. One was a Shepard/Husky Cross. One was part Blue Heeler and who knows what else. The last was a White Wolf/ Malamute/German Shepard cross. All were exceptionally smart dogs that I got as pups and taught how to solve problems by giving them problems and then praising them when they would figure out a solution. At first I'd have to help them by pointing out the first step to solve the problem, but as they got older they figured out more difficult problems on their own. I did that rather than just play with them, although I did play with them too. The Shepard/Husky cross was probably the smartest dog I've ever seen. I taught him to heel in about 15 minutes when he was pup. I also taught him not to chew up his frisbee by doing nothing more than taking the first frisbee he put his teeth through, throwing it into a covered garbage can in front of him and telling him why I did it. He was maybe 6 months old at the time. He never put another tooth mark in a frisbee and he played frisbee at a very high level until he was an old dog. .
The Blue Heeler cross didn't shit in her own backyard, but never did learn to take a dump under a bush. She was stolen when she was less than a year old though so I don't know what she might have learned later on.
The White Wolf cross was exceptionally smart too. From the time he was 4 or 5 months on I never found a pile of his. He never needed a leash or a fence to make him stay in his yard either. We never licensed him and the dog catcher would try to lure him out into the street so he could haul him off but could never accomplish the deed. He finally came up to us and said he'd never seen a dog as smart as Duke as he would lie beside the curb on his own lawn and just look at the dog catcher. After that he left Duke alone. If we wanted Duke to stay outside we had to lock the door as he figured out at about 6 months old how to open the door. He'd grab the knob with his teeth and turn it until the door opened. He was also one of those dogs who would very rarely bark. He'd "talk" to you a lot though. I never saw him pick a fight or or be anything less than friendly to anyone, unless he thought someone was attacking someone in his family. Then it was Katy-bar-the-door. Even then a word from me would stop him in his tracks. He was an amazing dog.
The Cocker Spaniel mix was dynamite in a small package. He weighed about 25 lbs soaking wet, and he would routinely kick the butts of dogs several times his size. Here's an example of one of his fights. We lived out in the country during my high school years and one day a German Shepard that weighed around 100 lbs came loping down our driveway on his way across our property. Prince was lying on the front porch just quivering in anticipation of a fight because that dog was on his property. I opened the door a crack and whispered to Prince, Get him. He never made a sound but was at full speed in one leap off the porch. He hit that Shepard at full speed with his chest--we clocked him on our motorcycles at 35 mph--before that Shepard knew he was coming and knocked that Shepard ass over tea kettle. While that dog was rolling over from the impact old Prince was on him snarling and biting. When the Shepard finally made it to his feet he lit out with his tail between his legs and yelping like he was getting killed. Prince just sat down and wat
That a human being would teach a robot to deceive only proves that we humans are dumber than dogs, as dogs don't shit in their own backyard unless they have to. We humans will shit in our own backyard by choice.
As a diabetic, I find most legumes tend to have low a low glycemic load and don't cause my blood sugar to spike. They may have quite a few carbs, but they also have quite high levels of fiber and when you subtract the fiber from the total carbohydrates the carbohydrate levels aren't so high.
I know that all diabetics don't react quite the same as I do, but going off glycemic load rather than glycemic index is usually the right thing to do. Eating certain beans and lentils, cooked with low amounts of sugars and combined with soy proteins and other high fiber vegetables, will often lower my blood glucose levels. What I look for in beans are beans with levels of protein about 70% of net carbs. Cook them with other high fiber vegetables, some more protein, and use only good fats, and you have a dish is good for a diabetic. Why? The mixture then becomes much lower on the glycemic load scale as it is a combination of fats, carbs, and proteins and is digested as such lowering the spike in glucose levels.
Lentils I find to be, as well as avocados, almost perfect food for a diabetic.
as well as them being allergens
That should read, as well as meats being allergens. I knew what "them" referred to but on re-reading the sentence realized my meaning was not clear.
People are also lactose intolerant and the fats, steroids, chemicals, and cholesterol in most meats are very unhealthy, as well as them being allergens to some people with reactions ranging from anaphylactic shock to digestive track issues, and that doesn't stop the vast majority of people, including you, from recommending them as a part of a healthy diet. So what's your point?
