In the other part of this thread you said you didn't want debate. Now when someone plays your ad hominem game against you we are supposed to believe you really want a debate? Haha, you are an idiot.
Um..... where did I say that? I do have a post where I very specifically wrote:
Enough saying, let's talk the science using the real science, not the 5000 years from now, people's peens might fall off stuff.
note, a couple spelling errors fixed
I've asked for discussion, and mostly get called pejoratives.
And at this point, I am just playing you like a fish on the line for the lulz, although I'm not certain you understand that.
It's all about the social control. You don't have any study at all, so have no facts. I'm not upset at all, I'm pointing out key points in caps since its easier than tagging bold. Of course you don't want a debate, you have 0 facts to debate with. You chose a religion, and argue just like every other cult member we have seen.
My goodness, you do tend to repeat yourself. You have backed yourself into a corner. I declined to point it out, but since you are belaboring the obvious and engaging in an abusive fallacy, which I only bring up since you appear to take much stock in those things, here is your problem.
If I have "0 facts" to deal with, you have "0 facts" to deal with. See where you boxed yourself in?
But I don't have "0 facts" to deal with. we have the method in which these foods are grown. We know the chemicals used to grow them. Looks like Sodium benzoate is about the most chemicalish chemical in the batch. We know the meat cells are grown on a collagen substrate. All of those things are consumed every day with little problem. We know that synthetic meats have been eaten with no problems, indeed found quite tasty. So far, we've seen no problems, despite your apparent surety that there will be problems such as the intelligence of a turnip being the outcome. One can only assume that since you don't want to be a guinea pig. Rejoice brother - no one is forcing you to eat synthetic meat.
You might also consider giving up on your "religion" accusations. Because you are the one who seems to believe these meats are going to be bad, yet without any evidence that they are, other than a vague reference to some history books. I think that is what is called projection.
Sit back, have an adult beverage of your choice, and chillaxe.
Useful disagreement: articulate the reason(s) why something is wrong. This serves two purposes. It shows that your disagreement is legitimate and not the typical "shoot the messenger" response of child-men who overreact emotionally to truth they find uncomfortable or happen to be in denial about.
One of the best things about slashdot is it's moderation system. It allows those who have a silly opinion to still post without being blocked, and it serves to lower the value of the "Your mom really loved my cock" and all of the other bullshit posted by people with severe psychosexual issues. They are still here, but if I don't feel like scrolling through a hundred posts like that, I just set the slider to not show anything lower than two. If silly season isn't bad, I read wide open.
I don't know if you were around when the trolls and flamers destroyed Usenet. Talk about kooks. There wre the usual homsexual projections by people that were gay, but uncomfortable with it, so went around calling everyone els cocksuckers and describing what they did with others in graphic detail. The usenet response was "filter them out, but some of the kooks just kept opening new email accounts - I don't know what the guy was doing with his life, but he opened and posted hundreds of messages from new accounts every day.
We traced him down and complained to his ISP, but with no luck. By the way, it is really really really difficult to be anonymous on the interent when people really really want to find you.
And when the amount of bullshit was 10 times the amount of actual conversation, everyone gave up and went to groups with a moderator.
The ironic thing is that after all of the trolling and flaming killed a group, it wasn't as much fun for the trolls and flamers. So they abandoned the group they just killed, and moved on to fresh people to annoy.
So yeah, you can post as an AC here, and if people want to see APK or Moo Cow guy - whatever happend to him - he made me laugh - we can do that.
It also provides others a chance to learn something new or at least understand an alternate viewpoint.
So tell me, what is the useful point of "You moderators are incredibly stupid and have sticks up your asses." ?
What exactly will I learn? I did reply that I saw his post. But even that reply is not accepted by those of you AC's that apparently think that a person who diasgrees with them is censorship. Sorry, but you don't even want what you claim you want.
Useless disagreement: you can't be bothered to do any of that, yet you feel strongly enough to use a limited resource (mod points). You see what you think are wrong views out there, yet value your own so little that you won't try to represent it.
So anyhow, tell me the use of telling me that my mom enjoyed it when AC fucked her? She's dead, 6 feet under, fnad fuck no I'm not going to get into a serious discussion to learn the AC's viewpoint. He is sick person, and deserves that -1. DEal with it, if you want conversation post something to have a conversation about.
So you mod it "-1 Troll, Flamebait, Overrated" even though it fits none of the definitions of those mods. You fail to note that there is no "-1 Disagree" mod or you think that was some accidental oversight.
One of these approaches is definitely more useful (and indicative of an adult mind) than the other. They are not on equal footing, as you seem to be implying. They're not equal in intent, motivation, or observable effect. The former is clearly superior. It also tends to foster disagreement, so it would be the preferred choice among those who can handle disagreement.
All you have to do to get a conversation going is post something that is worth talking about. But when you expect a cogent response to accusactions that the moderators have sticks up their asses, all I can tell you in manner of serious thought is none that I know do.
They can disagree with him all they want, but how is "so no one can see your post" not (at least partial) censorship?
So which posts to you not see? Numerical moderation is not even remotely censorship except to those who cannot handle disagreement. I saw the post, which should be obvious because I replied.
