Sure if you ask them they'd be able to tell you what pork is.
But they don't really want to know what they are eating, so while they are eating it, they push that knowledge somewhere far away. e.g. Milk comes from a carton and pork comes from the supermarket.
Many won't eat fish if it comes whole - it has to be fillet. Similar for chicken. If you set a whole roast pig in front of them - head and all, they won't eat the parts they'd normally eat anyway in isolated form.
Some animal suffered and died, so they could have their tasty pork chop. They don't want to know that when a pig is slaughtered, often it actually cries while it dies. Some other animals are quite dumb so they may not know what is going on, but pigs are pretty intelligent.
I do suppress that knowledge a bit too. But it is good to remind oneself regularly of what one is actually eating. So that when one wastes the food (doesn't eat it, or ruins it somehow), one has a greater realization of what one is doing.
Heh. When I was in uni, I'd tell my vegan friend -"mmmm, dead animal corpse". It seems common in the west for people to not "know" that they are "eating dead animals" when they eat meat. In denial or something.
I did point out he was eating candy that contained gelatine which was typically nonvegan. He just shrugged it off. Still it was in the UK so eating meat (esp beef) was probably risky - so he may have the last laugh yet (or I might be laughing mad with vCJD).
Actually the evidence is that humans are very well suited to eating sea fish. It'll be easier for humans on a diet of fish and vegetables to be healthier and stronger than those on pure vegetarian diets (harder to pick the correct vegetables etc). Assuming nontoxic/pollution tainted fish+vege of course (unfortunately pollution is bad nowadays).
Well I suppose it's reasonable if it kills off the weaker/unfit cells of your body and you have stronger ones to spare (and to regenerate new ones from). If you don't have stronger+better spares then it's a bad idea...
Apparently fasting from time to time is good for health. Perhaps it also allows the body to reset certain things too - rezero the various sensors/mechanisms etc.
Thing is the high carb low calorie diets were based as much on myth and all-out misinformation as well. And they appear to be worse for health than the low carb diets.
Sure given the same amount of calories a high carb diet works as well as a low carb diet for losing weight. But the main thing these studies don't tell you is - how hungry do people feel on the various diets?
With the high protein low carb diets, people actually feel full, so it is easier for them to stop stuffing their faces.
The food pyramid was thought up by the _food_producers_ NOT the health people. For years they've been telling people to eat more bread and potatoes...
Last of all, people should STOP DRINKING those HUGE fizzy sugar drinks. Those must be nearly as bad for health as smoking a cigarette if not more so.
I see people drinking such large amounts of sugar water - and it's not for quenching their thirst, because if they tried to drink the same amount of plain water it'll be a lot harder - their body would usually tell them "enough!".
Just the thought of all that sugar rushing into their bloodstream scares me.
Article is silly. If he sells substantial amounts of his stock he doesn't really directly affect Microsoft the company. He affects the shareholders - as their shares will likely be worth less.
Of course the major shareholders could be pissed off, or the other people take it as a negative sign, but that's all dependent on other things as well.
As for the claim that "all business decisions are made to impress consumers", that's a joke right?
It would have made more sense if he argued from the point of view that if someone did pump in billions of cash to somewhere, it could generate inflationary or unbalanced effects. Example: when tons of foreigners (UN etc) went to East Timor, they affected the local economy - the prices of some local goods went up, the poorer locals could not afford the prices of some goods.
e.g. if Bill Gates started spending 20 billion and was willing to buy everyday ALL the sandwiches in the world for USD100 each, the rest of us won't be able to afford sandwiches, and many of us would start selling sandwiches;). Then when he stops spending, many sandwich makers have to find new jobs.
It's like introducing a new abundant energy source to an environment - a new ecosystem often starts around it.
What are you talking about? Lightning prediction systems?
If it's lightning, aiming lightning isn't difficult.
Just use a laser to ionize the air. If you have a powerful laser on a 747 it makes it easier as you can shoot past a suitable cloud to the target and make it look like the target was hit by an "act of God".
You could use a maser to ionize the air too. Not sure if such a maser beam would be invisible to the naked eye.
