I've heard that sprouted (raw) grains and beans contain enzymes which aid in digestion of the grains and beans.
It stands to reason. The kernel contains concentrated energy to keep the plant alive until it’s put out enough roots and leaves to collect its own water and nutrients. It must by definition also contain all of the necessary enzymes to break that complex carbohydrate back down to ATP so it can use it.
If a rightsholder knowingly and intentionally places material to which they own the rights in a place that explicitly operates as a medium for free dissemination, one would imagine that this amounts to an implied consent to, at least, free dissemination from that location. It doesn't clearly mean surrender of copyright, so it might not save those who re-disseminate it by other means; but it would seem to imply a licence to disseminate has been granted to rapidshare.
That is precisely correct. It is still copyrighted but they’ve authorized Rapidshare to distribute it, in accordance with the usual terms of uploading a file to Rapidshare. That still doesn’t mean that somebody can download it from RS and put it on their personal web page and claim that it’s authorized, although they could link to the RS file.
No... even if they do it anonymously there is no copyright infringement. They (the copyright holder) are still explicitly authorizing people to download it. (That’s why they had to invent the “making available” charge. The copyright holder can’t sue you for downloading the song from them.)
They might have shot themselves in the foot, too... now anyone who downloads music from Rapidshare could claim that they didn’t know it was an unauthorized copy, since they’ve heard of some record companies putting their music on RS as a viral promotion campaign. How can you know for sure? It’d be an interesting case to watch, just for the precedent’s sake...
One thing that you don't point out that Google has a procedure to remove the pictures if the Borings wanted to keep their home out of the public view. The Borings sued before they asked Google to remove the pictures.
That doesn’t keep their home out of the public view. It removes it from the public view... well, sort of... unless, of course, anyone took screen-shots from Google’s street view before they took down the images.
There is a procedure to keep your house out of the public view, though. It’s called, if your driveway looks like a road, put up a sign to indicate that it is private property, not a public easement. Which they supposedly did. Which Google apparently ignored. Which is why they sued.
You can rarely get something back off the internet once it gets on.
A couple of years ago I got a virus of some sort while browsing the web in IE6. Completely drive-by, no installation, no click here, nothing. Just a pop-up from Windows Firewall saying that application-with-Russian-characters-in-its-name would like to connect to the internet, allow it? It had actually already copied the executable onto my disk and launched it – no, that wasn’t just a ploy to get me to install it.
It was easy enough to remove (I was able to kill the process, delete the startup entry from the registry, and delete the executable), but it was still a bit unsettling.
I don’t remember why I wasn’t using Firefox, but it was a good learning experience for why it’s a really bad idea to use IE6...
Arsenic (As) is a poison in the same way that carbon monoxide (CO) is a poison:
CO binds to the hemoglobin molecule in the same way that oxygen (O2) does (in fact, hemoglobin favors CO quite strongly in preference to O2). The blood then starts delivering CO to the cells instead of O2. The cells need O2 to live, and they can’t use CO, so they die.
As combines chemically in many of the same ways that phosphorus (P) does (As is directly underneath P in the periodic table), and P is one of the basic building blocks of life. So it’s no surprise that the As replaced the P in the body of this bacterium. The surprise is that the bacterium apparently can live with that. Most life forms can’t; they’d die before even a small percentage of their P atoms had been displaced by As.
If I had to wager a guess, I’d say that it’s only possible because it’s such a simple life form and As apparently works just well enough for it to use it instead of P without dying. But then, I’m not a NASA scientist nor am I itching for federal funding, so I’m probably not blowing this anywhere near out of proportion enough.
For the detailed explanation of why As is toxic, I relied on Wikipedia... but basically, it replaces P, and then bad stuff happens. But Wikipedia’s explanation is not for the faint of heart:
Arsenic disrupts ATP production through several mechanisms. At the level of the citric acid cycle, arsenic inhibits lipoic acid which is a cofactor for pyruvate dehydrogenase; and by competing with phosphate it uncouples oxidative phosphorylation, thus inhibiting energy-linked reduction of NAD+, mitochondrial respiration, and ATP synthesis. Hydrogen peroxide production is also increased, which might form reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. These metabolic interferences lead to death from multi-system organ failure, probably from necrotic cell death, not apoptosis.
It's because I think they should. Is my opinion really so hard to grasp?
Well, OBVIOUSLY. And nobody is having trouble grasping your opinion; it was quite clear. He asked why, and no, “cause I said so” isn’t a valid reason.
You claim that you don’t believe in right and wrong, but you expressed a moral absolute: “Suffering or not, pointless deaths should be prevented”. Now justify it.
What makes your opinion any more valid than that of a person who thinks that causing lots of pointless death and needless suffering is the perfect way to spend a sunny Saturday afternoon?
Hehe, I think you ought to read up on the history of vegetarianism [wikipedia.org]. The Brahamins were vego for a couple of thousand years before Pythagoras discovered them
Yeah, yeah, yeah... that’s only possible when you have good sources of nutritious vegetable foodstuffs, and typical mass-produced vegetable foodstuffs are woefully lacking in that respect. “Such a manner” includes living in cities with populations reaching into the millions and most food being grown on factory farms.