I am not certain where you are from, but yes, that happens. Google is your friend in this matter, but here's one person who called the police and ended up dead http://nypost.com/2017/07/25/w...
Police training today is a bit messed up, with requirements to unload on a person if they are frightened. To the point where many people are more afraid of the police than thugs. Just how it is.
Meanwhile, your neighbour may have just bled to death.
Yeah, isn't that messed up?
Depending which state you're in, you might well have broken the law.
Now there's a good one to try to prosecute. Maybe you were asleep.
What's wrong with calling the police, heading over the valley, assessing the situation and providing aid? Oh no, might get hurt? Fucking cowardly piece of shit.
You might get killed, as happened to Justine Damon, the woman from Australia who was shot and killed in Minnesota after calling in a disturbance. Supposedly she "slapped" the police car, frightening one of the officers inside, who then shot and killed her. But whatever she did, he found it necessary to terminate her life.
for Moscow trip so he face the music in place of tranitor guy Lance Snowden. Do not make the crime if you want the time. Dummass to for thinking him smarter than G-man who have all phones listening to recorders.
Much smart. Very wow. You r doing me a concern, fren..
Umm... Why was my post censored to -1? You moderators are incredibly stupid and have sticks up your asses.
So no one could see your post? Ah you moderns, thinking that no one is allowed to disagree with you, and if they do, it is censorship. We'll get ya a new binky.
In Pennsylvania we were outside of totality, but a lot of the sun was still blotted out. The day started out looking very unpromising, with clouds moving in but I had my projection box and astronnomical filters at the ready. Still not looking too good right after lunch. Then maybe 25 minutes from totality, the clouds broke, so the wife and I went out in the front yard. Then the neighbors all started out of their homes, and we ended up holding an impromptu block party. We all compared our various seeing devices. One lady had a multiple pinhole sheet that projected multiple images, I had an aluminum pinhole that could project the solar disc to about a foot in diameter, and we found out that we could use our hands to form simple pinholes.
I also had my astronomy filters which gave a nice view, turning the solar disc into a blue color for direct viewing. These were a big hit.
When looking away from the sun, you could see that shadows were fuzzy and odd looking, and sunlight filtering through tree leaves would show thousands of crescents on the ground.
When we hit as close to totality as we were going to get, it was fairly dark. It looked like late evening, but without the reddish color shift of a normal evening sun. A lot of birds started sqwaking, especially some pileated woodpeckers that visit our feeders. An adult was making a lot of noise, my best guess is a parent telling a young one it was time to get home for the evening. Actually got pretty loud.
Then almost like a switch, it started getting much brighter. A pretty enjoyable time. We all chatted for a while longer, then headed back to whatever we were doing before the eclipse.
But at best, they are carbon neutral. Any carbon they might pull from the atmosphere is temporarily stored, then released back to the atmosphere after they die and decay.
Not if you take measures to prevent their decay after they die.
After all, that's how all this carbon got into the ground in the first place, so it's obviously not impossible.
The great sequestration that took place in the carboniferous will almost certainly never happen again, as towards it's end Fungi emerged that could break down the lignin in the wood. So yeah, we would have to create vaults that would seal the wood off from the atmosphere, and keep it sealed off.
The scale of the project would be mind boggling. It would also be zany and ridiculous enough to have been part of a Hitchiker's guide to the galaxy chapter.
We grow trees to capture carbon then chop them down and place them in sealed vaults in order for us to put more carbon into the air from carbon that we dig out of the ground that was there already, and re-release the old carbon, then have to grow new carbon to put in the ground, forever.
It sounds like the permafrost melting thing is an unstable equilibrium: the more it melts, the more carbon and methane goes into the atmosphere, the warmer it gets, and the more it melts.
So, here's my question: if we are sitting on an unstable equilibrium like that, why hasn't there been runaway carbon dioxide warming in the past?
Because there isn't an unlimited amount of CO2. methane, and the other so-called greenhouses. There have been times in the past when the CO2 levels were much higher, and the temperatures were higher as well. enough to more than compensate for the dimmer sun of the period.
So if all of the sequestered Methane was released, it would suck up energy, and given that it is a much stronger greenhouse gas, would affect temperatures quite a bit. It does dissipate more quickly than CO2, so it would not affect temps for as long It's still up there for a long time by human timescales. There is a wild card in all this too, the methane clathrates that are at present, sitting at the bottom of the oceans. So we wouldn't have runaway greenhouse warming, but it could get really unpleasant for a while, and with a lot of political and social issues.
But eventually, we would settle into a warmer, but likely slowly declining quasi-equilibrium.
Do you want to get Republicans involved. Well stop calling them uneducated hicks, start explaining how solar energy is a good way to be independent of these government controlled power plants and where you are responsible for your own energy.
I love how you make this attempt to say that non-republicans are causing republicans to rebel because non-republicans are so mean.
That is like arguing that you can get someone to kill themselves by telling them they are stupid, and that gravity is real, so they say No it isn't, and then jump off a cliff because you contradicted them.
You are going to have to explain why an apparent fatal flaw is a good thing, because your concept is a perfect way to take advantage of people. Regardless I've been called a lot of names by deniers and others - so what? I've never driven off a cliff just to show them they are wrong.