Secure your My Computer and Local Intranet zones and you'll be safe from most IE bugs.
Most of those vulnerabilities don't affect me even if my browser is unpatched. I personally don't want javascript and "downloads" etc to be active for documents in the My Computer zone.
Furthermore on my current PC, my IE is running under a different user account from the rest of my apps. I'd recommend doing this even for unix based browsers - most modern O/S don't have an easy way to run an arbitrary application in a more restricted account, so most people just run it under their own account - which isn't that safe.
It is likely that a hacker could use a "shatter attack" to escalate priveleges but the chances of that are pretty low at the moment - plenty of easier targets to exploit.
The US gov doesn't need to be oppressive. All it needs is to get or make enough votes.
I'm surprised people make so much fuss about getting guns and rationalize the reason as defending themselves against their government, while not even bothering about the flawed/rigged voting systems that are coming in.
As you said a poorly informed populace is easier to oppress. A mostly stupid populace doesn't even need to be oppressed.
Guns are useful in the worst case scenarios, but they are not useful in the bad case scenario e.g. where elections still matter, but they are in danger of being rigged.
Sure it's useful to have a gun if the US is becoming a Somalia, but that's kinda "jumping the gun".
"You are failing to take into account the citizens in uniform. Not all and probably most american soldiers would not likely fire on an american citizen. Period."
And how would that citizen having an assault weapon affect his decision?
Is it easier for an American soldier to fire at an unarmed (and disobedient) civilian, than at an armed (and disobedient) civilian.
I'm not familiar with the US system. But it seems that the people pick the electors who then pick the president. But what other powers/responsibilities do the electors have?
If the elector's role is not just electing the president and involves other things then since this particular elector has _announced_publicly_ he might not vote for Bush, arguably if the people still vote for the elector it means they want him in for the other things he does, and they're not bothered if he doesn't vote the party line.
Also some may actually vote for him for the very reason that he is a Republican who's not going to vote for Bush. e.g. he's the one who best reflects their thinking.
So I don't really see what's so wrong if he openly declares his wishes. If people vote him in and they want him to vote for Bush they're stupid. Stupidity is very common though so this politician is taking a big risk.
If he keeps it secret and ONLY does it AFTER he is voted in, then that's being faithless - since the defacto behaviour is expected.
WRT to the Party: Now that he has made the announcement, can't the Republican party kick him out and put a different candidate in? And force this guy to go in as an independent?
"And if voting is compulsory, they cannot complain about who wins in the end. If you don't vote, don't complain!"
I disagree. There are many valid reasons why you can complain.
Anyway, here's my proposal to get more people to vote. Allow them to cast negative votes. Most voting systems only allow voters to say "yes".
I believe that in the case where the voters dislike all the candidates, many voters don't feel like going to the polling station to vote "yes" to the least disliked candidate. Whereas those same voters may actually take the trouble to vote "no" to the most disliked candidate.
The votes are totalled up (negative = -1) and the least negative/most positive net total wins. Both statistics are kept to give a better picture of voter opinion.
You can do a similar thing for other voting systems - most of them can be modified to allow negative voting.
The benefit of the system is if a candidate wins but with a net negative total, he/she cannot brag about it and say nauseating things like "I have the support of the people" and all that crap.
What do you mean they haven't done anything wrong?
Given the "quality" of the product and the "mass vote switching feature", it should be considered treason to try to sell such a product for national/state elections.
The politicians and everyone along the line who helped approve such a product should also be tried for treason too.
The US claims it is serious about democracy. If it is then all this crap should be considered treason.
The US is willing to spend billions and sacrifice thousands of lives to pick the leaders in Iraq. So which is more important? Picking the leaders of Iraq or picking the leaders of the most powerful nation in the world?
He was working on "A special theory on winning a million dollars with math". Being a real mathematician since he has proven to himself he can get the reward, he is satisfied.
Just like the joke about the mathematician who woke up and discovered a fire in his room. After working out exactly how much water to use and what direction to throw it, he said "There is a solution" and went back to sleep (without putting out the fire - that's a job for the physics/engineering folks).
