A regional power with ~8k nuclear weapons. At least with the current administration, fear of conflict with this "regional power" has bound their hands pretty well.
There's no signs that Russia is going to "collapse any day now". It's not exactly on a positive trend, and remains fraught with demographic problems including large numbers of people who don't consider themselves Russian (or consider themselves Russian only second to some other category). And indeed they're playing with fire by, for example, using money to prop up strongmen like Kadyrov who have their own private militaries to try to keep peace in restive areas. But as for signs of any sort of "imminent" collapse, I just don't see it. Russia mains good control over the domestic messaging, and until the pocketbook starts contradicting too much with the message on TV, they'll maintain control.
... while the focus in the US has been more about the hacking of the DNC and similar stories, if I had to wager, I'd guess that this is part of the new sanctions threatened against Russia by John Kerry and Boris Johnson over the bombing of Aleppo.
So let me get this straight. Don't trust Buzzfeed. Instead, trust "Battle Swam Blog". Got it.
Re, the "uranium deal" thing: false and false. Meanwhile, Trump chose as his campaign manager Paul Manafort, a consultant to Yanukovitch (including being earmarked for over $12m in payments from a slush fund uncovered after Yanukovitch fled), his foreign policy advisor (Carter Page) works (present tense) for Gazprom, one of Trump's sons talked about his father having to focus on loans from Russia when he couldn't get them from the US, and how heavily they rely on Russian investment, Trump Soho turned out in court to be a money laundering organization for Russian criminals (Trump followed up by hiring its principal partner into the Trump organization), Trump bragged during a meeting in Russia that “Almost all of the oligarchs were in the room” just to meet with him, numerous Trump businesses have been financed by Russian oligarchs, Trump has repeatedly called Putin a great leader, both in isolation (without comparison to other US leaders), and in comparison to not only Obama, but Bush as well; Trump advisors intervened in the Republican Party platform on precisely one issue, that being to weaken references to supporting Ukraine; Trump claims that Russian troops aren't in Ukraine, and has endorsed Russia's Syria policy. Not to mention thinks NATO is obsolete. Oh, and whole "we don't know who did the hack, maybe it was China, maybe it was a 400 pound guy in his bedroom" line? He had already been given an intelligence briefing where US officials explicitly told him it was Russia. And then there's his knack for getting ahold of Russian propaganda faster than anyone else, like when he walked into a rally waving around a report on Clinton that had only been published (and later retracted) by Sputnik International.
For all your propaganda that's too bad even for Russian propaganda outlets to push, Trump has your back.
To be fair (concerning your F-35 point), there is no point on the near horizon in which manned military jets will be obsoleted by drones. Namely because you can't jam a human. Until you can get to the stage where drones do not need real-time command streams in order to be fully effective - that is, drones making their own decisions on who to kill - you need humans. People always forget electronic warfare when it comes to military conflict, yet it's one of the most important aspects of a modern battlefield.
There is some interesting potential for drone-human synergy, however. Look at the F-35 and its main strengths and weaknesses. Its main strengths are that it's very hard to detect / target, and that it has a very high level of sensor integration, including multi-aircraft sensor integration, designed to distribute a wide variety of data to make decisions about what responses to make with the hardware on hand. Its weaknesses include limited internal payload capacity (it can carry external payload, but at the cost of its stealth) and limitations on how much EW it can do on its own (either due to built-in capabilities, limited capacity for extra payload, or the risks of being targeted while carrying out EW).
Pairing F-35s with drones however seems to meet the best strengths of both. F-35s could have sensor fusion with drones, allowing them to take part in EW and carry significantly more armament than the F-35 itself can carry,. The drones can afford to be more visible, since the loss of one is not as significant. Meanwhile, having it in formation with an F-35 makes it much harder to jam communications. You have a no-lag, relatively short distance mesh network (that can close distance as-needed), with a human in the local decision-making loop.
Re, Russia: A new Cold War with Russia is lining up whether the US wants one or not. It only takes one side to start one. Re, China: no, not really. There are some clear conflicts, mainly these days centered around the South China Sea. But the overall conflict level is no broader than it's been on average than in the past several decades.
Re, "bombing ISIS": Russia is not bombing Daesh. Russia is bombing JaF and to a lesser extent FSA. They were only doing about 10-20% of their bombing runs on Daesh before, and since the failed Tabqah offensive haven't focused on Daesh at all.
You are correct that space programs are cheap, on the overall scheme of things.