No, there are three things causing denialism.
First is that there is the fact that a number of our politicians are receiving a goodly amount of money from the groups who's activities are releasing sequestered CO2. They then do these contributor's bidding. With enough politicians owned by the groups, it forms a pretty powerful voting bloc.
Second, this is a long term thing, performed by the fizzy stuff in my Pepsi. How can that work? It's hard to convince people that an invisible gas is causing problems, especially when they can be reassured by a politician bringing a snowball to the podium to make a speech that the snowball's existence disproves the greenhouse effect.
Third, as my conservative friends who are slowly coming around to the idea that yes, it is real, and yes we are involved - living in the Northeast of the US - they like that it is warmer, and that we don't have as much snow, and that those 70 degree days in February are really nice. They don't care about ocean levels, they don't live at the beach. Same with all the other effects. So many people just don't care what is happening outside of their personal area.
It's time to start using technology to produce billions of machines that actively and permanently remove carbon from the air.
You mean the machines also known as "trees"?
Trees are great things to have around the place. I'll always support planting them, and enjoy them. But at best, they are carbon neutral. Any carbon they might pull from the atmosphere is temporarily stored, then released back to the atmosphere after they die and decay. We might think of the standard rotting process as extreme slow burning, and some of the more wet decays as methane production.
Probably the best approach is to attempt to slow releasing of sequestered carbon from ages past, and call it a lesson learned as we deal with what is happening.
Because you just never know what will happen. If we were to go on a global jag to sequester carbon dioxide - and don't forget methane - if the sun goes on one of it's periodic turndowns, or more likely we enter a period of high volcanic activity, we could inadvertently create problems on the cold side of average global temperature. Carbon dioxide, as the longest lived of the so-called greenhouse gases, is actually a critical component of our atmosphere, and we should trifle with it as little as possible.
Your argument is that you'd rather drive unsafely and put yours, and others, lives and well being in danger than be late for a meeting.
This is exactly why we need autonomous cars.
By the same standard, you'd argue we need autonomous lives.
When safety culture hooks up with autonomous vehicles, a person simply driving to work somehow becomes a murderer.
These autonomous vehicles are very cool from a technological standpoint, but they always assume that all of the mechanical parts of the car work perfectly. I wonder how a bumper to bumper 150 Kph blowout will be responded to?
Did they ever work out how the autonomy will kill people? There will be cases where there is no choice but to kill people in unavoidable accidents. Someone is going to have to program that into the system, or just disengage autonomy so that random forces take over. My spidey lawsuit senses are tingling!
Longer, really. My last one dressed out to about 1400 pounds and there's still some left.
Jeesh! That is a heckava lot of meat.
I have my eye on a specific moose this year (I harvest specific animals, it's that easy to hunt here) and he looks like he'll be about the same. I expect the meat to last a few years. I harvest a whitetail every year (up to about 320#, dressed) and the neighbor's farm supplies my beef and most of my fowl. The rest of my meat usually comes form what I catch fishing.
I don't hunt any more, as I have friends and relatives who do, and we share meat and product. I make a kickass venison bologna that we try to keep around until Superbowl Sunday, and the wife makes venison chili that's like heaven. If I need to again, I certainly will. I take a Native American outlook toward food harvesting, to be very thankful to the animal providing me with sustenance.
I've got a few freezers that I keep it all in, as well as smoking and dehydrating.
I do a lot of smoking, from pork hungarian hot sausage, Canadian bacon, regular bacon and salmon and trout when I can get it. The wife and I do a lot of canning as well, tomatoes corn and oil peppers. We don't need to, but there's something about the effort, and by gosh, you know they are packed fresh
Moose is a bit like a gamier venison. One of the favorite ways is ground moose. It's got a different fat content, so you want to make your burgers with cold hands and maybe put some breadcrumbs into the burger to keep it together better.
Is it like the deer fat? I've always discarded that and put a little beef fat in the venison because the deer fat leaves a film on my teeth.
There's a whole lot of meat on a moose. There's a limit to how many are harvested each year so we enter a lottery for moose permits.
Because I got my moose permit, I'm going to try to grand-slam this year. That's a deer, moose, turkey, and a bear. I've already found the deer and the moose but my bear bait buckets are hardly being hit. I'll end up having to bait down in Central Maine, as well. It just widens the scope and makes it more likely to hit. I'll put them up near the blueberry fields. Bear is best served piping hot. If you let it cool, the fat starts to congeal. So, eat it hot.
Had bear once, it was't the best thing I ever ate, but I could live off it for a while without feeling abused. Okay about Maine - I was going to ask if you were in Alaska. And you have those Maine Blueberries - you do pemmican?
Something tells me you might be getting a bigger - or another - freezer soon. 8^)
False equivalency and appeal to ignorance, followed immediately by another appeal to ignorance. We DO NOT HAVE any long term studies from this artificial meat.
I see, can you point out where I said that we did have any long term studies? You bandy about debate terms like that means something, but dear sir, This is not some debate, especially when you attempt to make points on made up things.
The future is definable once we have facts, but you have NONE!