Re:Again you fail to understand science
on
Capturing Genesis
·
· Score: 1
Yeah. Not all scientists do good science;).
Any conclusion by Columbia University after their investigations? Links would be helpful.
Re:Again you fail to understand science
on
Capturing Genesis
·
· Score: 1
Anomaly was pointing out that scientists have a bias.
You ignored that and kept going on about science.
While it's not quite the "wookie defense" you have validated his point about the "straw man".
Has the journal really withdrawn the paper? I haven't been keeping track.
The rest of my post remains valid. Even if the study was correctly done the responses to it would still be the same.
Re:Again you fail to understand science
on
Capturing Genesis
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You didn't read/understand his post did you?
He was talking more about scientists. And you're talking more about science.
Not all scientists do good science.
As for the supernatural: there was at least one double blind study which showed that prayer affected IVF success rates - the IVF was done in a hospital in Korea, the prayers were done by people in the US who only had the photos of those prayed for- the people in the hospital didn't know who was being prayed for - not even sure if most knew a study was being done. Whether it proves there is a God is another thing - coz it could just prove that some people can effect supernatural powers if they do certain things. But it was an interesting result to me - coz it seemed quite properly done (better than most other scientific studies I've seen on various things).
When I presented the results to a public forum, there were comments like - if there is a God, why not a 100% success rate, instead of just double the success rate? There was potentially something interesting going on, but people were more interested in rationalizing their prejudices/biases.
I've also seen other studies showed that prayer didn't have much influence - but I noticed that at least a few (of which I could get details on) used prayer from more than one religious group.
_If_ indeed you are dealing with a supernatural being with its own agenda and objectives, it may make it significantly harder to do predictable tests. If there were more than one supernatural beings with their own agenda, one may need to more tests and take great care and thought in formulating the type of tests to be done in order to even get a useful scientific result.
Just coz I send email to particular address and something happens doesn't mean that a person exists or doesn't exist. It takes a few more tests.
But most scientists wouldn't do such tests coz if they do most unis won't touch them after that - much less give them funding. And that's the bias referred to.
It's just like the "cold fusion" thing. It seems to me that whether or not there is actual fusion, there is an interesting phenomena involved.
But many scientists (and people) have shut their minds coz P & F screwed up. Many scientists did the equivalent of throwing a tantrum. "The CF field screwed up so they deserve it, we're not talking to them till someone makes a CF _product_". Whereas HF hasn't even done anything that interesting (wrt the rest of us).
This may be a valid response since scientists have finite lifespans and resources in which to conduct their science.
But that's the difference between scientists and science.
Hmm, I think on XP some of microsoft's sites/urls are in the trusted zone. They just don't show up in the "sites" list. That's a bit sneaky eh?
I found that out because on my office PC I set my trusted zone to something similar to High Security and don't have any sites there. I added a custom zone and that's _my_ own trusted zone.
So one day I found I couldn't download a file for a colleague from microsoft's site. I was puzzled till I realized it's because of my trusted zone settings being set to a paranoid[1] level.
Maybe it's just my PC. Try it yourself if you have XP - set your trusted zone to high, and try to download files from various microsoft.com sites.
[1] Then again it stops looking like paranoia if Microsoft does stuff like this eh? Hackers will target *.microsoft.com - either by doing dns tricks or modifying the hostfile, so they can run stuff in a trusted zone context.
Hands up who wants to play a soldier that's air dropped many miles away from the actual site due to various reasons ranging from "plane got shot" to "bad weather"
And then having to hike all the way for hours to the actual site and then getting your leg blown off in the first 10 seconds of the firefight. Then spending years in a PoW camp eating weeds[1] and some nondescript gruel.
[1] Apparently someone mixed ground up iron nails and weeds/leaves into the rations as a vitamin supplement while a PoW.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure if you ask them they'd be able to tell you what pork is.
But they don't really want to know what they are eating, so while they are eating it, they push that knowledge somewhere far away. e.g. Milk comes from a carton and pork comes from the supermarket.
