Here's a page blaming a lot of autism on vaccinations, including studies and doctor quotes. http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/aut ism.htm
Someone listed a few health issues that came straight from California. The state also gave us fast food; the lowest quality, least nutritious, most processed, highest use of antibiotics and hormones food available. Fast food also seems to be the worst industry for the economy. (had to throw that in there)
I hope some of these people investigating consider diet as well. Diet affects every disease. People with perfect diets rarely ever get sick. People with trash diets get sick a lot. A bad diet affects brain development, circulatory function, development of blockage all over the body, failure of the elimination system, failure of the immune system, and so on. Bad food kills. The AMA doesn't much like hearing that said out in the public though because if everyone ate healthy, they wouldn't make so much money.
In American English it is criticize. Not criticise. That is "chiefly British" according to dictionary.com. I even considered that "grammer" might be a British way of spelling grammar. But it's not.
Well sun isn't dictating nearly as much of the computer industry as Microsoft is. That puts Microsoft under a lot more spotlight, and as far as I'm concerned, in need of much more scrutiny. Microsoft would love for sun to take some of their negative spotlight though. If sun pisses off their users, great, they have a lot of choices. If Microsoft pisses off their users, well, the users don't have so many choices. A shop like mine couldn't just switch away from microsoft. We have over 1000 users, and only 1 person (me) who has any experience outside of microsoft. All of our support contracts are based on microsoft software as well... So anyway, yeah, I'd rather spend time seeing how microsoft is dictating the industry than how Sun is losing customers.
Since it's honestly difficult to approach a benchmark that isn't biased at all, how about a benchmark that shows both sides of bias? One part of the benchmark is for AMD optimized software and the other for Intel. Then you can see how much of a difference your processor runs software optimized for a different processor. As well, you can truly decide which process you should have based on what kind of software you have. That is if you are willing to give Intel money if that possibilty presents itself, which I'm not willing to do.
I'm starting to feel this would be the only useful industry processor benchmark, because the term "real world" is too subjective.
It would also keep everyone from getting pissed off and calling it biased. Of course it's biased! The only problem is that to be fair, it must support every processor brand that comes out. I don't see a problem with that though. If it's a benchmark as widely accepted as SysMark, then it might actually help that brand grow.
It's mostly like a uniform anywhere else. I'm not a slave; I can leave work anytime I want, and I do get paid for *working* here. Then again I don't wear button down shirts every day. I usually wear khaki's and a golf shirt, but that's pretty much what I always wear when I'm not working out.
The idea is just to look professional and conforming to business protocol. Working in a corporation is all about business protocol, and looking like you are focused on your work is part of it. In a conforming situation like functioning in a corporate environment, wearing a uniform is part of being focused on your work; Just like working at mcdonalds, a local restuarant where you have to wear a white shirt and black pants, or a school that has uniforms.
Do you have some other group of people you'd recommend we corporate slaves dress like? It's just one group of conformity to the other. I'd rather just put on some clothes and get on with my life instead of worrying about my material shell appearance. There are much more important issue to address corporations and their effect on society and people than how they make people dress.
Then again, I've never been one to compromise my success or enjoyment of life by being rebelliously self expressive through what I wear. I just don't think the trade off is worth it. I'd rather speak my mind and influence other people's opinions than dressing like a punk, especially when I like the clothes I wear.
Oh i see... but wouldn't that mean that the stars were created very quickly, and placed billions of *current* light years away a few thousand years ago? That wouldn't rule out stellar evolution.
How does that take into account the distance? That might be nice for almost considering to apply it to hubbles law (to a creation scientist) but, if the stars are already billions of light years away, how does light slowing down apply to that?
since the government controls the money, and money is the foundation and driving means of business, how is the government suppose to stay out of business?
As soon as a company becomes a governing body then it's time for change. Microsoft has become too much of a governing body in the computer industry. Now YOU may be interested in Microsoft dictating the computer industry, but not me and not anyone who has a clue. Microsoft isn't trying to be innovative. They are just trying to augment Microsoft. How could you possibly, IF YOU HAVE ANY FREAKING MENTAL RECOGNITION OF LOGIC AT ALL, want a company who is working 100% for their own good, dictating an industry and subverting governmental control? I just do - not - understand you people. Now if microsoft loved me as a person instead of loving my money, and were trying to help the industry instead of helping themselves, then I too may possibly be against a break up.