Am I upsetting you, getting you angry enough to write indecipherable and non parseable comments? One cannot define the future at all, or ever. What a strange statement you make. CAPS are also a great way to make your argument.
There are no long term studies on animals for eating this stuff either.
As an early stage concept, there has to be enough of the product to perform tests. Certainly before animal testing, there will be continuing In Vitro testing. At present, they are working on policy issues, http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/742.... Certainly synthetic meat has been eaten, and is chemically lean meat. The results? Apparently the burger one person ate was pretty good, and another tester said in a blind test, she would have called it meat. That's because it is meat. No harm was done to the victims.
Perhaps you are so stupid you believe that diet has no impact on children, but we have SCIENCE that proves that it does have impact.
I'm beginning to think that you have arguments with people in your head, and make up things for them to say so you can destroy them with a witty and dashing riposte. It is within the realm of possibility that I am quite stupid, but I am quite concerned about the health of children. Certainly the present state of say, bovine meat leads one to concerns about it's health issues.
Here is a very simple product for you to investigate to prove me correct and you an ignorant and inconsiderate prick who is fine with people being harmed by your belief in religion. prenatal vitamins
You then jump right to a false equivalency, and repeat the same appeal to ignorance that can be proven wrong with SCIENCE.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Where on earth did I ever mention anything about prenatal vitamins? What do prenatal vitamins have to do with artificial meats, or much of anything. Vitamins are a class of nutriments that are needed by the body, but in fact are not needed by most people who eat a balanced diet. Can you have a discussion without trying to switch the subject all of the time? It doesn't lend credence to arguments, and I have to waste time pointing it out.
How about comparing this meat to a product like Cigarettes, which were advertised for the better part of a century as beneficial to your health.
You keep bringing up cigarettes as if they were something scientists invented. The health effects of tobacco products were well correlated and exposed as causation even in the mid-late 1850's. But there were groups with a pecuniary interest in growing and selling tobacco products. These advertisements trying to claim that cigarettes were good for you were not put out by scientists, they were put out by tobacco company marketing and ad departments. Here are some for the lulz. I don't see any scientists in that mix, merely a bunch of bullshit. https://www.buzzfeed.com/copyr...
Do you see how ingesting cigarette smoke, or perhaps red dye #5 might be more similar to eating food grown in a lab?
A non-sequitur. Tobacco is a natural substance that you can grow in your house. It's also toxic. And scientists have known for a long time that it is a toxic substance. You need to direct your ire towards the tobacco industry and their lawyers, who betwee
If you really "delved" into science you would know about things like Coca-Cola, cigarettes, butt-loads of food dyes, and other processed foods which underwent massive propaganda campaigns like you are attempting to spread all of which proved to be very harmful to people.
Coca Cola - which one are you referring to, the original recipe with cola nuts and various alkaloids from the coca tree leaves? Cigarettes? I have a reference book written in the 1850s that outlines and presents all of the effects of Cigarette smoking, and chewing tobacco as well. They called several forms of the resulting cancers "consumption" as was the fashion at that time. All of those other issues with dyes and such. Scientists are the people who have found out that some of these substances are harmful. Other people stood in their way and opposed them,
Who you think are scientists are marketers and lawyers. And companies that wold suffer a pecuniary loss if they had to remove a popular product from the marketplace. But when scientists find the problem it magically becomes the scientist's fault.
Go on back to your grand wizard Gates and suck them salty balls.
Cute. And there sums up your ability to engage in a cogent and intelligent discussion. You cannot. Sad. Good day sir.
Isn't it also supposed to have a health readout on a chest plate and/or armband? How else are people supposed to know that the air runs out in 24 minutes but there's 28 minutes before they land and it's safe to open the hatch?
Oh, they'll know. At least 4 minutes before landing. That's calle "just in time expiration".
The sad part is that anyone thinks 'natural' is an adjective of much relevance. Our natural state is eking out a miserable, parasite-ridden existence for three or four decades. Everything better than that comes to us from artificiality.
Oh jeebuz this! Humans crack me up. We're living longer than ever, (note that in the USA, we are slipping) and for most of it, much healthier. But perhaps all of this living has addled our pates. We whine about Nitrates in our food based on some seriously inconclusive experiments, but forget why meats wer cured in the first place. People frigging died. Many other examples of how we are better served exist. One of th emost amusing is that "cooked food is poison" as advocated by raw food advocates. Vegans believe that meat is bad for us - whene there is some evidence that cooking and eating more meat made us healthier and stronger. Certainly intelligence in vegan animals is lacking and the fact that they are prey animals might argue otherwise.
Imagine, we could eat rare animals, or hybrid meat.
For the adventurous, I can see it going farther than that: "long pig" and from specific celebrities. Fans will pay a premium for Mark Wahlberg filet mignon.
Well, that escalated quickly. 8^) I've said Something something, Sophia Vergara at times, but never thought about it that way!
Slashdot Mirror
You silly cow. Moo says the cow. Moo! You're all cows!
Err... I can afford the karma.
Ahhhhh, Thank you! 8^)
In the other part of this thread you said you didn't want debate. Now when someone plays your ad hominem game against you we are supposed to believe you really want a debate? Haha, you are an idiot.