Many won't eat fish if it comes whole - it has to be fillet. Similar for chicken. If you set a whole roast pig in front of them - head and all, they won't eat the parts they'd normally eat anyway in isolated form.
Some animal suffered and died, so they could have their tasty pork chop. They don't want to know that when a pig is slaughtered, often it actually cries while it dies. Some other animals are quite dumb so they may not know what is going on, but pigs are pretty intelligent.
I do suppress that knowledge a bit too. But it is good to remind oneself regularly of what one is actually eating. So that when one wastes the food (doesn't eat it, or ruins it somehow), one has a greater realization of what one is doing.
Heh. When I was in uni, I'd tell my vegan friend -"mmmm, dead animal corpse". It seems common in the west for people to not "know" that they are "eating dead animals" when they eat meat. In denial or something.
I did point out he was eating candy that contained gelatine which was typically nonvegan. He just shrugged it off. Still it was in the UK so eating meat (esp beef) was probably risky - so he may have the last laugh yet (or I might be laughing mad with vCJD).
Actually the evidence is that humans are very well suited to eating sea fish. It'll be easier for humans on a diet of fish and vegetables to be healthier and stronger than those on pure vegetarian diets (harder to pick the correct vegetables etc). Assuming nontoxic/pollution tainted fish+vege of course (unfortunately pollution is bad nowadays).
Well I suppose it's reasonable if it kills off the weaker/unfit cells of your body and you have stronger ones to spare (and to regenerate new ones from). If you don't have stronger+better spares then it's a bad idea...
Apparently fasting from time to time is good for health. Perhaps it also allows the body to reset certain things too - rezero the various sensors/mechanisms etc.
Then you could end up with two sensitive bits frozen-stuck to the damn flagpole.
Great idea. Not.
I agree with you about the glycemic index thing.
Thing is the high carb low calorie diets were based as much on myth and all-out misinformation as well. And they appear to be worse for health than the low carb diets.
Sure given the same amount of calories a high carb diet works as well as a low carb diet for losing weight. But the main thing these studies don't tell you is - how hungry do people feel on the various diets?
With the high protein low carb diets, people actually feel full, so it is easier for them to stop stuffing their faces.
The food pyramid was thought up by the _food_producers_ NOT the health people. For years they've been telling people to eat more bread and potatoes...
Last of all, people should STOP DRINKING those HUGE fizzy sugar drinks. Those must be nearly as bad for health as smoking a cigarette if not more so.
I see people drinking such large amounts of sugar water - and it's not for quenching their thirst, because if they tried to drink the same amount of plain water it'll be a lot harder - their body would usually tell them "enough!".
Just the thought of all that sugar rushing into their bloodstream scares me.
A huge asteroid or comet?
Article is silly. If he sells substantial amounts of his stock he doesn't really directly affect Microsoft the company. He affects the shareholders - as their shares will likely be worth less.
;). Then when he stops spending, many sandwich makers have to find new jobs.
Of course the major shareholders could be pissed off, or the other people take it as a negative sign, but that's all dependent on other things as well.
As for the claim that "all business decisions are made to impress consumers", that's a joke right?
It would have made more sense if he argued from the point of view that if someone did pump in billions of cash to somewhere, it could generate inflationary or unbalanced effects. Example: when tons of foreigners (UN etc) went to East Timor, they affected the local economy - the prices of some local goods went up, the poorer locals could not afford the prices of some goods.
e.g. if Bill Gates started spending 20 billion and was willing to buy everyday ALL the sandwiches in the world for USD100 each, the rest of us won't be able to afford sandwiches, and many of us would start selling sandwiches
It's like introducing a new abundant energy source to an environment - a new ecosystem often starts around it.
What are you talking about? Lightning prediction systems?
If it's lightning, aiming lightning isn't difficult.
Just use a laser to ionize the air. If you have a powerful laser on a 747 it makes it easier as you can shoot past a suitable cloud to the target and make it look like the target was hit by an "act of God".
You could use a maser to ionize the air too. Not sure if such a maser beam would be invisible to the naked eye.