If that were the case, I'd expect wear in non-failed batteries. And not all battery electrolytes are flammable, let alone outright hypergolic with air - and I'd expect evidence of any flammable peroxide accumulation in some phones which hadn't caught fire. This doesn't sound plausible to me.
Often these sorts of random faults are due to defective membranes, aka bad QC. Also bad charge management or monitoring can lead to a fire in such batteries. When you want the highest energy density chemistries, you really have to be careful about how you charge them. There could be non-intuitive causes along both of these lines - for example, membranes that age unexpectedly quickly in real-world use but not testing (say, mechanical stress), or erroneous sensor data that allows charging at a rate / conditions that it shouldn't.
There should never be "lithium" (as in, metallic lithium) in a lithium-ion battery. In normal operation, you have the lithium ions intercalated in graphite (or now silicon) on the anode end and intercalated in a spinel or olivine material on the cathode end; you never deal with metallic lithium. Lithium metal existing in a li-ion battery means that something has gone wrong. So talking about the flammability of lithium metal as it's part of the fundamental risk of a li-ion battery is a distortion of the actual risk. Some chemistries are prone to defects that can cause lithium metal to plate out and are very sensitive to manufacturing process, charging behavior, charging conditions, etc to prevent it. Others are highly insensitive and can be heavily abused without any risk of fire. The former, of course, tend to be higher density and so are more popular when - wait for it - trying to make things like phones thin and light.
As time goes on, both ends of the li-ion spectrum have improved; today's best "quite stable" li-ion chemistries outperform the "bleeding edge" chemistries of several years back. But the pressure still remains for cell manufacturers to remain on the bleeding edge of the energy density range.
Right. The US intelligence services are so dumb as to base decisions entirely on what time zone an attack took place. Got it. I love how they're considered both omniscient and omnipotent with their fingers in every last system, and yet utter morons at the same time.
Concerning "the leaks are still the leaks": the overwhelming majority of people, 99.999%, are not actually reading "the leaks". They're reading random excerpts selected out of massive volumes of text designed to try to make Clinton look bad. Virtually nobody is reading context or anything else that was said. IMHO, they'reveryinteresting geopolitical discussions, if you're at all wonkish.
Note that even in these full versions, the leakers carefully "highlighted" the gotchas to make sure you don't miss them. And it's also funny what they decided would be a gotcha and what wouldn't. For example, they highlighted the section where she discussed being forced to go on a "Clinton Apology Tour" due to the Manning leaks, from one leader to the next who had been characterized by any embassy in less than flattering terms - even though these people actually were as corrupt and whatnot as the embassy memos described. But they didn't see fit to highlight her joke about giving a red state to China right before that:
(Context: negotiations with China over the South China Sea)
SECRETARY CLINTON: "... I think that -- you know, one of the greatest arguments that I had on a continuing basis was with my Chinese counterparts about their claim. And I made the point at one point in the argument that, you know, you can call it whatever you want to call it. You don't have a claim to all of it. I said, by that argument, you know, the United States should claim all of the Pacific. We liberated it, we defended it. We have as much claim to all of the Pacific. And we could call it the American Sea, and it could go from the West Coast of California all the way to the Philippines. And, you know, my counterpart sat up very straight and goes, well, you can't do that. And I said, well, we have as much right to claim that as you do. I mean, you claim it based on pottery shards from, you know, some fishing vessel that ran aground in an atoll somewhere. You know, we had conveys of military strength. We discovered Japan for Heaven sakes. I mean, we did all of these things.
MR. BLANKFEIN: These are more technical conversations than I thought they would be.
(Laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, yes. And then he says to me, well, you know, we'll claim Hawaii. And I said, yeah, but we have proof we bought it. Do you have proof you brought any of these places you're claiming? So we got into the nitty-gritty of --
MR. BLANKFEIN: But they have to take New Jersey.
(Laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, no, no. We're going to give them a red state.
(Laughter and applause.)
(That said, she does however have a number of good things to say about most of her Republican colleagues - she only seems to have a trouble with the Tea Party and the sort of candidates they push / pressure they put on moderate candidates to tag to their line, and goes into a number of times where the pressure they've put on their congressmen had a negative impact on US relationships with other countries)
In general, though, while yes there are political angles in there that one can take, most of it is purely policy talk, in a great level of depth. Very much worth a read.
There are links. Check them for yourself. Contrarily, present any evidence whatsoever that he was charged with accidentally planting GM seeds and had argued that it was accidental.