Um..... where did I say that? I do have a post where I very specifically wrote:
Enough saying, let's talk the science using the real science, not the 5000 years from now, people's peens might fall off stuff.
note, a couple spelling errors fixed
I've asked for discussion, and mostly get called pejoratives.
And at this point, I am just playing you like a fish on the line for the lulz, although I'm not certain you understand that.
It's all about the social control. You don't have any study at all, so have no facts. I'm not upset at all, I'm pointing out key points in caps since its easier than tagging bold. Of course you don't want a debate, you have 0 facts to debate with. You chose a religion, and argue just like every other cult member we have seen.
My goodness, you do tend to repeat yourself. You have backed yourself into a corner. I declined to point it out, but since you are belaboring the obvious and engaging in an abusive fallacy, which I only bring up since you appear to take much stock in those things, here is your problem.
If I have "0 facts" to deal with, you have "0 facts" to deal with. See where you boxed yourself in?
But I don't have "0 facts" to deal with. we have the method in which these foods are grown. We know the chemicals used to grow them. Looks like Sodium benzoate is about the most chemicalish chemical in the batch. We know the meat cells are grown on a collagen substrate. All of those things are consumed every day with little problem. We know that synthetic meats have been eaten with no problems, indeed found quite tasty. So far, we've seen no problems, despite your apparent surety that there will be problems such as the intelligence of a turnip being the outcome. One can only assume that since you don't want to be a guinea pig. Rejoice brother - no one is forcing you to eat synthetic meat.
You might also consider giving up on your "religion" accusations. Because you are the one who seems to believe these meats are going to be bad, yet without any evidence that they are, other than a vague reference to some history books. I think that is what is called projection.
Sit back, have an adult beverage of your choice, and chillaxe.
Useful disagreement: articulate the reason(s) why something is wrong. This serves two purposes. It shows that your disagreement is legitimate and not the typical "shoot the messenger" response of child-men who overreact emotionally to truth they find uncomfortable or happen to be in denial about.
One of the best things about slashdot is it's moderation system. It allows those who have a silly opinion to still post without being blocked, and it serves to lower the value of the "Your mom really loved my cock" and all of the other bullshit posted by people with severe psychosexual issues. They are still here, but if I don't feel like scrolling through a hundred posts like that, I just set the slider to not show anything lower than two. If silly season isn't bad, I read wide open.
I don't know if you were around when the trolls and flamers destroyed Usenet. Talk about kooks. There wre the usual homsexual projections by people that were gay, but uncomfortable with it, so went around calling everyone els cocksuckers and describing what they did with others in graphic detail. The usenet response was "filter them out, but some of the kooks just kept opening new email accounts - I don't know what the guy was doing with his life, but he opened and posted hundreds of messages from new accounts every day.
We traced him down and complained to his ISP, but with no luck. By the way, it is really really really difficult to be anonymous on the interent when people really really want to find you.
And when the amount of bullshit was 10 times the amount of actual conversation, everyone gave up and went to groups with a moderator.
The ironic thing is that after all of the trolling and flaming killed a group, it wasn't as much fun for the trolls and flamers. So they abandoned the group they just killed, and moved on to fresh people to annoy.
So yeah, you can post as an AC here, and if people want to see APK or Moo Cow guy - whatever happend to him - he made me laugh - we can do that.
It also provides others a chance to learn something new or at least understand an alternate viewpoint.
So tell me, what is the useful point of "You moderators are incredibly stupid and have sticks up your asses." ?
What exactly will I learn? I did reply that I saw his post. But even that reply is not accepted by those of you AC's that apparently think that a person who diasgrees with them is censorship. Sorry, but you don't even want what you claim you want.
Useless disagreement: you can't be bothered to do any of that, yet you feel strongly enough to use a limited resource (mod points). You see what you think are wrong views out there, yet value your own so little that you won't try to represent it.
So anyhow, tell me the use of telling me that my mom enjoyed it when AC fucked her? She's dead, 6 feet under, fnad fuck no I'm not going to get into a serious discussion to learn the AC's viewpoint. He is sick person, and deserves that -1. DEal with it, if you want conversation post something to have a conversation about.
So you mod it "-1 Troll, Flamebait, Overrated" even though it fits none of the definitions of those mods. You fail to note that there is no "-1 Disagree" mod or you think that was some accidental oversight.
One of these approaches is definitely more useful (and indicative of an adult mind) than the other. They are not on equal footing, as you seem to be implying. They're not equal in intent, motivation, or observable effect. The former is clearly superior. It also tends to foster disagreement, so it would be the preferred choice among those who can handle disagreement.
All you have to do to get a conversation going is post something that is worth talking about. But when you expect a cogent response to accusactions that the moderators have sticks up their asses, all I can tell you in manner of serious thought is none that I know do.
That's unacceptable to me.
I'm unacceptably offended.
They can disagree with him all they want, but how is "so no one can see your post" not (at least partial) censorship?
So which posts to you not see? Numerical moderation is not even remotely censorship except to those who cannot handle disagreement. I saw the post, which should be obvious because I replied.