Secure your My Computer and Local Intranet zones and you'll be safe from most IE bugs.
Most of those vulnerabilities don't affect me even if my browser is unpatched. I personally don't want javascript and "downloads" etc to be active for documents in the My Computer zone.
Furthermore on my current PC, my IE is running under a different user account from the rest of my apps. I'd recommend doing this even for unix based browsers - most modern O/S don't have an easy way to run an arbitrary application in a more restricted account, so most people just run it under their own account - which isn't that safe.
It is likely that a hacker could use a "shatter attack" to escalate priveleges but the chances of that are pretty low at the moment - plenty of easier targets to exploit.
IIRC he used to be hired by Netscape.
And he did find many bugs in Netscape.
The US gov doesn't need to be oppressive. All it needs is to get or make enough votes.
I'm surprised people make so much fuss about getting guns and rationalize the reason as defending themselves against their government, while not even bothering about the flawed/rigged voting systems that are coming in.
As you said a poorly informed populace is easier to oppress. A mostly stupid populace doesn't even need to be oppressed.
Guns are useful in the worst case scenarios, but they are not useful in the bad case scenario e.g. where elections still matter, but they are in danger of being rigged.
Sure it's useful to have a gun if the US is becoming a Somalia, but that's kinda "jumping the gun".
"You are failing to take into account the citizens in uniform. Not all and probably most american soldiers would not likely fire on an american citizen. Period."
And how would that citizen having an assault weapon affect his decision?
Is it easier for an American soldier to fire at an unarmed (and disobedient) civilian, than at an armed (and disobedient) civilian.
Phantom game console...
Don't need to use Fritz.
:)
If you are ranked #14225, play against the #1 and the #2 at the same time - just different colours.
Use their moves against each other. You'd win one game and lose another game, but your rank should go up.
I'm not familiar with the US system. But it seems that the people pick the electors who then pick the president. But what other powers/responsibilities do the electors have?
If the elector's role is not just electing the president and involves other things then since this particular elector has _announced_publicly_ he might not vote for Bush, arguably if the people still vote for the elector it means they want him in for the other things he does, and they're not bothered if he doesn't vote the party line.
Also some may actually vote for him for the very reason that he is a Republican who's not going to vote for Bush. e.g. he's the one who best reflects their thinking.
So I don't really see what's so wrong if he openly declares his wishes. If people vote him in and they want him to vote for Bush they're stupid. Stupidity is very common though so this politician is taking a big risk.
If he keeps it secret and ONLY does it AFTER he is voted in, then that's being faithless - since the defacto behaviour is expected.
WRT to the Party: Now that he has made the announcement, can't the Republican party kick him out and put a different candidate in? And force this guy to go in as an independent?
"And if voting is compulsory, they cannot complain about who wins in the end. If you don't vote, don't complain!"
I disagree. There are many valid reasons why you can complain.
Anyway, here's my proposal to get more people to vote. Allow them to cast negative votes. Most voting systems only allow voters to say "yes".
I believe that in the case where the voters dislike all the candidates, many voters don't feel like going to the polling station to vote "yes" to the least disliked candidate. Whereas those same voters may actually take the trouble to vote "no" to the most disliked candidate.
The votes are totalled up (negative = -1) and the least negative/most positive net total wins. Both statistics are kept to give a better picture of voter opinion.
You can do a similar thing for other voting systems - most of them can be modified to allow negative voting.
The benefit of the system is if a candidate wins but with a net negative total, he/she cannot brag about it and say nauseating things like "I have the support of the people" and all that crap.
What do you mean they haven't done anything wrong?
Given the "quality" of the product and the "mass vote switching feature", it should be considered treason to try to sell such a product for national/state elections.
The politicians and everyone along the line who helped approve such a product should also be tried for treason too.
The US claims it is serious about democracy. If it is then all this crap should be considered treason.
The US is willing to spend billions and sacrifice thousands of lives to pick the leaders in Iraq. So which is more important? Picking the leaders of Iraq or picking the leaders of the most powerful nation in the world?