Now on to HELPING MORONS GET A CLUE about monopoly. When do you stop a monopoly? Do you wait until they own all the oil companies, phone companies, and arms companies, and THEN split them up? Do yo know what stops a company from accomplishing this? "Governmental interference" as returnofthe_troll refers to it. Do you not have a clue why a company like AOL Time Warner has to petition to merge? For one, why should they merge? It will only make their product worse.
so anyhow, I'm going to back to work. try to get a clue thanks
Like the other guy stuck me with, it's not just proteins and carbs, it's concentrated. If those foods get processed, cooked, or when some of them are dried (like beans) they become a concentrated protein or carb. Pasta is a concentrated carb. Table sugar is a concetrated carb. Dried beans are concentrated proteins and carbs. And so on.
Not that you're suppose to eat as much unconcetrated proteins and carbs as you can fit into your stomach either though.
Are the beans cooked? Do you honestly eat several servings of beans every day? Can you give an example? I'm not questioning your honestly now, just really curious how someone eats several servings of beans every day.
Those manuals use the word concentrated generously. In that context it can also mean cooked or processed.
Also, dried beans are concentrated proteins and concentrated carbohydrates. I really should haven't written that without saying DRIED beans. My bad. But I just assumed that most people aren't really ever getting that many undried beans, especially if they are eating refried beans like you mentioned. I'm amazed that you don't get gas from refried beans. Unless you are eating beano or something.
Regardless, I get gas everytime I eat dried beans. Everyone I've asked does.
Both of us appear to be talking a little too generally, but just to name a bean that is equally high in carbs as it is in protein is soy.
Now on a more arguing side of things: What mislead you into thinking that the same amount of protein and carbs have to be in the food? Can you even name any foods that have more proteins than carbs besides meats? I can think of 2 right off, soybeans and peanuts. And both are beans, imagine that.
I don't just read crap and regurgitate it. I've been using food combination and other natural methods to bring myself to good health, and not specifically, but since it's part of our discussion, I've also used them to get rid of gas. Maybe I'm more inclined to having gas than other people or something, but food combination has worked quite well for me. But I don't have an intestine full of impacted unhealthy foods either, so maybe that also attributes to my not getting gas from using food combination.
Personally though, I can't see how you can argue with rule #1. It's pretty freaking straight forward. Carbs dont break down in acid.
just because something has fibre in it doesn't mean it's good for your body.
All vegetables have fibre. You don't have to eat beans to get fibre, or even get the most fibre you can out of vegetables. But if you are dead set on eating beans for fibre, take into account that the sugars are rotting inside your body. So *your* choice comes down to, ok do I eat beans for fibre even though they rot in my body, or do I eat some other vegetable that won't rot in my body but still gives fibre?
Who cares if a food has a positive side if it also has a negative side. IMO putting something that causes problems into your body is irresponsible.
So is that alpha-galctose an enzyme that will break down carbohydrates while the stomach environment is acidic? Thus removing the problem of the natural enzymes not being able to break down carbs in an acid environment? Or is something else happening?
I wonder if it's really healthy... I like beans:) but I don't eat them because they aren't very good for your body.
A better way to prevent gas is to learn how to combine foods properly. And to avoid bad foods like beans and dried lentils.
Beans alone break the first rule of food combining; Don't eat carbs and proteins together.
To break down protein which is an acid your stomach has to create an acidic environment. Carbohydrates are alkaline. The enzymes that break down Carbohydrates require an alkaline environment and can not function in the high pH environment required for proteins. So after being continuously bathed in acid and not allowed to digest, the carbs will finally move on to your small intestines where the environment is alkaline again and then, finally, start digesting.
Food goes bad inside your body just like it does on the table. And your body temperature is a lot higher than room temperature, which seems to accelerate the process. You've heard of carbohydrates "fermenting" inside of you right, and that's why you get gas after eating beans? I think the word "rot" is a little less misleading.
Other than itroducing rotting food into your body, beans also make your stomach produce a very acidic environment, which is bad for your overall health.
Point is, beans are bad foods. Unless you just don't have a choice, you are better off eating something else. But if you are buying beano and so on, I'd assume you have another choice.
