I'm sorry. I like veggies just fine, but suggesting that a "healthy green smoothie" is remotely comparable to the experience of a nicely roasted cup of coffee is ludicrous. From your link, it appears that you're even suggesting it be consumed raw. There's nothing wrong with that, but it eliminates any possibility of the Maillard reaction that adds so much complexity to the brew. How many of these processes occur when you're making a smoothie:
Illy listed the following chemical processses that affect the development of volatile compounds in coffee (112): 1) Maillard or non-enzymatic browning reaction between nitrogen containing substances, amino acids, proteins, as well as trigonelline, serotonine, and carbohydrates, hydroxy-acids and phenols on the other. 2) Strecker degradation. 3) Degradation of individual amino acids, particularly, sulfur amino acids, hydroxy amino acids, and proline. 4) Degradation of trigonelline. 5) Degradation of sugar. 6) Degradation of phenolic acids, particularly the quinic acid moiety. 7) Minor lipid degradation. 8) Interaction between intermediate decomposition products.
I'm pretty sure you're just a neo-puritanical (pleasure is bad!) health food nut.
Even if you took advice from a doctor who "specializes in preventing and reversing disease through nutritional and natural methods" at face value, what would be the point of living longer if you couldn't drink any coffee?
Depends on how they decaffeinate it. Anything you find at the grocery store, yes. If you want pay $15 for half a pound you can get good decaf over the internet, but it's not going to be any better than the $6 per half pound stuff you can get from the coffee shop down the street.
Soda's a pretty awful way to start your day. Coffee is a fantastic way to start the day. What else provides so much flavor with so little effort, and compliments pretty much anything you would want to eat for breakfast? There's a reason why there are no OJ nerds who go to OJ tastings to talk about the flavor profile of their favorite juice. A good cup of coffee is one of the finer experiences in life, one which is cheap and easy to experience daily.
Personally, I drink 24-32oz of coffee a day. I have no trouble getting to sleep, and no trouble getting up in the morning. Addiction to a cheap and plentiful substance is not really a problem, so I see no reason to ever stop.
It's worth pointing out that coffee beans do contain a substance, cafestol, that affects cholesterol regulation. Cafestol is removed by paper filtration, so us American drip coffee drinkers can rest easy. But if you're drinking french press or turkish coffee on a regular basis, it could have a significant effect on your cholesterol levels.
Not having coffee results in the same amount of wakefulness, only without the money spent on coffee.
But without the joy of starting the morning with a rich, complex, and delicious brew. When you consider how much flavor you get out of it, a bag of coffee beans is really inexpensive. You could spend $5 on a bar of gourmet chocolate or a bit of fancy cheese and it will be gone in a few days. Spend the same $5 on a half pound of coffee beans and it will last for 2 weeks.
There's really no downside to being addicted to something that's so cheap and plentiful. It's low in calories, inexpensive, and really fucking delicious. Why quit?
As a caffeine addict in the US, I can say that I don't suffer from caffeine withdrawls. I'd have to stop drinking it first, and that's never going to happen.
Fair enough, not every business can afford to buy protection from the government. What I don't understand how you can claim that it's the lawyers that are running the system, when deregulation has been the driving political force for at least 30 years. Obviously more regulation leads to more demand for lawyers to write the regulations, to vet the legality of an action before doing it, and to prosecute and defend when the regulations are broken. Not every evil can be blamed on businesses, but I see a lot more evil being done by out of control businesses than out of control lawyers.
If the lawyers are in charge, why don't we pass a law requiring insurance companies to fight it out in court? Certainly that would benefit the lawyers by making more work for them fighting the original offense *and* make more work for them suing companies that fail in their duty to protect their customers. Such a law should be easy to pass, since lawyers control the legal system, and this law would *never* be blocked by lawmakers who finance their campaigns with donations from the industries that would be burdened under such a system. Right?