He was working on "A special theory on winning a million dollars with math". Being a real mathematician since he has proven to himself he can get the reward, he is satisfied.
Just like the joke about the mathematician who woke up and discovered a fire in his room. After working out exactly how much water to use and what direction to throw it, he said "There is a solution" and went back to sleep (without putting out the fire - that's a job for the physics/engineering folks).
Yeah. Not all scientists do good science ;).
Any conclusion by Columbia University after their investigations? Links would be helpful.
Anomaly was pointing out that scientists have a bias.
You ignored that and kept going on about science.
While it's not quite the "wookie defense" you have validated his point about the "straw man".
That's new info to me. Thanks.
Has the journal really withdrawn the paper? I haven't been keeping track.
The rest of my post remains valid. Even if the study was correctly done the responses to it would still be the same.
You didn't read/understand his post did you?
He was talking more about scientists. And you're talking more about science.
Not all scientists do good science.
As for the supernatural: there was at least one double blind study which showed that prayer affected IVF success rates - the IVF was done in a hospital in Korea, the prayers were done by people in the US who only had the photos of those prayed for- the people in the hospital didn't know who was being prayed for - not even sure if most knew a study was being done. Whether it proves there is a God is another thing - coz it could just prove that some people can effect supernatural powers if they do certain things. But it was an interesting result to me - coz it seemed quite properly done (better than most other scientific studies I've seen on various things).
When I presented the results to a public forum, there were comments like - if there is a God, why not a 100% success rate, instead of just double the success rate? There was potentially something interesting going on, but people were more interested in rationalizing their prejudices/biases.
I've also seen other studies showed that prayer didn't have much influence - but I noticed that at least a few (of which I could get details on) used prayer from more than one religious group.
_If_ indeed you are dealing with a supernatural being with its own agenda and objectives, it may make it significantly harder to do predictable tests. If there were more than one supernatural beings with their own agenda, one may need to more tests and take great care and thought in formulating the type of tests to be done in order to even get a useful scientific result.
Just coz I send email to particular address and something happens doesn't mean that a person exists or doesn't exist. It takes a few more tests.
But most scientists wouldn't do such tests coz if they do most unis won't touch them after that - much less give them funding. And that's the bias referred to.
It's just like the "cold fusion" thing. It seems to me that whether or not there is actual fusion, there is an interesting phenomena involved.
But many scientists (and people) have shut their minds coz P & F screwed up. Many scientists did the equivalent of throwing a tantrum. "The CF field screwed up so they deserve it, we're not talking to them till someone makes a CF _product_". Whereas HF hasn't even done anything that interesting (wrt the rest of us).
This may be a valid response since scientists have finite lifespans and resources in which to conduct their science.
But that's the difference between scientists and science.
10% discount may not be that good if they don't give you change when using the gift certs.
The store could be fine with 10% - treat it as Sale.
"There are no trusted sites by default "
Hmm, I think on XP some of microsoft's sites/urls are in the trusted zone. They just don't show up in the "sites" list. That's a bit sneaky eh?
I found that out because on my office PC I set my trusted zone to something similar to High Security and don't have any sites there. I added a custom zone and that's _my_ own trusted zone.
So one day I found I couldn't download a file for a colleague from microsoft's site. I was puzzled till I realized it's because of my trusted zone settings being set to a paranoid[1] level.
Maybe it's just my PC. Try it yourself if you have XP - set your trusted zone to high, and try to download files from various microsoft.com sites.
[1] Then again it stops looking like paranoia if Microsoft does stuff like this eh? Hackers will target *.microsoft.com - either by doing dns tricks or modifying the hostfile, so they can run stuff in a trusted zone context.
Uh realism is overrated in games.
Hands up who wants to play a soldier that's air dropped many miles away from the actual site due to various reasons ranging from "plane got shot" to "bad weather"
And then having to hike all the way for hours to the actual site and then getting your leg blown off in the first 10 seconds of the firefight. Then spending years in a PoW camp eating weeds[1] and some nondescript gruel.
[1] Apparently someone mixed ground up iron nails and weeds/leaves into the rations as a vitamin supplement while a PoW.