No, there aren't - at least from a human perspective. Sometimes small amounts can be gained by sifting through dried manure for undigested seeds and the like ("second harvest"), but not much.
I doubt people have been eating beans since the hunter-gatherer times, because most beans need ridiculous amount of processing and cooking before they're immidiately edible
1) "Beans" are just one category of legume. 2) No, beans do not need "ridiculous amount of processing and cooking". Dried beans need to be soaked in water for a day or so, then cooked. Non-dried beans do not need to be soaked. 3) Yes, hunter-gatherer groups, to this day consume significant quantities of legumes. Usually either directly roasted or ground into a flour and made into a bread. 4) Every type of food contains at least something that can be "damaging" in some context. 5) "Some X can not be eaten at all" also applies to every type of food, regardless of your category of X. Some berries? Yep. Some leaves? Yep. meats? Yep. Shellfish? Insects? Fungi? Yep, yep, yep.
I'm sorry, were you under the impression that Podesta owned stock in Joule Unlimited was a secret? Podesta is on the *board* of Joule, and was for years. Joule is not a "Putin/Russian" company; it's a biofuels (algae-based) company from Massachusetts. Yes, Russians have purchased 20% of the shares of Joule. This is also not secret. Audi also owns part of Joule - does that mean that Podesta, by virtue of serving having served on their board, is a German plant?
The leak is only brought up to "raise questions" about whether Podesta still owned any stock in Joule. It doesn't actually say he does - it says he transferred stock into a different company, but doesn't say what was done with it after that. They're of course trying to imply that he still owns it, and that since Russians own 20% of Joule, that means that they control Podesta, and in turn, control Hillary Clinton.
Versus, you know, Donald Trump who repeatedly openly praises Putin, has openly endorsed his Syria strategy, supported him on Ukraine, stated that NATO is obsolete, hired as a campaign chair a personal adviser to Yanukovitch who works closely with top Russian officials (Manafort), same with Carter Page (*current* representative for Gazprom, Russia's state oil company), is heavily financed from Russian banks, shows up at rallies waving around information only ever published on Russian propaganda outlets like Sputnik the same day it was published, and intervened on the Republican platform at the convention on precisely one issue out of the thousands covered - that one issue being to weaken support for Ukraine.
The "Paleo diet" concept that hunter-gatherers do not consume grains and legumes simply because they don't farm them is patently false. Indeed, if you look at the best preserved paleolthic human find, that of Ötzi the Iceman, it appears that a large portion if not a majority of his diet was grains (his second to last meal was herb bread with some red deer). Hunter-gatherers today frequently collect wild grains and legumes, and surely did so in the past as well. Legumes are typically are roasted whole or ground then fried on rocks, rather than fried in fat or boiled as is more typical for modern preparations. The many tribes of Australian aboriginees, for example, relied heavily on acacia pods (particularly in arid areas), with the seeds ground, mixed with water and made into a bread.
It's important to note that root nodules operate as a very close symbiosis - not exactly to the extent of our mitochondria in our cells, but it's more than just "bacteria that happen to be living next to the plant". The plant roots grow a carefully structured channel specifically to allow bacteria to "infect" them. The bacteria and plants work together on this - the plants produce flavinoids to let the bacteria know that they're there, and the bacteria in turn respond to flavinoids by producing nod factors, which lets the plant know that the bacteria are present and that it needs to work to encapsulate them. When an "infection" is established inside the root, the plant closes off the channel, not only trapping the bacteria, but also protecting them. The plants then nurture the bacteria, providing them nitrogen, oxygen, nutrients, and even proteins that assist in the fixation process. When the plant dies, the extensive cultures of bacteria are released and become free to colonize other plant roots
If you were asking why bacteria evolved the need to fix nitrogen in general... that's easy. Nitrogen is one of the essential components in life; they had to. It's needed for protein, DNA, RNA, etc; life as we know it can't exist without it.
Not to mention that what is a "maximum" depends greatly on context. For example: if some animal species' primary challenge in life is to be able to bend down tree branches to get at their fruit, then its "maximum" may be to become heavy and muscular; but in a context where harvests are unpredictable and the species needs to survive long periods of shortage, then its "maximum" may be to have much less muscle mass, and thus energy consumption, to survive until the periods of abundance.
As I wrote below, I can think of a specific example where I live where nitrogen production by legumes ends up harming the species in the long run by boosting their competitors. The contexts of "growing wild in nature" and "growing in a farmer's field" are very different.