Except that a microsoft controlled market is a market controlled by a company whose top priority is trying to make more money. Of company goals, product quality is way down the list, and customer satisfaction is however far down the list microsoft thinks is necessary considering they have a monopoly and customer satisfaction in the windows world is cosmetic and vague.
My opinion is that it comes down to McDonalds. No they don't have a monopoly, but they're top priority is making money. That is why you get pretty much the worst food available. Lots of people enjoy the taste of it, but you are buying the cheapest to make food possible for the taste you are getting. You are also getting the about the least healthy food possible which is part of the cause for heart failure and so forth in this country... That's about how much microsoft cares it seems; Money is all that matters.
I was more impressed with Tobey Maguire's performance than Willem Dafoe. I know Dafoe was directed that way but I was detecting a bit of desire for the same overwhelming scenes that Jack Nicholson delivered(and stole the movie with) in Batman. Maybe if Dafoe would have had the same kind of sreen time Nicholson had in Batman he would have came closer to it, but I don't really put them(Dafoe, Nicholson) in the same tallent boat. Anyhow, Maguire is a very tallented actor and I think he did a good job and gave a great personality to spider-man. I was a little disappointed in how Maguire's range wasn't stressed by this movie though, but with how dry some of the dialogue he had to work with was, I think he did a great job. Maybe the sequel will let him peg out.
Actually to the guy that corrected this post, it's Willem Dafoe, not Willem Defoe. But who really gives a rats ass about actors' names. That's a bit of a shallow thing to get worked up over.
where the hell did anyone say anything about talking to some evil one? It just says pagan. Pagan predates christianity. How could it have to do with the freaking christian "evil one".
You are ignorant as hell for posting that crap. I hate hearing people assume BS and then spout off BS as a result. Get educated loser.
Slashdot Mirror
No. There is no evidence that all cases of autism are genetic. There is evidence that at least some cases of autism are genetic.
If you must have a link, here's an entire organization devoted to it:
http://www.agre.org/
Here's a page blaming a lot of autism on vaccinations, including studies and doctor quotes.t ism.htm
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/au
Someone listed a few health issues that came straight from California. The state also gave us fast food; the lowest quality, least nutritious, most processed, highest use of antibiotics and hormones food available. Fast food also seems to be the worst industry for the economy. (had to throw that in there)
I hope some of these people investigating consider diet as well. Diet affects every disease. People with perfect diets rarely ever get sick. People with trash diets get sick a lot. A bad diet affects brain development, circulatory function, development of blockage all over the body, failure of the elimination system, failure of the immune system, and so on. Bad food kills. The AMA doesn't much like hearing that said out in the public though because if everyone ate healthy, they wouldn't make so much money.
Oh wow! I remember now. I'm definitely going to read that again.
Hmm now who did I loan it do... maybe I'll just buy the hardback.
In American English it is criticize. Not criticise. That is "chiefly British" according to dictionary.com. I even considered that "grammer" might be a British way of spelling grammar. But it's not.
Well sun isn't dictating nearly as much of the computer industry as Microsoft is. That puts Microsoft under a lot more spotlight, and as far as I'm concerned, in need of much more scrutiny. Microsoft would love for sun to take some of their negative spotlight though. If sun pisses off their users, great, they have a lot of choices. If Microsoft pisses off their users, well, the users don't have so many choices. A shop like mine couldn't just switch away from microsoft. We have over 1000 users, and only 1 person (me) who has any experience outside of microsoft. All of our support contracts are based on microsoft software as well... So anyway, yeah, I'd rather spend time seeing how microsoft is dictating the industry than how Sun is losing customers.
Since it's honestly difficult to approach a benchmark that isn't biased at all, how about a benchmark that shows both sides of bias? One part of the benchmark is for AMD optimized software and the other for Intel. Then you can see how much of a difference your processor runs software optimized for a different processor. As well, you can truly decide which process you should have based on what kind of software you have. That is if you are willing to give Intel money if that possibilty presents itself, which I'm not willing to do.
I'm starting to feel this would be the only useful industry processor benchmark, because the term "real world" is too subjective.
It would also keep everyone from getting pissed off and calling it biased. Of course it's biased! The only problem is that to be fair, it must support every processor brand that comes out. I don't see a problem with that though. If it's a benchmark as widely accepted as SysMark, then it might actually help that brand grow.
I trust it more than I trust a benchmark company with a history of getting kickbacks.