I don't have to be an Internet Tough Guy to call out the insane fucking fear that people in the US force themselves to live under.
The best way to not have you called out as an Internet tough guy is to not act like an Internet tough guy.
Funny how that stuff works, especially when you double down on the tough guy posts.
Sure. They're going to do that.
I am not certain where you are from, but yes, that happens. Google is your friend in this matter, but here's one person who called the police and ended up dead http://nypost.com/2017/07/25/w...
Police training today is a bit messed up, with requirements to unload on a person if they are frightened. To the point where many people are more afraid of the police than thugs. Just how it is.
Meanwhile, your neighbour may have just bled to death.
Yeah, isn't that messed up?
Depending which state you're in, you might well have broken the law.
Now there's a good one to try to prosecute. Maybe you were asleep.
What's wrong with calling the police, heading over the valley, assessing the situation and providing aid? Oh no, might get hurt? Fucking cowardly piece of shit.
You might get killed, as happened to Justine Damon, the woman from Australia who was shot and killed in Minnesota after calling in a disturbance. Supposedly she "slapped" the police car, frightening one of the officers inside, who then shot and killed her. But whatever she did, he found it necessary to terminate her life.
for Moscow trip so he face the music in place of tranitor guy Lance Snowden. Do not make the crime if you want the time. Dummass to for thinking him smarter than G-man who have all phones listening to recorders.
Much smart. Very wow. You r doing me a concern, fren..
Umm... Why was my post censored to -1? You moderators are incredibly stupid and have sticks up your asses.
So no one could see your post? Ah you moderns, thinking that no one is allowed to disagree with you, and if they do, it is censorship. We'll get ya a new binky.
I also had my astronomy filters which gave a nice view, turning the solar disc into a blue color for direct viewing. These were a big hit.
When looking away from the sun, you could see that shadows were fuzzy and odd looking, and sunlight filtering through tree leaves would show thousands of crescents on the ground.
When we hit as close to totality as we were going to get, it was fairly dark. It looked like late evening, but without the reddish color shift of a normal evening sun. A lot of birds started sqwaking, especially some pileated woodpeckers that visit our feeders. An adult was making a lot of noise, my best guess is a parent telling a young one it was time to get home for the evening. Actually got pretty loud.
Then almost like a switch, it started getting much brighter. A pretty enjoyable time. We all chatted for a while longer, then headed back to whatever we were doing before the eclipse.
But at best, they are carbon neutral. Any carbon they might pull from the atmosphere is temporarily stored, then released back to the atmosphere after they die and decay.
Not if you take measures to prevent their decay after they die.
After all, that's how all this carbon got into the ground in the first place, so it's obviously not impossible.
The great sequestration that took place in the carboniferous will almost certainly never happen again, as towards it's end Fungi emerged that could break down the lignin in the wood. So yeah, we would have to create vaults that would seal the wood off from the atmosphere, and keep it sealed off.
The scale of the project would be mind boggling. It would also be zany and ridiculous enough to have been part of a Hitchiker's guide to the galaxy chapter.
We grow trees to capture carbon then chop them down and place them in sealed vaults in order for us to put more carbon into the air from carbon that we dig out of the ground that was there already, and re-release the old carbon, then have to grow new carbon to put in the ground, forever.
Sounds legit.
It sounds like the permafrost melting thing is an unstable equilibrium: the more it melts, the more carbon and methane goes into the atmosphere, the warmer it gets, and the more it melts.
So, here's my question: if we are sitting on an unstable equilibrium like that, why hasn't there been runaway carbon dioxide warming in the past?
Because there isn't an unlimited amount of CO2. methane, and the other so-called greenhouses. There have been times in the past when the CO2 levels were much higher, and the temperatures were higher as well. enough to more than compensate for the dimmer sun of the period.
So if all of the sequestered Methane was released, it would suck up energy, and given that it is a much stronger greenhouse gas, would affect temperatures quite a bit. It does dissipate more quickly than CO2, so it would not affect temps for as long It's still up there for a long time by human timescales. There is a wild card in all this too, the methane clathrates that are at present, sitting at the bottom of the oceans. So we wouldn't have runaway greenhouse warming, but it could get really unpleasant for a while, and with a lot of political and social issues.
But eventually, we would settle into a warmer, but likely slowly declining quasi-equilibrium.
Over the last (roughly) 200,000 years, we have gone from 1% of the genus Homo to 100% of the genus Homo.
This is why republicans hate those homos.
Do you want to get Republicans involved. Well stop calling them uneducated hicks, start explaining how solar energy is a good way to be independent of these government controlled power plants and where you are responsible for your own energy.
I love how you make this attempt to say that non-republicans are causing republicans to rebel because non-republicans are so mean.
That is like arguing that you can get someone to kill themselves by telling them they are stupid, and that gravity is real, so they say No it isn't, and then jump off a cliff because you contradicted them.
You are going to have to explain why an apparent fatal flaw is a good thing, because your concept is a perfect way to take advantage of people. Regardless I've been called a lot of names by deniers and others - so what? I've never driven off a cliff just to show them they are wrong.
No, there are three things causing denialism.