Note that to a primitive peoples, carbs are a very good thing. They're basically pure energy. They don't keep you "full" for as long as fats and protein, so they're not advisable for dieters, but in terms of giving your body energy - one of the primary tasks of any hunter-gathererer - they do the job quite well.
Fats of course are a "denser" energy source, but they're not found as abundantly in plant sources. And contrary to common perception, with most hunter-gatherer societies, the vast majority of calories tend to come from plants, not animals. It varies depending on the tribe and location (for example, in the high latitudes and altitudes animal sources of energy tend to be more dominant), and of course with the wider spread of megafauna in the past, it's logical to consume a higher portion of meat than today's hunter-gatherer societies (most of whom hunt primarily small game). But regardless, there's no question that in the big picture, plants made up a large portion of their calories, and of those calories, most would be carbs.
Natural selection optimizes to a plant's natural environment. Intensive modern agriculture is not a plant's natural environment. Everything comes with tradeoffs, and in nature there are a lot of things that come into play beyond just "racing to as many seeds as possible". Perhaps, for example, by producing more nitrogen they'd be fertilizing the soil for their competitors which would outgrow them - maybe they were limiting the nitrogen for a reason.
Indeed, this actually does seem to happen. Here in Iceland, lupine is not a native species, but it's taken off like crazy since it was introduced (to try to restore our soil), pushing out native species. However, evidence shows that after an area has grown lupine for several decades, it tends to slowly die out, being replaced by native plants that can now - due to the improved soil - outcompete the lupine. Lupine is, of course, a legume.
People have been consuming legumes (beans, peas, chickpeas, lentils, etc) since we were hunter-gatherers, and have long formed the staple diets of numerous regions across the world. Legumes are a rich source of plant protein, fiber, carbs, and minerals.
That is not, and I quote, "she asked someone at the IMF in the EU about if Greece was getting a bailout, so her son in law could make a big bet on it happening". Nor is that anything other than a hasty "PIs ask your econ team to review." written by Hillary. That's the chair of the commodities trading commission, sending information to the Secretary of State, on a topic that it was her job to deal with, and her forwarding it to her team. Yes, the secretary of state's job is to stay on top of the most major international political issues of the time, for crying out loud - how can you possibly think otherwise? Or did you think that Greece was not one of the most (actually, *the* most) pressing international political issues of the time? She was repeatedly and regularly dispatch to meet with Greek and other European officials on the topic.
The fact that her son in law made bad choices of investments in Greece despite being related to a top US government official should make it obvious how little communication there was between the two on the issue. But no, because she talked to an aide, and that aide talked to someone who works on the Clinton foundation, and Chelsea is in the Clinton foundation, and Chelsea's husband is investing in Greece, that means that Hillary Clinton was carefully manipulating Greek investment funds with insider info - it's all so obvious!
The other thing you linked is also not anything written by Hillary. It's about how a Canadian company (who had given to the Clinton foundation) was bought by the Russians, and in the process a number of different US government officials signed off on the sale - one of them being Clinton. Wow, stop the presses, clearly that's totally like having an email saying "If you give me money, I'll approve your sale"! Do you realize how many things the Secretary of State's office has to sign off on? She didn't even have veto power on the deal. And do you know how many different donors have given to the Clinton foundation (which, by the way, is not "money to the Clintons" - it's a charity that Charity Watch gives it's highest possible rating, unlike Trump's charity, which was basically a scam and was recently delisted by the government of New York, which is also investigating criminal charges)?
Both Fact Check and Politifact call the accusations concerning Uranium One that this was some sort of corrupt deal false.
If I were as crude as you, I would be responding with your trademark "bullshit" response right now. Unless you're talking about something else (wherein you should probably reference it), you never read that email because it was lost (at least the relevant parts, aka the attachment). The only writing from Clinton on the subject was a hasty "Pls print two copies." Is that what you call reading things she's written? Furthermore,, the supposedly "damning" thing is a chain-of-guilt. Nothing at all about Clinton giving information to her son it law, it's "Sullivan gave the info to someone else, who works at the Clinton foundation, and Chelsea works for the Clinton foundation too, and her husband was investing in Greece, therefore Hillary Clinton is a corrupt scumbag"). I'm rather surprised that with all of the stuff Clinton had to read on Greece as part of her job that they couldn't find something worse than this to try to tar her with. The most "corrupt" action that's come forth in the Wikileaks releases concerning Clinton and Mezvinsky themselves is that she forwarded an email from him to another government official. I know, stop the presses.