If you need to be convinced that marijuana prohibition is wrong, or that this type of copyright barratry is wrong, then I wasn't really addressing you. I wasn't trying to argue that these things are wrong, I was trying to address why these evils occur in our society. At this point, with this audience, I don't really need to argue that this is wrong. There are only a few people here who would disagree, and they're too far gone to reason with. I've had that discussion often enough.
I don't think it is completely unrelated. Marijuana prohibition began at the behest of the paper industry, and continues today because of the alcohol, pharmaceutical, and prison industries. If we're talking about the perversion of the justice system by business interests, it's worth pointing out that copyright abuses are the tip of the iceberg. As Americans we have to understand that we have an extremely serious problem with corruption that goes back for decades, if not centuries.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand how they are being allowed to get away with this shit.
Because our justice system is wholly subservient to business interests. It's not that hard to understand.
In a sane, logical world, somebody (the feds, the bar, whomever) would come down on them like a ton of bricks. Sadly, I don't think we live in a sane world any more...
Is this really what tipped you off? Were the hundreds of thousands of pot smokers in jail not enough?
Until those lifetimes have passed, we have no way of knowing whether those predictions were reasonable or not. There's no reason to believe that the average failure rate of a pool of brand new devices has anything to do with the chance of that device surviving for 5 years or more. Consider if we were to do an experiment on a bunch of devices that had time bombs implanted in them, set for 2 years in the future. No matter how big you make your test pool, or any statistical manipulations you come up with, you won't have an accurate estimate of MTBE (mean time before explosion) until those 2 years have passed. After one year of testing, with millions of devices, you could say with a high degree of statistical certainty that those devices would never explode.
Science is nothing more than a marketing term to convince people to buy whatever they're selling.
Really? Nothing more? Nothing at all? It's 100% completely false promises, that have never yielded any advances in human well-being?
I won't deny that there is a large component of marketing in science. There definitely is. It's still the *only* method we have of understanding the world that has worked even a little. Would you rather we be listening to witch doctors?
Slashdot Mirror
Sports might teach leadership and teamwork to those who enjoy it, and want to participate. Those who are forced into it only learn to hate them.
Can we still develop monkeys with three asses?
I'm sorry. I like veggies just fine, but suggesting that a "healthy green smoothie" is remotely comparable to the experience of a nicely roasted cup of coffee is ludicrous. From your link, it appears that you're even suggesting it be consumed raw. There's nothing wrong with that, but it eliminates any possibility of the Maillard reaction that adds so much complexity to the brew. How many of these processes occur when you're making a smoothie:
I'm pretty sure you're just a neo-puritanical (pleasure is bad!) health food nut.
What an awful thing to say. In return, I will hope that you are somehow stigmatized for something you love.
Even if you took advice from a doctor who "specializes in preventing and reversing disease through nutritional and natural methods" at face value, what would be the point of living longer if you couldn't drink any coffee?
Depends on how they decaffeinate it. Anything you find at the grocery store, yes. If you want pay $15 for half a pound you can get good decaf over the internet, but it's not going to be any better than the $6 per half pound stuff you can get from the coffee shop down the street.
Soda's a pretty awful way to start your day. Coffee is a fantastic way to start the day. What else provides so much flavor with so little effort, and compliments pretty much anything you would want to eat for breakfast? There's a reason why there are no OJ nerds who go to OJ tastings to talk about the flavor profile of their favorite juice. A good cup of coffee is one of the finer experiences in life, one which is cheap and easy to experience daily.
Personally, I drink 24-32oz of coffee a day. I have no trouble getting to sleep, and no trouble getting up in the morning. Addiction to a cheap and plentiful substance is not really a problem, so I see no reason to ever stop.
It's worth pointing out that coffee beans do contain a substance, cafestol, that affects cholesterol regulation. Cafestol is removed by paper filtration, so us American drip coffee drinkers can rest easy. But if you're drinking french press or turkish coffee on a regular basis, it could have a significant effect on your cholesterol levels.
Not having coffee results in the same amount of wakefulness, only without the money spent on coffee.
