"sympathes for terrorists" and "radicalized" are like the words "thug". Anyone reading your post knows you are pointing an accusatory finger at Muslims. If you feel malligned about it, perhaps it would be prudent to not use words appropriated by racists.
Startpage has been my default since the Snowden leak. I have had to switch back to Google less than 10 times for the past year for some obscure error codes and other unsatisfactory search results.
I own an Open C. But at $25. Even I would want to get another phone just to have more stuff to fool around with. For example, trying to get Ubuntu or Sailfish running.
It's the "deserts are evil" mentality that is at fault here with the Savory talk - and with much of the support behind it. Deserts have their own unique ecosystem supporting their own unique niche of animal life. "Repairing" an ecosystem that doesn't need repairing is one of the most destructive practices I have ever come across because of a misunderstanding that somehow desert ecosystems are a waste of land unless you can get cattle to graze on it, and remove much of the niches to substitute them for those more beneficial to ranching.
Savory's talk is full of red flags, and to document and rebut each one would take more time than is really wise to spend on the talk. But three stand out as especially egregious.
The notion that bare, unvegetated soil in the American desert is an evil to be avoided flies in the face of everything we know about desert soil science. Bare soil in the desert includes desert pavement, a self-regulating system that controls air pollution. It includes alkaline crusts and dry lake beds, both homes to unique assemblages of organisms. Seemingly bare soil may hold seed banks of diverse assemblages of annual plants, some of which are limited enough in extent that covering the soil with grassland -- even if you could do so -- would push them toward extinction. And sparsely vegetated soil is crucial for the survival of many animal species, including desert tortoises, fringe-toed and horned lizards, and other animals that actually belong in the desert far more than do cattle.
The idea that grasses must be eaten by livestock to perform a valuable ecological function is similarly absurd. Grasses provide food, shelter, and even construction material for hundreds of desert animals ranging from jackrabbits to tiny insects, each of which is eaten in turn by other animals. Send in a wave of cattle to crop those grasses and we've diverted that ecological productivity to our own ends, depriving the local wildlife of food and habitat. Bunchgrasses can live for centuries if untrampled, providing year after year of ecological benefit to hundreds of generations of wildlife. Savory, like many grazing advocates, seems to regard such ancient bunchgrasses as decadent: In Lynn Jacobs' 1991 book "Waste of The West," Jacobs says "Savory claims like most ranchers that old growth range plants are 'useless' and 'decadent.'" But, adds Jacobs, "like tree snags in forests, standing dead range plant material is itself an important, natural environmental component."
Lastly, Savory's contention that the "algal crust" he shows developing on arid land soil is "the cancer of desertification" is unscientific in the extreme. He makes the statement at 4:00 into the TED video, but it's one he's made for years. Lynn Jacobs wrote in 1991 that students of (what was then being called) HRM learned from Savory that "Cryptogams are a prime indicator of a deteriorating environment." (To underscore his postulation, commonly Savory scuffs apart the cryptogamic layer while walking on Rangeland.)
This is, of course, completely false. Cryptobiotic soil crusts are a crucial underpinning of old-growth desert habitats across North America, and indeed throughout much of the world.
Savory has been around for a very long time preaching the same fallacious grazing gospel, and his name raises curled lips among land management scientists the way Velikovsky's name raises the ire of astronomers. He's merely the latest practitioner of a tradition a couple centuries long of land management mythologies based on wishful thinking that don't turn out to work. A century ago land speculation boosters in the American West claimed that "rain follows the plow"; Savory has merely updated that to "grass follows the cow."
I am running KDE 4.9 off the backports PPA on Ubuntu 12.04. I had my reservations, but after two weeks of fiddling with the settings (Praise the Goddess Madoka for the blinding array of options) I have finally attained the desktop interface of my dreams.
After the disaster of installing the supposedly stable kubuntu-desktop a year ago, I figured why not go for the latest package instead, and it was in hindsight a much better choice.
You will need to cite the "not ecologically sound part". I have on hand a few journals that do scientifically quantify the ecological impact of an animal-based diet versus a non-animal-based diet for humans. I am a vegan by virtue of the scientific arguments, and the ecological argument is bar far the most soundly proven.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1699S.full.pdfhttp://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full.pdfhttp://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/664S.full
That said, I do wish to point out that at no point in my post did I mention caging an animal for the entirety of its life - but simply to correct a view I find misleading that somehow a scientifically established balanced diet from non-animal sources is inferior to that of animal-based feed (and as a volunteer for the SPCA, I can confidently say some of the well-known products can cause kidney failure if you were to only feed your cat with those products, and they are neutered males). Your arguments that seeks to disparage vegan products as "industrial mush" and "chemical additives" smacks of hypocricy when you consider the animal-based stuff you do put into your cat's face, or whenever you visit the vet.