Back to the original topic: I recommend that people read things she wrote and form their own opinions from them. You clearly did not do that. It's something that very, very few people here commenting about the emails have actually done. They just repeat the "gotchas" that the leaks were designed to elicit.
Slashdot Mirror
A regional power with ~8k nuclear weapons. At least with the current administration, fear of conflict with this "regional power" has bound their hands pretty well.
There's no signs that Russia is going to "collapse any day now". It's not exactly on a positive trend, and remains fraught with demographic problems including large numbers of people who don't consider themselves Russian (or consider themselves Russian only second to some other category). And indeed they're playing with fire by, for example, using money to prop up strongmen like Kadyrov who have their own private militaries to try to keep peace in restive areas. But as for signs of any sort of "imminent" collapse, I just don't see it. Russia mains good control over the domestic messaging, and until the pocketbook starts contradicting too much with the message on TV, they'll maintain control.
... while the focus in the US has been more about the hacking of the DNC and similar stories, if I had to wager, I'd guess that this is part of the new sanctions threatened against Russia by John Kerry and Boris Johnson over the bombing of Aleppo.
Riiiiiiiight.
Where will I get my supply of incoherent antisemitic tweets and polls mocking Hillary's pneumonia?
So let me get this straight. Don't trust Buzzfeed. Instead, trust "Battle Swam Blog". Got it.
Re, the "uranium deal" thing: false and false. Meanwhile, Trump chose as his campaign manager Paul Manafort, a consultant to Yanukovitch (including being earmarked for over $12m in payments from a slush fund uncovered after Yanukovitch fled), his foreign policy advisor (Carter Page) works (present tense) for Gazprom, one of Trump's sons talked about his father having to focus on loans from Russia when he couldn't get them from the US, and how heavily they rely on Russian investment, Trump Soho turned out in court to be a money laundering organization for Russian criminals (Trump followed up by hiring its principal partner into the Trump organization), Trump bragged during a meeting in Russia that “Almost all of the oligarchs were in the room” just to meet with him, numerous Trump businesses have been financed by Russian oligarchs, Trump has repeatedly called Putin a great leader, both in isolation (without comparison to other US leaders), and in comparison to not only Obama, but Bush as well; Trump advisors intervened in the Republican Party platform on precisely one issue, that being to weaken references to supporting Ukraine; Trump claims that Russian troops aren't in Ukraine, and has endorsed Russia's Syria policy. Not to mention thinks NATO is obsolete. Oh, and whole "we don't know who did the hack, maybe it was China, maybe it was a 400 pound guy in his bedroom" line? He had already been given an intelligence briefing where US officials explicitly told him it was Russia. And then there's his knack for getting ahold of Russian propaganda faster than anyone else, like when he walked into a rally waving around a report on Clinton that had only been published (and later retracted) by Sputnik International.
For all your propaganda that's too bad even for Russian propaganda outlets to push, Trump has your back.
To be fair (concerning your F-35 point), there is no point on the near horizon in which manned military jets will be obsoleted by drones. Namely because you can't jam a human. Until you can get to the stage where drones do not need real-time command streams in order to be fully effective - that is, drones making their own decisions on who to kill - you need humans. People always forget electronic warfare when it comes to military conflict, yet it's one of the most important aspects of a modern battlefield.
There is some interesting potential for drone-human synergy, however. Look at the F-35 and its main strengths and weaknesses. Its main strengths are that it's very hard to detect / target, and that it has a very high level of sensor integration, including multi-aircraft sensor integration, designed to distribute a wide variety of data to make decisions about what responses to make with the hardware on hand. Its weaknesses include limited internal payload capacity (it can carry external payload, but at the cost of its stealth) and limitations on how much EW it can do on its own (either due to built-in capabilities, limited capacity for extra payload, or the risks of being targeted while carrying out EW).
Pairing F-35s with drones however seems to meet the best strengths of both. F-35s could have sensor fusion with drones, allowing them to take part in EW and carry significantly more armament than the F-35 itself can carry,. The drones can afford to be more visible, since the loss of one is not as significant. Meanwhile, having it in formation with an F-35 makes it much harder to jam communications. You have a no-lag, relatively short distance mesh network (that can close distance as-needed), with a human in the local decision-making loop.
