You ought to see all the supplements these guys take! We are talking between 50 to 100 pills a day. All to get the same nutrition set I get from single steak. And, as an example, Jack LaLanne is not a true vegan. He eats fish and eggs as well as consuming supplements made from other animal products.
Just because you process them down and change their appearance, does not change the nature of what they are consuming.
The only vegan/vegetarian I know who is healthy recently confided in me that she is not really a "full time" vegan. She says she is to stay with her current boy friend, but she eats meat when the cravings get too bad.
Most of the folks I know have serious health problems of some kind. One individual whose immune system is failing was order by his doctor to start eating some kind of meat (beef or chicken). Instead of obeying the doctor's orders, he quit going to the doctor. He is constantly sick and has horrible allergies. He is also developing issues with his nervous system due to lack of B vitamins.
Considering how hard it is to achieve a balanced diet as a vegan/vegetarian and the health issues that constantly come up by not eating a balanced diet, why do people keep beating their head against the wall with it.
I notice is more with sinuses and allergies, but it is also there with a wrist I crushed a few years ago. All materials respond in some way to pressure, temperature, and moisture. Why would the human body be any different, especially with a need to maintain a certain internal environment?
Try posting on some of the political based threads some times. Heaven help you if you are educated on politics and psychology of Middle Eastern societies! Your opinions will be treated as near blasphemy by those who are ignorant and have no more exposure than CNN on the state of the world.
Right wing political correctness is their religion and they mod based on it.
the limitations that they gave you for bandwidth? It states that there are limitations and that you agree to abide by them, but did they provide them to you?
Because SAMBA is designed on the premise that admins actually know what they are doing, don't need hand holding to set up a secure network, and actually have an environment where user accounts have different levels of access. The problems they described pointed to them trying to use the default settings and then complaining that they didn't have full access to network resources.
You can try Libranet. It is not a free download like the base Debian system, but I have enjoyed using it and it has done well on both desktops and laptops, in my experience. Almost too well as I haven't had to dig much.
Except for the main account being the admin account, I can't argue it. Of course that whole admin issue simply leaves the system pretty vulnerable in the long run. I might recommend it for my mom cause it is easy, but I would never use it myself, except maybe the internet specific box for my kids.
It sounds like someone was trying to set up SAMBA without reading the documentation or they were lazy in matching the networks. Having used SAMBA in a mixed SUN and Microsoft environment, it was considered a godsend from both the Windows admins and the UN*X/SUN admins.
It is not a baseless accusation. If you had bothered to even read through the rest of this thread instead of foaming at the mouth, you would seen at least one link from a reputable source that argued scientifically with the premise of the conclusion. Even the publisher of the study says that his results are "complicated and error-prone."
And the International Whaling Commission (based on the signed treaties) forbids whaling until whale populations returns to 54% of the original population.
The only thing you had right was my grammar error. The rest of your post was "bollocks." Good job.
Hmmm..... Reading a challenge for you? It is great for you to have an opinion that disagrees with mine. More power to you. However, if you mod me down because my opinion differs from yours, me thinks you are feeling a bit threatened.
As for the study and who it was done by, yes it was done by geneticists, but they are focused on a specific result. And if fudging the study allows them to gain that result, then they feel perfectly justified in doing so.
Please learn the difference between flamebait and an opinion. My opinion is that the study is bogus. It is manufactured to create a number that can not possibly be reached to keep whales from being hunted according to international treaty. Deal with it.
This is pretty bogus. They simply want to stop whales from ever being hunted again. The current agreements specify when hunting can begin again. They number is set based on historic levels. If they can "prove" that whale levels were much higher, they can insure they will never be hunted again because they will never reach huntable levels.
ClueX4: It did happen. Over seas absentee military votes don't have post marks due to being delivered through military mail first. The Gore campaign made sure that any ballots that didn't have post marks were discarded..... until a judge forced them to include those ballets again, if another recount was called for. I don't listen to Rush, but you might want to try CNN or Yahoo yourself. It was heavily reported on both sites.
Yep, you have the right to own a car (though you have to license yourself and register the car if you drive it on public roads), knives, chainsaws, and all sorts of tools capable of killing other human beings. A gun is no different in this case than any other tool, except in your own mind and others who share your mindset.
One person's right does not supercede another. I am saying that if you apply the same logic you propose to the right of free speech that you want for the right to own and use a firearm, you would not be allowed to express yourself.
I don't own twenty guns, I only own a few. Each has a specific purpose. Will I have more in the future? Sure. And will I keep them in a safe when not in use? Yes. Because I consider that responsible behavior, not because of some law, but because that is what I feel right in doing.
Both guns are cars are tools. The analogies are perfectly valid. The only difference is the emotional weight you put on each one. I will continue to use cars and other tools in my analogies because of that inherent validity.