Any vegetable, well, almost any vegetable other than okra, can be made to be palatable to almost anyone. The trick is in the ability to cook and knowing how to use herbs and spices for flavoring and aroma, and how to present foods. I like my steak and hamburger, but I can eat vegetarian for months on end without missing it because I have at least some sense of how to build flavors into vegetarian dishes. As I'm no trained chef anyone can do the same thing I do. It's just a matter of desire.
I can make vegetarian "steaks" out of wheat flour with high levels of gluten that I like just as well as beef, chicken, or fish, and cost about a quarter to make. That's right, four tasty, highly nutritious, high in protein "steaks" for a dollar, with no cholesterol, none of the "bad" fats, and moderate levels of carbohydrates and "good" fat. Total amount of my time to make a batch of vegetarian steaks is maybe 45 minutes whether I make 10 or 30 steaks at a time. I can also make fully vegetarian lasagna, spaghetti, and a whole lot of other Italian dishes using soy products for protein that the vast majority, probably close to 90%, of meat eaters will say was very good and ask what was in it, unless I tell them up front that there is no "real" meat in it. Then they will complain, but that just shows their own prejudices and a lack of willingness to try anything new.
What do you mean by "real food"?
Vegetarians are more healthy overall, live longer, have fewer heart attacks and strokes, than meat eaters. I've lived both life styles and my health is much when I eat as vegetarian.
No, executives make all the money while doing nothing useful(they spend more time trying to figure out how to enrich themselves than they do the company). Case in point, over the past 10 years executive pay has skyrocketed in the US while stocks are, at best, stagnant. This is why I always laugh whenever the Republicans complain about taxing the richest 10% is placing an unfair "burden" on the most "productive" people. Beyond a certain point the relationship between salary and productivity is tenacious, at best. Case in point, pretty much every single major bank in the US.
I had to laugh after reading this post. You didn't even come close to saying what you thought you did. It shows your inability to comprehend the words you use/read/write very clearly(and also those of your very liberal buddies on this site who are so quick to agree with you). You think you're being really smart, but instead you end up showing just how poorly you comprehend even what you say, let alone what someone says to you.. You complain about the Republicans, say their view of taxation is wrong, and then go on to say they are correct.
Here's a clue. If a relationship between two things is tenacious it means that relationship is very strong, that the relationship is very hard to break.
Here's the definition of tenacious from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.
The word you were looking for is tenuous. Once again from Merriam-Websters online dictionary:
Maybe the reason so many of you liberals don't understand what the conservatives are saying is that your reading comprehension levels are so low.... You just don't get what they say because when the conservatives say white you think they meant black. You just proved the correctness of this assertion by thinking tenacious meant tenuous, as those two words are polar opposites in meaning. You know, like black and white.....
No, I'm not a Republican, and, no, I don't belong to any of the Tea Parties. I'm a registered Independent who comprehends what I read, and what I write. Hell, I've written so many misunderstood sentences on this site it isn't funny. The often misunderstand sentences fit the following model: A is true, if conditions b, c, and d are met. That type of sentence is very often read on /. as "this is true", period. The lack of language comprehension skills really scares me because if the people in our society can't comprehend what they read they base all their views on incorrect assumptions, and end up with beliefs based on wrong information just as surely as night follows day and then go on to want to transform our society into something that just cannot work in the real world.... They do this with great levels of arrogance calling anyone who disagrees with them stupid, a troll, mindless, etc.... It happens every day on /..
Now, if you're going to say that mistakenly used words don't really matter, or that it was a typo, think again. You just blew up your own argument, and if you realized it didn't think it was important enough to correct. If you blew up your argument and didn't realize it because you weren't sure of the correct wording, and didn't bother to use a dictionary or thesaurus to make sure, just how careful are you to communicate what you mean? Either excuse calls into question the quality of your reasoning ability.
One thing I didn't respond to in your post.... Where did I say that either a 35mm or a large format camera would need to have this sensor for the comparison I made to be a valid comparison? I was comparing one type of camera to another for very specific uses. Whether this new sensor is there or not is of no consequence. I wasn't even thinking about the sensor in the comparison.
This I was unaware of. All the 35mm tilt/shift lenses I've ever seen have been 2 axes lenses. Thanks for the info.
You're the idiot. My statement was a conditional statement. The comparison included an if.... Thus you're reading into my words something I never said.
It seems you have a pretty severe reading comprehension problem.