Re, Russia: A new Cold War with Russia is lining up whether the US wants one or not. It only takes one side to start one. Re, China: no, not really. There are some clear conflicts, mainly these days centered around the South China Sea. But the overall conflict level is no broader than it's been on average than in the past several decades.
Re, "bombing ISIS": Russia is not bombing Daesh. Russia is bombing JaF and to a lesser extent FSA. They were only doing about 10-20% of their bombing runs on Daesh before, and since the failed Tabqah offensive haven't focused on Daesh at all.
You are correct that space programs are cheap, on the overall scheme of things.
If that were the case, I'd expect wear in non-failed batteries. And not all battery electrolytes are flammable, let alone outright hypergolic with air - and I'd expect evidence of any flammable peroxide accumulation in some phones which hadn't caught fire. This doesn't sound plausible to me.
Often these sorts of random faults are due to defective membranes, aka bad QC. Also bad charge management or monitoring can lead to a fire in such batteries. When you want the highest energy density chemistries, you really have to be careful about how you charge them. There could be non-intuitive causes along both of these lines - for example, membranes that age unexpectedly quickly in real-world use but not testing (say, mechanical stress), or erroneous sensor data that allows charging at a rate / conditions that it shouldn't.
There should never be "lithium" (as in, metallic lithium) in a lithium-ion battery. In normal operation, you have the lithium ions intercalated in graphite (or now silicon) on the anode end and intercalated in a spinel or olivine material on the cathode end; you never deal with metallic lithium. Lithium metal existing in a li-ion battery means that something has gone wrong. So talking about the flammability of lithium metal as it's part of the fundamental risk of a li-ion battery is a distortion of the actual risk. Some chemistries are prone to defects that can cause lithium metal to plate out and are very sensitive to manufacturing process, charging behavior, charging conditions, etc to prevent it. Others are highly insensitive and can be heavily abused without any risk of fire. The former, of course, tend to be higher density and so are more popular when - wait for it - trying to make things like phones thin and light.
As time goes on, both ends of the li-ion spectrum have improved; today's best "quite stable" li-ion chemistries outperform the "bleeding edge" chemistries of several years back. But the pressure still remains for cell manufacturers to remain on the bleeding edge of the energy density range.
Right. The US intelligence services are so dumb as to base decisions entirely on what time zone an attack took place. Got it. I love how they're considered both omniscient and omnipotent with their fingers in every last system, and yet utter morons at the same time.
Concerning "the leaks are still the leaks": the overwhelming majority of people, 99.999%, are not actually reading "the leaks". They're reading random excerpts selected out of massive volumes of text designed to try to make Clinton look bad. Virtually nobody is reading context or anything else that was said. IMHO, they're very interesting geopolitical discussions, if you're at all wonkish.
Note that even in these full versions, the leakers carefully "highlighted" the gotchas to make sure you don't miss them. And it's also funny what they decided would be a gotcha and what wouldn't. For example, they highlighted the section where she discussed being forced to go on a "Clinton Apology Tour" due to the Manning leaks, from one leader to the next who had been characterized by any embassy in less than flattering terms - even though these people actually were as corrupt and whatnot as the embassy memos described. But they didn't see fit to highlight her joke about giving a red state to China right before that:
(That said, she does however have a number of good things to say about most of her Republican colleagues - she only seems to have a trouble with the Tea Party and the sort of candidates they push / pressure they put on moderate candidates to tag to their line, and goes into a number of times where the pressure they've put on their congressmen had a negative impact on US relationships with other countries)
In general, though, while yes there are political angles in there that one can take, most of it is purely policy talk, in a great level of depth. Very much worth a read.
There are links. Check them for yourself. Contrarily, present any evidence whatsoever that he was charged with accidentally planting GM seeds and had argued that it was accidental.
No, there aren't - at least from a human perspective. Sometimes small amounts can be gained by sifting through dried manure for undigested seeds and the like ("second harvest"), but not much.
1) "Beans" are just one category of legume.
2) No, beans do not need "ridiculous amount of processing and cooking". Dried beans need to be soaked in water for a day or so, then cooked. Non-dried beans do not need to be soaked.
3) Yes, hunter-gatherer groups, to this day consume significant quantities of legumes. Usually either directly roasted or ground into a flour and made into a bread.
4) Every type of food contains at least something that can be "damaging" in some context.