I really never understood why people go out of their way to criticize someone's grammar and then spell grammar wrong.
It's mostly like a uniform anywhere else. I'm not a slave; I can leave work anytime I want, and I do get paid for *working* here. Then again I don't wear button down shirts every day. I usually wear khaki's and a golf shirt, but that's pretty much what I always wear when I'm not working out.
The idea is just to look professional and conforming to business protocol. Working in a corporation is all about business protocol, and looking like you are focused on your work is part of it. In a conforming situation like functioning in a corporate environment, wearing a uniform is part of being focused on your work; Just like working at mcdonalds, a local restuarant where you have to wear a white shirt and black pants, or a school that has uniforms.
Do you have some other group of people you'd recommend we corporate slaves dress like? It's just one group of conformity to the other. I'd rather just put on some clothes and get on with my life instead of worrying about my material shell appearance. There are much more important issue to address corporations and their effect on society and people than how they make people dress.
Then again, I've never been one to compromise my success or enjoyment of life by being rebelliously self expressive through what I wear. I just don't think the trade off is worth it. I'd rather speak my mind and influence other people's opinions than dressing like a punk, especially when I like the clothes I wear.
Oh i see... but wouldn't that mean that the stars were created very quickly, and placed billions of *current* light years away a few thousand years ago? That wouldn't rule out stellar evolution.
How does that take into account the distance? That might be nice for almost considering to apply it to hubbles law (to a creation scientist) but, if the stars are already billions of light years away, how does light slowing down apply to that?
No but if he jizzed on baby jesus's face it might make it cry.
since the government controls the money, and money is the foundation and driving means of business, how is the government suppose to stay out of business?
As soon as a company becomes a governing body then it's time for change. Microsoft has become too much of a governing body in the computer industry. Now YOU may be interested in Microsoft dictating the computer industry, but not me and not anyone who has a clue. Microsoft isn't trying to be innovative. They are just trying to augment Microsoft. How could you possibly, IF YOU HAVE ANY FREAKING MENTAL RECOGNITION OF LOGIC AT ALL, want a company who is working 100% for their own good, dictating an industry and subverting governmental control? I just do - not - understand you people. Now if microsoft loved me as a person instead of loving my money, and were trying to help the industry instead of helping themselves, then I too may possibly be against a break up.
Now on to HELPING MORONS GET A CLUE about monopoly. When do you stop a monopoly? Do you wait until they own all the oil companies, phone companies, and arms companies, and THEN split them up? Do yo know what stops a company from accomplishing this? "Governmental interference" as returnofthe_troll refers to it. Do you not have a clue why a company like AOL Time Warner has to petition to merge? For one, why should they merge? It will only make their product worse.
so anyhow, I'm going to back to work.
try to get a clue thanks
Like the other guy stuck me with, it's not just proteins and carbs, it's concentrated. If those foods get processed, cooked, or when some of them are dried (like beans) they become a concentrated protein or carb. Pasta is a concentrated carb. Table sugar is a concetrated carb. Dried beans are concentrated proteins and carbs. And so on.
Not that you're suppose to eat as much unconcetrated proteins and carbs as you can fit into your stomach either though.
Are the beans cooked?
Do you honestly eat several servings of beans every day? Can you give an example? I'm not questioning your honestly now, just really curious how someone eats several servings of beans every day.
Those manuals use the word concentrated generously. In that context it can also mean cooked or processed.
Also, dried beans are concentrated proteins and concentrated carbohydrates. I really should haven't written that without saying DRIED beans. My bad. But I just assumed that most people aren't really ever getting that many undried beans, especially if they are eating refried beans like you mentioned. I'm amazed that you don't get gas from refried beans. Unless you are eating beano or something.
Regardless, I get gas everytime I eat dried beans. Everyone I've asked does.
Both of us appear to be talking a little too generally, but just to name a bean that is equally high in carbs as it is in protein is soy.
Now on a more arguing side of things: What mislead you into thinking that the same amount of protein and carbs have to be in the food? Can you even name any foods that have more proteins than carbs besides meats? I can think of 2 right off, soybeans and peanuts. And both are beans, imagine that.
I don't just read crap and regurgitate it. I've been using food combination and other natural methods to bring myself to good health, and not specifically, but since it's part of our discussion, I've also used them to get rid of gas. Maybe I'm more inclined to having gas than other people or something, but food combination has worked quite well for me. But I don't have an intestine full of impacted unhealthy foods either, so maybe that also attributes to my not getting gas from using food combination.