But without the joy of starting the morning with a rich, complex, and delicious brew. When you consider how much flavor you get out of it, a bag of coffee beans is really inexpensive. You could spend $5 on a bar of gourmet chocolate or a bit of fancy cheese and it will be gone in a few days. Spend the same $5 on a half pound of coffee beans and it will last for 2 weeks.
There's really no downside to being addicted to something that's so cheap and plentiful. It's low in calories, inexpensive, and really fucking delicious. Why quit?
As a caffeine addict in the US, I can say that I don't suffer from caffeine withdrawls. I'd have to stop drinking it first, and that's never going to happen.
Fair enough, not every business can afford to buy protection from the government. What I don't understand how you can claim that it's the lawyers that are running the system, when deregulation has been the driving political force for at least 30 years. Obviously more regulation leads to more demand for lawyers to write the regulations, to vet the legality of an action before doing it, and to prosecute and defend when the regulations are broken. Not every evil can be blamed on businesses, but I see a lot more evil being done by out of control businesses than out of control lawyers.
That was the case, back in the 90s. Then they ran out of normal stuff for Homer to do and sent him on all sorts of wacky adventures.
I feel the same way about you.
If the lawyers are in charge, why don't we pass a law requiring insurance companies to fight it out in court? Certainly that would benefit the lawyers by making more work for them fighting the original offense *and* make more work for them suing companies that fail in their duty to protect their customers. Such a law should be easy to pass, since lawyers control the legal system, and this law would *never* be blocked by lawmakers who finance their campaigns with donations from the industries that would be burdened under such a system. Right?
If you need to be convinced that marijuana prohibition is wrong, or that this type of copyright barratry is wrong, then I wasn't really addressing you. I wasn't trying to argue that these things are wrong, I was trying to address why these evils occur in our society. At this point, with this audience, I don't really need to argue that this is wrong. There are only a few people here who would disagree, and they're too far gone to reason with. I've had that discussion often enough.
I don't think it is completely unrelated. Marijuana prohibition began at the behest of the paper industry, and continues today because of the alcohol, pharmaceutical, and prison industries. If we're talking about the perversion of the justice system by business interests, it's worth pointing out that copyright abuses are the tip of the iceberg. As Americans we have to understand that we have an extremely serious problem with corruption that goes back for decades, if not centuries.
Yeah, and who hires the lawyers? The bigger the business, the more lawyers you can afford, and the more you can pervert the justice system.
You'd be better off buying a flask.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand how they are being allowed to get away with this shit.
Because our justice system is wholly subservient to business interests. It's not that hard to understand.
In a sane, logical world, somebody (the feds, the bar, whomever) would come down on them like a ton of bricks. Sadly, I don't think we live in a sane world any more...
Is this really what tipped you off? Were the hundreds of thousands of pot smokers in jail not enough?
Get an abortion.
Until those lifetimes have passed, we have no way of knowing whether those predictions were reasonable or not. There's no reason to believe that the average failure rate of a pool of brand new devices has anything to do with the chance of that device surviving for 5 years or more. Consider if we were to do an experiment on a bunch of devices that had time bombs implanted in them, set for 2 years in the future. No matter how big you make your test pool, or any statistical manipulations you come up with, you won't have an accurate estimate of MTBE (mean time before explosion) until those 2 years have passed. After one year of testing, with millions of devices, you could say with a high degree of statistical certainty that those devices would never explode.
You can now. If you don't like it, secure your AP.
Science is nothing more than a marketing term to convince people to buy whatever they're selling.
Really? Nothing more? Nothing at all? It's 100% completely false promises, that have never yielded any advances in human well-being?
I won't deny that there is a large component of marketing in science. There definitely is. It's still the *only* method we have of understanding the world that has worked even a little. Would you rather we be listening to witch doctors?
Orin Hatch tried that in Michigan... ?
Since when does Orrin Hatch govern in Michigan?
The problem is that alternatives are not (yet) economical
I think the Iraq war and this event in the Gulf prove that oil is not economical now.