5) "Some X can not be eaten at all" also applies to every type of food, regardless of your category of X. Some berries? Yep. Some leaves? Yep. meats? Yep. Shellfish? Insects? Fungi? Yep, yep, yep.
I'm sorry, were you under the impression that Podesta owned stock in Joule Unlimited was a secret? Podesta is on the *board* of Joule, and was for years. Joule is not a "Putin/Russian" company; it's a biofuels (algae-based) company from Massachusetts. Yes, Russians have purchased 20% of the shares of Joule. This is also not secret. Audi also owns part of Joule - does that mean that Podesta, by virtue of serving having served on their board, is a German plant?
The leak is only brought up to "raise questions" about whether Podesta still owned any stock in Joule. It doesn't actually say he does - it says he transferred stock into a different company, but doesn't say what was done with it after that. They're of course trying to imply that he still owns it, and that since Russians own 20% of Joule, that means that they control Podesta, and in turn, control Hillary Clinton.
Versus, you know, Donald Trump who repeatedly openly praises Putin, has openly endorsed his Syria strategy, supported him on Ukraine, stated that NATO is obsolete, hired as a campaign chair a personal adviser to Yanukovitch who works closely with top Russian officials (Manafort), same with Carter Page (*current* representative for Gazprom, Russia's state oil company), is heavily financed from Russian banks, shows up at rallies waving around information only ever published on Russian propaganda outlets like Sputnik the same day it was published, and intervened on the Republican platform at the convention on precisely one issue out of the thousands covered - that one issue being to weaken support for Ukraine.
Yeah, totally comparable. Totally.
The "Paleo diet" concept that hunter-gatherers do not consume grains and legumes simply because they don't farm them is patently false. Indeed, if you look at the best preserved paleolthic human find, that of Ötzi the Iceman, it appears that a large portion if not a majority of his diet was grains (his second to last meal was herb bread with some red deer). Hunter-gatherers today frequently collect wild grains and legumes, and surely did so in the past as well. Legumes are typically are roasted whole or ground then fried on rocks, rather than fried in fat or boiled as is more typical for modern preparations. The many tribes of Australian aboriginees, for example, relied heavily on acacia pods (particularly in arid areas), with the seeds ground, mixed with water and made into a bread.
The "Monsanto sued a farmer for accidental cross pollenation case" is a myth.
Hail, hail Robonia!
A land I didn't make up!
The plants basically breed them.
It's important to note that root nodules operate as a very close symbiosis - not exactly to the extent of our mitochondria in our cells, but it's more than just "bacteria that happen to be living next to the plant". The plant roots grow a carefully structured channel specifically to allow bacteria to "infect" them. The bacteria and plants work together on this - the plants produce flavinoids to let the bacteria know that they're there, and the bacteria in turn respond to flavinoids by producing nod factors, which lets the plant know that the bacteria are present and that it needs to work to encapsulate them. When an "infection" is established inside the root, the plant closes off the channel, not only trapping the bacteria, but also protecting them. The plants then nurture the bacteria, providing them nitrogen, oxygen, nutrients, and even proteins that assist in the fixation process. When the plant dies, the extensive cultures of bacteria are released and become free to colonize other plant roots
If you were asking why bacteria evolved the need to fix nitrogen in general... that's easy. Nitrogen is one of the essential components in life; they had to. It's needed for protein, DNA, RNA, etc; life as we know it can't exist without it.
Not to mention that what is a "maximum" depends greatly on context. For example: if some animal species' primary challenge in life is to be able to bend down tree branches to get at their fruit, then its "maximum" may be to become heavy and muscular; but in a context where harvests are unpredictable and the species needs to survive long periods of shortage, then its "maximum" may be to have much less muscle mass, and thus energy consumption, to survive until the periods of abundance.
As I wrote below, I can think of a specific example where I live where nitrogen production by legumes ends up harming the species in the long run by boosting their competitors. The contexts of "growing wild in nature" and "growing in a farmer's field" are very different.
Note that to a primitive peoples, carbs are a very good thing. They're basically pure energy. They don't keep you "full" for as long as fats and protein, so they're not advisable for dieters, but in terms of giving your body energy - one of the primary tasks of any hunter-gathererer - they do the job quite well.
Fats of course are a "denser" energy source, but they're not found as abundantly in plant sources. And contrary to common perception, with most hunter-gatherer societies, the vast majority of calories tend to come from plants, not animals. It varies depending on the tribe and location (for example, in the high latitudes and altitudes animal sources of energy tend to be more dominant), and of course with the wider spread of megafauna in the past, it's logical to consume a higher portion of meat than today's hunter-gatherer societies (most of whom hunt primarily small game). But regardless, there's no question that in the big picture, plants made up a large portion of their calories, and of those calories, most would be carbs.