Personally though, I can't see how you can argue with rule #1. It's pretty freaking straight forward. Carbs dont break down in acid.
just because something has fibre in it doesn't mean it's good for your body.
All vegetables have fibre. You don't have to eat beans to get fibre, or even get the most fibre you can out of vegetables. But if you are dead set on eating beans for fibre, take into account that the sugars are rotting inside your body. So *your* choice comes down to, ok do I eat beans for fibre even though they rot in my body, or do I eat some other vegetable that won't rot in my body but still gives fibre?
Who cares if a food has a positive side if it also has a negative side. IMO putting something that causes problems into your body is irresponsible.
So is that alpha-galctose an enzyme that will break down carbohydrates while the stomach environment is acidic? Thus removing the problem of the natural enzymes not being able to break down carbs in an acid environment? Or is something else happening?
:) but I don't eat them because they aren't very good for your body.
I wonder if it's really healthy... I like beans
A better way to prevent gas is to learn how to combine foods properly. And to avoid bad foods like beans and dried lentils.
Beans alone break the first rule of food combining; Don't eat carbs and proteins together.
To break down protein which is an acid your stomach has to create an acidic environment. Carbohydrates are alkaline. The enzymes that break down Carbohydrates require an alkaline environment and can not function in the high pH environment required for proteins. So after being continuously bathed in acid and not allowed to digest, the carbs will finally move on to your small intestines where the environment is alkaline again and then, finally, start digesting.
Food goes bad inside your body just like it does on the table. And your body temperature is a lot higher than room temperature, which seems to accelerate the process. You've heard of carbohydrates "fermenting" inside of you right, and that's why you get gas after eating beans? I think the word "rot" is a little less misleading.
Other than itroducing rotting food into your body, beans also make your stomach produce a very acidic environment, which is bad for your overall health.
Point is, beans are bad foods. Unless you just don't have a choice, you are better off eating something else. But if you are buying beano and so on, I'd assume you have another choice.
Did he come out and say that he paid for it out of his own pocket? He probably expensed it.
Except that a microsoft controlled market is a market controlled by a company whose top priority is trying to make more money. Of company goals, product quality is way down the list, and customer satisfaction is however far down the list microsoft thinks is necessary considering they have a monopoly and customer satisfaction in the windows world is cosmetic and vague.
My opinion is that it comes down to McDonalds. No they don't have a monopoly, but they're top priority is making money. That is why you get pretty much the worst food available. Lots of people enjoy the taste of it, but you are buying the cheapest to make food possible for the taste you are getting. You are also getting the about the least healthy food possible which is part of the cause for heart failure and so forth in this country... That's about how much microsoft cares it seems; Money is all that matters.
Do you think companies like Gateway and Dell like spending time on the phone supporting customers?
They would streamline and inject whatever modules would save them money and entice people.
So yeah I do think they would streamline. It is in their best interest.
Who cares if it's a hoax at this point? That letter was great. It stands on its own whether or not the congressman wrote it.
Of course it's much more nice knowing a congressman has a clue though + the letter.
I was more impressed with Tobey Maguire's performance than Willem Dafoe. I know Dafoe was directed that way but I was detecting a bit of desire for the same overwhelming scenes that Jack Nicholson delivered(and stole the movie with) in Batman. Maybe if Dafoe would have had the same kind of sreen time Nicholson had in Batman he would have came closer to it, but I don't really put them(Dafoe, Nicholson) in the same tallent boat. Anyhow, Maguire is a very tallented actor and I think he did a good job and gave a great personality to spider-man. I was a little disappointed in how Maguire's range wasn't stressed by this movie though, but with how dry some of the dialogue he had to work with was, I think he did a great job. Maybe the sequel will let him peg out.
Actually to the guy that corrected this post, it's Willem Dafoe, not Willem Defoe. But who really gives a rats ass about actors' names. That's a bit of a shallow thing to get worked up over.
where the hell did anyone say anything about talking to some evil one? It just says pagan. Pagan predates christianity. How could it have to do with the freaking christian "evil one".
You are ignorant as hell for posting that crap. I hate hearing people assume BS and then spout off BS as a result. Get educated loser.