I read the scientific guidelines for a vegetarian and a vegan diet and followed them. Not hard to follow instructions as long as one knows how to read.
Right, but why would you abuse an animal by giving it un-natural chemical crap like that?
All food items consumed can be broken down to their constituent chemicals. Simply because a configuration comes from a non-animal source doesn't automatically make it inferior to one derived from animals. In fact, denying any possibility of a balanced diet to be constructed based on scientific principles through an assertion of the use of chemistry and biology is rather dishonest.
I knew it was pretty bad, but reading this just put me off buying any works of art unless I know every single penny I am spending goes directly to the artist or is under the artist's control.
Another additional concern is the compulsory purchase of a biometric USB device which apparently allows securer access to the email service.
Those signing up for the controversial 1 Malaysia email service will have to buy a USB biometric device sold by Tricubes Bhd or go to any National Registration Department (NRD) office to get their account activated, the company said today.
Tricubes chief executive Khairun Zainal Mokhtar said the USB device would also allow myemail.my users opt for the more secure end-to-end data encryption for an additional fee, which he described as "a fraction of the cost".
And if this previous description of the CEO by a disgruntled executive is any indication, I would rather trust Google rather than my government to handle my email.
Elections to the Federal level are different from elections at the State Level in Malaysia. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Malaysia#Governance
The people in Penang for example vote for the secular Democratic Action Party. The very religious Kelantan votes for PAS, and PKR capitalises upon the reputation of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar and basically argues for the same things the DAP argues for.
The ruling coalition known as the Barisan Nasional frequently destroys instruments of civil liberty including a just publicised attempt to censor the Internet.
It is hardly a choice of the people choosing their governments when their governments gives them no safe outlet to oppose them.
Slashdot Mirror
"sympathes for terrorists" and "radicalized" are like the words "thug". Anyone reading your post knows you are pointing an accusatory finger at Muslims. If you feel malligned about it, perhaps it would be prudent to not use words appropriated by racists.
Maybe it is also about being accurate, and to not let your personal anti-feminist views cloud your judgement.
Startpage has been my default since the Snowden leak. I have had to switch back to Google less than 10 times for the past year for some obscure error codes and other unsatisfactory search results.
Read through the entire Torture Report, substituting the words "enhanced interrogation" with "pumping hummus up the anus", all in one sitting.
Americans with laser mounted warships.
I have AndrOpen Office installed instead.
https://play.google.com/store/...
They can take their sweet time to get there, because I am pretty okay with the Open Office port to Android.
Or rather, all those shootings by white people are not classified as terrorism, but simply because they have mental issues.
Considering how the US government screws non-US countries, I would have donated too. Hope it all works out.
I own an Open C. But at $25. Even I would want to get another phone just to have more stuff to fool around with. For example, trying to get Ubuntu or Sailfish running.
I like how virtually every post that's modded up supports the original submission as well.
Same setup here. Couldn't be easier on ownCloud on a Debian 7 server. I have been using it for about a month and am happy with it.
It's the "deserts are evil" mentality that is at fault here with the Savory talk - and with much of the support behind it. Deserts have their own unique ecosystem supporting their own unique niche of animal life. "Repairing" an ecosystem that doesn't need repairing is one of the most destructive practices I have ever come across because of a misunderstanding that somehow desert ecosystems are a waste of land unless you can get cattle to graze on it, and remove much of the niches to substitute them for those more beneficial to ranching.
Pseudoscience alert! From KCET's Chris Clarke
http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/east-ca/learn-how-to-hate-the-desert-with-ted.html
Savory's talk is full of red flags, and to document and rebut each one would take more time than is really wise to spend on the talk. But three stand out as especially egregious.
The notion that bare, unvegetated soil in the American desert is an evil to be avoided flies in the face of everything we know about desert soil science. Bare soil in the desert includes desert pavement, a self-regulating system that controls air pollution. It includes alkaline crusts and dry lake beds, both homes to unique assemblages of organisms. Seemingly bare soil may hold seed banks of diverse assemblages of annual plants, some of which are limited enough in extent that covering the soil with grassland -- even if you could do so -- would push them toward extinction. And sparsely vegetated soil is crucial for the survival of many animal species, including desert tortoises, fringe-toed and horned lizards, and other animals that actually belong in the desert far more than do cattle.