First is that there is the fact that a number of our politicians are receiving a goodly amount of money from the groups who's activities are releasing sequestered CO2. They then do these contributor's bidding. With enough politicians owned by the groups, it forms a pretty powerful voting bloc.
Second, this is a long term thing, performed by the fizzy stuff in my Pepsi. How can that work? It's hard to convince people that an invisible gas is causing problems, especially when they can be reassured by a politician bringing a snowball to the podium to make a speech that the snowball's existence disproves the greenhouse effect.
Third, as my conservative friends who are slowly coming around to the idea that yes, it is real, and yes we are involved - living in the Northeast of the US - they like that it is warmer, and that we don't have as much snow, and that those 70 degree days in February are really nice. They don't care about ocean levels, they don't live at the beach. Same with all the other effects. So many people just don't care what is happening outside of their personal area.
It's time to start using technology to produce billions of machines that actively and permanently remove carbon from the air.
You mean the machines also known as "trees"?
Trees are great things to have around the place. I'll always support planting them, and enjoy them. But at best, they are carbon neutral. Any carbon they might pull from the atmosphere is temporarily stored, then released back to the atmosphere after they die and decay. We might think of the standard rotting process as extreme slow burning, and some of the more wet decays as methane production.
Probably the best approach is to attempt to slow releasing of sequestered carbon from ages past, and call it a lesson learned as we deal with what is happening.
Because you just never know what will happen. If we were to go on a global jag to sequester carbon dioxide - and don't forget methane - if the sun goes on one of it's periodic turndowns, or more likely we enter a period of high volcanic activity, we could inadvertently create problems on the cold side of average global temperature. Carbon dioxide, as the longest lived of the so-called greenhouse gases, is actually a critical component of our atmosphere, and we should trifle with it as little as possible.
Your argument is that you'd rather drive unsafely and put yours, and others, lives and well being in danger than be late for a meeting.
This is exactly why we need autonomous cars.
By the same standard, you'd argue we need autonomous lives.
When safety culture hooks up with autonomous vehicles, a person simply driving to work somehow becomes a murderer.
These autonomous vehicles are very cool from a technological standpoint, but they always assume that all of the mechanical parts of the car work perfectly. I wonder how a bumper to bumper 150 Kph blowout will be responded to?
Did they ever work out how the autonomy will kill people? There will be cases where there is no choice but to kill people in unavoidable accidents. Someone is going to have to program that into the system, or just disengage autonomy so that random forces take over. My spidey lawsuit senses are tingling!
Longer, really. My last one dressed out to about 1400 pounds and there's still some left.
Jeesh! That is a heckava lot of meat.
I have my eye on a specific moose this year (I harvest specific animals, it's that easy to hunt here) and he looks like he'll be about the same. I expect the meat to last a few years. I harvest a whitetail every year (up to about 320#, dressed) and the neighbor's farm supplies my beef and most of my fowl. The rest of my meat usually comes form what I catch fishing.
I don't hunt any more, as I have friends and relatives who do, and we share meat and product. I make a kickass venison bologna that we try to keep around until Superbowl Sunday, and the wife makes venison chili that's like heaven. If I need to again, I certainly will. I take a Native American outlook toward food harvesting, to be very thankful to the animal providing me with sustenance.
I've got a few freezers that I keep it all in, as well as smoking and dehydrating.
I do a lot of smoking, from pork hungarian hot sausage, Canadian bacon, regular bacon and salmon and trout when I can get it. The wife and I do a lot of canning as well, tomatoes corn and oil peppers. We don't need to, but there's something about the effort, and by gosh, you know they are packed fresh
Moose is a bit like a gamier venison. One of the favorite ways is ground moose. It's got a different fat content, so you want to make your burgers with cold hands and maybe put some breadcrumbs into the burger to keep it together better.
Is it like the deer fat? I've always discarded that and put a little beef fat in the venison because the deer fat leaves a film on my teeth.
There's a whole lot of meat on a moose. There's a limit to how many are harvested each year so we enter a lottery for moose permits.
Because I got my moose permit, I'm going to try to grand-slam this year. That's a deer, moose, turkey, and a bear. I've already found the deer and the moose but my bear bait buckets are hardly being hit. I'll end up having to bait down in Central Maine, as well. It just widens the scope and makes it more likely to hit. I'll put them up near the blueberry fields. Bear is best served piping hot. If you let it cool, the fat starts to congeal. So, eat it hot.
Had bear once, it was't the best thing I ever ate, but I could live off it for a while without feeling abused. Okay about Maine - I was going to ask if you were in Alaska. And you have those Maine Blueberries - you do pemmican?
Something tells me you might be getting a bigger - or another - freezer soon. 8^)
False equivalency and appeal to ignorance, followed immediately by another appeal to ignorance. We DO NOT HAVE any long term studies from this artificial meat.
I see, can you point out where I said that we did have any long term studies? You bandy about debate terms like that means something, but dear sir, This is not some debate, especially when you attempt to make points on made up things.
The future is definable once we have facts, but you have NONE!
Am I upsetting you, getting you angry enough to write indecipherable and non parseable comments? One cannot define the future at all, or ever. What a strange statement you make. CAPS are also a great way to make your argument.
There are no long term studies on animals for eating this stuff either.