I am not responsible for the individual actions of the politicians who direct my country. I may or may not help elect them to office. I am not required to read their minds or foretell the future to see what they will do. You may choose to adopt that standard of personal accountability. I do not choose to have it imposed on me, in either fire arms, cars, or politics.
Actually I do live in an area of the city where there are drugs dealt behind my building. Honestly, my first instinct is to run, but they have broken into the neighboring building and shot someone when they found them in the apartment. I would like to exercise my right to shoot back, thanks. It is not Y2K; it is not paranoia. This happens. Simply because you might not live in an area where this is factor, does not mean the rest of us do not, even if it is not all of us.
Fortunately or unfortunately, we all have rights and we can not proactively take those away from people, no matter what we think of them. That is the whole basis of rights.
I don't know anything about the situation of the step dad, but I do know about the Columbine incident and literally dozens of gun laws were broken in supplying guns to those kids. All the gun laws in the world didn't stop their actions or even address the real issues at hand. It is only ignorance that can suppose that more laws would make any difference there.
If I borrow a gun, or a car, or a kitchen knife, I *AM* responsible. If I loan a gun to someone I trust, I am still not responsible for his actions. I can loan him my car or my kitchen knife, I still can't control him. Just does because it is a gun, does not make the personal responsibility any greater. A gun, like any other tool, is just a tool. Like any tool, it has a specific purpose and can be misused for less legitimate or nefarious purposes. Learn to separate the behavior from the tool. Doing anything else is just stupid and by your own logic, you should not be able to express yourself publicly until you do so. You should have your rights removed until you are able to rise to that standard of behavior and intelligence.
A gun used for home defense should not be stored with a trigger lock (which is inherently unsafe to begin with) and without bullets. That would defeat the purpose. It is akin to locking the steering wheel and gas pedal of a car while driving it.
And if you put requirements on a right, it is no longer a right (which is the whole point of gun control, the first step in removing that right).
I am not against responsibility or educated gun owners and your inference that I am is again your own fears betraying themselves. Your invalid assumptions that I am "unsafe and stupid" are perfect examples of that terrified and ignorant mindset. What I am against is unreasonable requirements to exercise that right and unreasonable interference by government and other well meaning idiots who lack the knowledge to even intelligently offer advice.
Slashdot Mirror
You ought to see all the supplements these guys take! We are talking between 50 to 100 pills a day. All to get the same nutrition set I get from single steak. And, as an example, Jack LaLanne is not a true vegan. He eats fish and eggs as well as consuming supplements made from other animal products.
Just because you process them down and change their appearance, does not change the nature of what they are consuming.
The only vegan/vegetarian I know who is healthy recently confided in me that she is not really a "full time" vegan. She says she is to stay with her current boy friend, but she eats meat when the cravings get too bad.
Most of the folks I know have serious health problems of some kind. One individual whose immune system is failing was order by his doctor to start eating some kind of meat (beef or chicken). Instead of obeying the doctor's orders, he quit going to the doctor. He is constantly sick and has horrible allergies. He is also developing issues with his nervous system due to lack of B vitamins.
Considering how hard it is to achieve a balanced diet as a vegan/vegetarian and the health issues that constantly come up by not eating a balanced diet, why do people keep beating their head against the wall with it.
Isn't that what it was designed for in the first place? Peer to peer file sharing in a trusted enviornment?
I notice is more with sinuses and allergies, but it is also there with a wrist I crushed a few years ago. All materials respond in some way to pressure, temperature, and moisture. Why would the human body be any different, especially with a need to maintain a certain internal environment?
Try posting on some of the political based threads some times. Heaven help you if you are educated on politics and psychology of Middle Eastern societies! Your opinions will be treated as near blasphemy by those who are ignorant and have no more exposure than CNN on the state of the world.
Right wing political correctness is their religion and they mod based on it.
the limitations that they gave you for bandwidth? It states that there are limitations and that you agree to abide by them, but did they provide them to you?
That would lend credence to the idiom that it takes one to know one.
Because SAMBA is designed on the premise that admins actually know what they are doing, don't need hand holding to set up a secure network, and actually have an environment where user accounts have different levels of access. The problems they described pointed to them trying to use the default settings and then complaining that they didn't have full access to network resources.
You can try Libranet. It is not a free download like the base Debian system, but I have enjoyed using it and it has done well on both desktops and laptops, in my experience. Almost too well as I haven't had to dig much.
Except for the main account being the admin account, I can't argue it. Of course that whole admin issue simply leaves the system pretty vulnerable in the long run. I might recommend it for my mom cause it is easy, but I would never use it myself, except maybe the internet specific box for my kids.
It sounds like someone was trying to set up SAMBA without reading the documentation or they were lazy in matching the networks. Having used SAMBA in a mixed SUN and Microsoft environment, it was considered a godsend from both the Windows admins and the UN*X/SUN admins.