Natural selection optimizes to a plant's natural environment. Intensive modern agriculture is not a plant's natural environment. Everything comes with tradeoffs, and in nature there are a lot of things that come into play beyond just "racing to as many seeds as possible". Perhaps, for example, by producing more nitrogen they'd be fertilizing the soil for their competitors which would outgrow them - maybe they were limiting the nitrogen for a reason.
Indeed, this actually does seem to happen. Here in Iceland, lupine is not a native species, but it's taken off like crazy since it was introduced (to try to restore our soil), pushing out native species. However, evidence shows that after an area has grown lupine for several decades, it tends to slowly die out, being replaced by native plants that can now - due to the improved soil - outcompete the lupine. Lupine is, of course, a legume.
They totally missed the chance for an appropriate cover picture for that story.
People have been consuming legumes (beans, peas, chickpeas, lentils, etc) since we were hunter-gatherers, and have long formed the staple diets of numerous regions across the world. Legumes are a rich source of plant protein, fiber, carbs, and minerals.
That is not, and I quote, "she asked someone at the IMF in the EU about if Greece was getting a bailout, so her son in law could make a big bet on it happening". Nor is that anything other than a hasty "PIs ask your econ team to review." written by Hillary. That's the chair of the commodities trading commission, sending information to the Secretary of State, on a topic that it was her job to deal with, and her forwarding it to her team. Yes, the secretary of state's job is to stay on top of the most major international political issues of the time, for crying out loud - how can you possibly think otherwise? Or did you think that Greece was not one of the most (actually, *the* most) pressing international political issues of the time? She was repeatedly and regularly dispatch to meet with Greek and other European officials on the topic.
The fact that her son in law made bad choices of investments in Greece despite being related to a top US government official should make it obvious how little communication there was between the two on the issue. But no, because she talked to an aide, and that aide talked to someone who works on the Clinton foundation, and Chelsea is in the Clinton foundation, and Chelsea's husband is investing in Greece, that means that Hillary Clinton was carefully manipulating Greek investment funds with insider info - it's all so obvious!
The other thing you linked is also not anything written by Hillary. It's about how a Canadian company (who had given to the Clinton foundation) was bought by the Russians, and in the process a number of different US government officials signed off on the sale - one of them being Clinton. Wow, stop the presses, clearly that's totally like having an email saying "If you give me money, I'll approve your sale"! Do you realize how many things the Secretary of State's office has to sign off on? She didn't even have veto power on the deal. And do you know how many different donors have given to the Clinton foundation (which, by the way, is not "money to the Clintons" - it's a charity that Charity Watch gives it's highest possible rating, unlike Trump's charity, which was basically a scam and was recently delisted by the government of New York, which is also investigating criminal charges)?
Both Fact Check and Politifact call the accusations concerning Uranium One that this was some sort of corrupt deal false.
If I were as crude as you, I would be responding with your trademark "bullshit" response right now. Unless you're talking about something else (wherein you should probably reference it), you never read that email because it was lost (at least the relevant parts, aka the attachment). The only writing from Clinton on the subject was a hasty "Pls print two copies." Is that what you call reading things she's written? Furthermore,, the supposedly "damning" thing is a chain-of-guilt. Nothing at all about Clinton giving information to her son it law, it's "Sullivan gave the info to someone else, who works at the Clinton foundation, and Chelsea works for the Clinton foundation too, and her husband was investing in Greece, therefore Hillary Clinton is a corrupt scumbag"). I'm rather surprised that with all of the stuff Clinton had to read on Greece as part of her job that they couldn't find something worse than this to try to tar her with. The most "corrupt" action that's come forth in the Wikileaks releases concerning Clinton and Mezvinsky themselves is that she forwarded an email from him to another government official. I know, stop the presses.
Back to the original topic: I recommend that people read things she wrote and form their own opinions from them. You clearly did not do that. It's something that very, very few people here commenting about the emails have actually done. They just repeat the "gotchas" that the leaks were designed to elicit.
The AC wasn't talking about Clinton, they were talking about Democrats in general.
Yes, because when I think of pro-war, anti-Russian, militaristic jingoists, it's the party of left-wing hippies.