As an early stage concept, there has to be enough of the product to perform tests. Certainly before animal testing, there will be continuing In Vitro testing. At present, they are working on policy issues, http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/742.... Certainly synthetic meat has been eaten, and is chemically lean meat. The results? Apparently the burger one person ate was pretty good, and another tester said in a blind test, she would have called it meat. That's because it is meat. No harm was done to the victims.
Perhaps you are so stupid you believe that diet has no impact on children, but we have SCIENCE that proves that it does have impact.
I'm beginning to think that you have arguments with people in your head, and make up things for them to say so you can destroy them with a witty and dashing riposte. It is within the realm of possibility that I am quite stupid, but I am quite concerned about the health of children. Certainly the present state of say, bovine meat leads one to concerns about it's health issues.
Here is a very simple product for you to investigate to prove me correct and you an ignorant and inconsiderate prick who is fine with people being harmed by your belief in religion. prenatal vitamins
You then jump right to a false equivalency, and repeat the same appeal to ignorance that can be proven wrong with SCIENCE.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Where on earth did I ever mention anything about prenatal vitamins? What do prenatal vitamins have to do with artificial meats, or much of anything. Vitamins are a class of nutriments that are needed by the body, but in fact are not needed by most people who eat a balanced diet. Can you have a discussion without trying to switch the subject all of the time? It doesn't lend credence to arguments, and I have to waste time pointing it out.
How about comparing this meat to a product like Cigarettes, which were advertised for the better part of a century as beneficial to your health.
You keep bringing up cigarettes as if they were something scientists invented. The health effects of tobacco products were well correlated and exposed as causation even in the mid-late 1850's. But there were groups with a pecuniary interest in growing and selling tobacco products. These advertisements trying to claim that cigarettes were good for you were not put out by scientists, they were put out by tobacco company marketing and ad departments. Here are some for the lulz. I don't see any scientists in that mix, merely a bunch of bullshit. https://www.buzzfeed.com/copyr...
Do you see how ingesting cigarette smoke, or perhaps red dye #5 might be more similar to eating food grown in a lab?
A non-sequitur. Tobacco is a natural substance that you can grow in your house. It's also toxic. And scientists have known for a long time that it is a toxic substance. You need to direct your ire towards the tobacco industry and their lawyers, who betwee
If you really "delved" into science you would know about things like Coca-Cola, cigarettes, butt-loads of food dyes, and other processed foods which underwent massive propaganda campaigns like you are attempting to spread all of which proved to be very harmful to people.
Coca Cola - which one are you referring to, the original recipe with cola nuts and various alkaloids from the coca tree leaves? Cigarettes? I have a reference book written in the 1850s that outlines and presents all of the effects of Cigarette smoking, and chewing tobacco as well. They called several forms of the resulting cancers "consumption" as was the fashion at that time. All of those other issues with dyes and such. Scientists are the people who have found out that some of these substances are harmful. Other people stood in their way and opposed them,
Who you think are scientists are marketers and lawyers. And companies that wold suffer a pecuniary loss if they had to remove a popular product from the marketplace. But when scientists find the problem it magically becomes the scientist's fault.
Go on back to your grand wizard Gates and suck them salty balls.
Cute. And there sums up your ability to engage in a cogent and intelligent discussion. You cannot. Sad. Good day sir.
Isn't it also supposed to have a health readout on a chest plate and/or armband? How else are people supposed to know that the air runs out in 24 minutes but there's 28 minutes before they land and it's safe to open the hatch?
Oh, they'll know. At least 4 minutes before landing. That's calle "just in time expiration".
I qualify for a lot of that, actually. I don't make my own tools. There are more efficient means.
Given that I personally clean the vast majority if my meat, I'm pretty sure it is clean meat. This year, I even got my moose permit. It will be tasty.
Never had moose. That must make for a whole winter's worth of food.
The sad part is that anyone thinks 'natural' is an adjective of much relevance. Our natural state is eking out a miserable, parasite-ridden existence for three or four decades. Everything better than that comes to us from artificiality.
Oh jeebuz this! Humans crack me up. We're living longer than ever, (note that in the USA, we are slipping) and for most of it, much healthier. But perhaps all of this living has addled our pates. We whine about Nitrates in our food based on some seriously inconclusive experiments, but forget why meats wer cured in the first place. People frigging died. Many other examples of how we are better served exist. One of th emost amusing is that "cooked food is poison" as advocated by raw food advocates. Vegans believe that meat is bad for us - whene there is some evidence that cooking and eating more meat made us healthier and stronger. Certainly intelligence in vegan animals is lacking and the fact that they are prey animals might argue otherwise.
when you harvest and skin all of the meat you eat, killing it with tools you made....
As if you are going to tend your meat vat and not let some nameless immigrant or disposable Chinamen to do it for you, as you do everything else.
whoosh...
Imagine, we could eat rare animals, or hybrid meat.
For the adventurous, I can see it going farther than that: "long pig" and from specific celebrities. Fans will pay a premium for Mark Wahlberg filet mignon.
Well, that escalated quickly. 8^) I've said Something something, Sophia Vergara at times, but never thought about it that way!