The idea that grasses must be eaten by livestock to perform a valuable ecological function is similarly absurd. Grasses provide food, shelter, and even construction material for hundreds of desert animals ranging from jackrabbits to tiny insects, each of which is eaten in turn by other animals. Send in a wave of cattle to crop those grasses and we've diverted that ecological productivity to our own ends, depriving the local wildlife of food and habitat. Bunchgrasses can live for centuries if untrampled, providing year after year of ecological benefit to hundreds of generations of wildlife. Savory, like many grazing advocates, seems to regard such ancient bunchgrasses as decadent: In Lynn Jacobs' 1991 book "Waste of The West," Jacobs says "Savory claims like most ranchers that old growth range plants are 'useless' and 'decadent.'" But, adds Jacobs, "like tree snags in forests, standing dead range plant material is itself an important, natural environmental component."
Lastly, Savory's contention that the "algal crust" he shows developing on arid land soil is "the cancer of desertification" is unscientific in the extreme. He makes the statement at 4:00 into the TED video, but it's one he's made for years. Lynn Jacobs wrote in 1991 that students of (what was then being called) HRM learned from Savory that "Cryptogams are a prime indicator of a deteriorating environment." (To underscore his postulation, commonly Savory scuffs apart the cryptogamic layer while walking on Rangeland.)
This is, of course, completely false. Cryptobiotic soil crusts are a crucial underpinning of old-growth desert habitats across North America, and indeed throughout much of the world.
Savory has been around for a very long time preaching the same fallacious grazing gospel, and his name raises curled lips among land management scientists the way Velikovsky's name raises the ire of astronomers. He's merely the latest practitioner of a tradition a couple centuries long of land management mythologies based on wishful thinking that don't turn out to work. A century ago land speculation boosters in the American West claimed that "rain follows the plow"; Savory has merely updated that to "grass follows the cow."
FWIW, I consider the episode Time in SGU to be the best episode related to time travel I have ever watched.
Actually makes bullimia appealing.
I am running KDE 4.9 off the backports PPA on Ubuntu 12.04. I had my reservations, but after two weeks of fiddling with the settings (Praise the Goddess Madoka for the blinding array of options) I have finally attained the desktop interface of my dreams. After the disaster of installing the supposedly stable kubuntu-desktop a year ago, I figured why not go for the latest package instead, and it was in hindsight a much better choice.
I am willing to donate to this cause, despite being umemployed.
You will need to cite the "not ecologically sound part". I have on hand a few journals that do scientifically quantify the ecological impact of an animal-based diet versus a non-animal-based diet for humans. I am a vegan by virtue of the scientific arguments, and the ecological argument is bar far the most soundly proven. http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1699S.full.pdf http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full.pdf http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/664S.full That said, I do wish to point out that at no point in my post did I mention caging an animal for the entirety of its life - but simply to correct a view I find misleading that somehow a scientifically established balanced diet from non-animal sources is inferior to that of animal-based feed (and as a volunteer for the SPCA, I can confidently say some of the well-known products can cause kidney failure if you were to only feed your cat with those products, and they are neutered males). Your arguments that seeks to disparage vegan products as "industrial mush" and "chemical additives" smacks of hypocricy when you consider the animal-based stuff you do put into your cat's face, or whenever you visit the vet.
I read the scientific guidelines for a vegetarian and a vegan diet and followed them. Not hard to follow instructions as long as one knows how to read.
Why is this modded -1? This is a rational scientific response to the assertions of the parent post?
All food items consumed can be broken down to their constituent chemicals. Simply because a configuration comes from a non-animal source doesn't automatically make it inferior to one derived from animals. In fact, denying any possibility of a balanced diet to be constructed based on scientific principles through an assertion of the use of chemistry and biology is rather dishonest.
I knew it was pretty bad, but reading this just put me off buying any works of art unless I know every single penny I am spending goes directly to the artist or is under the artist's control.
Doctor Who reference to chameleon circuits! If only I had mod points.
And if this previous description of the CEO by a disgruntled executive is any indication, I would rather trust Google rather than my government to handle my email.
Elections to the Federal level are different from elections at the State Level in Malaysia. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Malaysia#Governance The people in Penang for example vote for the secular Democratic Action Party. The very religious Kelantan votes for PAS, and PKR capitalises upon the reputation of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar and basically argues for the same things the DAP argues for. The ruling coalition known as the Barisan Nasional frequently destroys instruments of civil liberty including a just publicised attempt to censor the Internet. It is hardly a choice of the people choosing their governments when their governments gives them no safe outlet to oppose them.