You tell me. The stench is coming from your direction, Mr. Anal About Language.
Me bad then. I never was a fan of Futurama. I didn't get the reference.
It is not a baseless accusation. If you had bothered to even read through the rest of this thread instead of foaming at the mouth, you would seen at least one link from a reputable source that argued scientifically with the premise of the conclusion. Even the publisher of the study says that his results are "complicated and error-prone."
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030721/030721-14.html (Originally listed below.)
And the International Whaling Commission (based on the signed treaties) forbids whaling until whale populations returns to 54% of the original population.
The only thing you had right was my grammar error. The rest of your post was "bollocks." Good job.
So in other words, compared to two other sources which agree with each other, they are way, way off. Or they lied to achieve that result.
Hmmm..... Reading a challenge for you? It is great for you to have an opinion that disagrees with mine. More power to you. However, if you mod me down because my opinion differs from yours, me thinks you are feeling a bit threatened.
As for the study and who it was done by, yes it was done by geneticists, but they are focused on a specific result. And if fudging the study allows them to gain that result, then they feel perfectly justified in doing so.
Please learn the difference between flamebait and an opinion. My opinion is that the study is bogus. It is manufactured to create a number that can not possibly be reached to keep whales from being hunted according to international treaty. Deal with it.
This is pretty bogus. They simply want to stop whales from ever being hunted again. The current agreements specify when hunting can begin again. They number is set based on historic levels. If they can "prove" that whale levels were much higher, they can insure they will never be hunted again because they will never reach huntable levels.
ClueX4: It did happen. Over seas absentee military votes don't have post marks due to being delivered through military mail first. The Gore campaign made sure that any ballots that didn't have post marks were discarded..... until a judge forced them to include those ballets again, if another recount was called for. I don't listen to Rush, but you might want to try CNN or Yahoo yourself. It was heavily reported on both sites.
Yep, you have the right to own a car (though you have to license yourself and register the car if you drive it on public roads), knives, chainsaws, and all sorts of tools capable of killing other human beings. A gun is no different in this case than any other tool, except in your own mind and others who share your mindset.
One person's right does not supercede another. I am saying that if you apply the same logic you propose to the right of free speech that you want for the right to own and use a firearm, you would not be allowed to express yourself.
I don't own twenty guns, I only own a few. Each has a specific purpose. Will I have more in the future? Sure. And will I keep them in a safe when not in use? Yes. Because I consider that responsible behavior, not because of some law, but because that is what I feel right in doing.
Both guns are cars are tools. The analogies are perfectly valid. The only difference is the emotional weight you put on each one. I will continue to use cars and other tools in my analogies because of that inherent validity.
I am not responsible for the individual actions of the politicians who direct my country. I may or may not help elect them to office. I am not required to read their minds or foretell the future to see what they will do. You may choose to adopt that standard of personal accountability. I do not choose to have it imposed on me, in either fire arms, cars, or politics.
Actually I do live in an area of the city where there are drugs dealt behind my building. Honestly, my first instinct is to run, but they have broken into the neighboring building and shot someone when they found them in the apartment. I would like to exercise my right to shoot back, thanks. It is not Y2K; it is not paranoia. This happens. Simply because you might not live in an area where this is factor, does not mean the rest of us do not, even if it is not all of us.
Fortunately or unfortunately, we all have rights and we can not proactively take those away from people, no matter what we think of them. That is the whole basis of rights.
I don't know anything about the situation of the step dad, but I do know about the Columbine incident and literally dozens of gun laws were broken in supplying guns to those kids. All the gun laws in the world didn't stop their actions or even address the real issues at hand. It is only ignorance that can suppose that more laws would make any difference there.
If I borrow a gun, or a car, or a kitchen knife, I *AM* responsible. If I loan a gun to someone I trust, I am still not responsible for his actions. I can loan him my car or my kitchen knife, I still can't control him. Just does because it is a gun, does not make the personal responsibility any greater. A gun, like any other tool, is just a tool. Like any tool, it has a specific purpose and can be misused for less legitimate or nefarious purposes. Learn to separate the behavior from the tool. Doing anything else is just stupid and by your own logic, you should not be able to express yourself publicly until you do so. You should have your rights removed until you are able to rise to that standard of behavior and intelligence.
A gun used for home defense should not be stored with a trigger lock (which is inherently unsafe to begin with) and without bullets. That would defeat the purpose. It is akin to locking the steering wheel and gas pedal of a car while driving it.
And if you put requirements on a right, it is no longer a right (which is the whole point of gun control, the first step in removing that right).
I am not against responsibility or educated gun owners and your inference that I am is again your own fears betraying themselves. Your invalid assumptions that I am "unsafe and stupid" are perfect examples of that terrified and ignorant mindset. What I am against is unreasonable requirements to exercise that right and unreasonable interference by government and other well meaning idiots who lack the knowledge to even intelligently offer advice.