I have no argument if you want to say that you can be healthy and well-nourished while adhering to a vegetarian or vegan diet. And I have no diet if you want to say that people could do it in the past, but their lives would have to be much different than ours for such a diet to work. There is absolutely no way that everyone in this modern culture could eat only vegan foods organically grown to actually have some decent nutritional value. Population density wouldn’t permit it. Individuals can do it, but if everyone tried there wouldn’t be enough food for them all.
As evidence, young children readily reach for raw fruit but never raw meat
I take it you’ve actually verified that experimentally?
Yeah, young children like sweet things (and not without good reason: bitter tastes are often correlated with decay or poison, so young children are very sensitive to bitterness). And letting young children eat honey can give them severe, possibly fatal, food poisoning. And young children will also put dirt in their mouths. And a diet consisting entirely of fruit would not be adequately nourishing anyway; young children have to be taught to eat vegetables. So all in all, you really don’t get to use the preferences of young children as an argument that their instincts are best when it comes to what they should eat and not eat.
without the killing technology of flame it should be rejected
Without the killing technology of flame, most vegetables would be rejected too. Unless you’re advocating an all-raw diet (which some people do), you don’t get to use that argument either.
The eating of raw mammal meat is a modern fashion enabled through refrigeration, antibiotics and sanitation
That’s complete bullshit. People ate raw meat fresh and even preserved it for long periods of time before any of those things ever existed (e.g. pemmican and jerky).
I haven't eaten parts of animals for most of my life and have friends that have never ever eaten meat or fish. All are fit of body and host very bright minds indeed.
If you want to talk about modern invention... that is a modern invention. Cultivating soy and legumes for protein, using the “killing technology of flame” to tender them up before consuming them (they almost invariably are cooked first, I might add), and taking a handful of multivitamins and dietary supplements is the quintessence of modern invention. In fact this is very nearly the first generation of humans that could successfully stay healthy and well-nourished while living in such a manner.
No, it’s culturally repugnant. And even so, plenty of people still consume raw meat on a regular basis.
In addition to the obvious sushi, many forms of smoked or dried meat are not cooked (e.g. jerky and many varieties of ham), any good steak should be raw in the middle (and anyone who prefers their steak turned into shoe leather is an idiot), steak tartare is considered a delicacy, Caesar salad dressing is made with raw egg, etc. etc. etc.
What’s more, cooking meat creates carcinogenic compounds, so if it weren’t for the risk of disease and parasites, meat would be healthiest if it was consumed raw anyway.
My girlfriend had a veggie book, that claimed that eating meat was against human instinct; "who would ever think of eating a nice, cuddly squirrel?"
Unless it’s made of plush, squirrels are not “nice” and “cuddly”. They’re wild animals, they run away from us, and they bite when cornered. (Unless it’s domesticated... but isn’t PETA against that too?)
Wait... it’s immoral to consume meat because the protagonist of the meat-based indie game is made of meat, and the protagonist of this game is made of tofu, doesn’t that same concept logically extend to the tofu game implying that it’s now unethical to eat tofu?
To get an obstruction of justice charge passed, the prosecution has to convince the jury that you knew there was evidence of a crime, and you deliberately destroyed it to prevent it from ever being brought before the court.
If you do regular log deletion or disk clean-up and happen to delete some evidence, you’re probably going to be able to argue (convincingly) that it wasn’t intentional. But if you knew something was evidence of a crime and you went out of your way to destroy it, no, there’s no time limit.
If you deleted it years ago, though, I do believe that the statute of limitations would come into play to determine whether they can still charge you for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard that sprouted (raw) grains and beans contain enzymes which aid in digestion of the grains and beans.
It stands to reason. The kernel contains concentrated energy to keep the plant alive until it’s put out enough roots and leaves to collect its own water and nutrients. It must by definition also contain all of the necessary enzymes to break that complex carbohydrate back down to ATP so it can use it.
If a rightsholder knowingly and intentionally places material to which they own the rights in a place that explicitly operates as a medium for free dissemination, one would imagine that this amounts to an implied consent to, at least, free dissemination from that location. It doesn't clearly mean surrender of copyright, so it might not save those who re-disseminate it by other means; but it would seem to imply a licence to disseminate has been granted to rapidshare.
That is precisely correct. It is still copyrighted but they’ve authorized Rapidshare to distribute it, in accordance with the usual terms of uploading a file to Rapidshare. That still doesn’t mean that somebody can download it from RS and put it on their personal web page and claim that it’s authorized, although they could link to the RS file.
No... even if they do it anonymously there is no copyright infringement. They (the copyright holder) are still explicitly authorizing people to download it. (That’s why they had to invent the “making available” charge. The copyright holder can’t sue you for downloading the song from them.)
They might have shot themselves in the foot, too... now anyone who downloads music from Rapidshare could claim that they didn’t know it was an unauthorized copy, since they’ve heard of some record companies putting their music on RS as a viral promotion campaign. How can you know for sure? It’d be an interesting case to watch, just for the precedent’s sake...
One thing that you don't point out that Google has a procedure to remove the pictures if the Borings wanted to keep their home out of the public view. The Borings sued before they asked Google to remove the pictures.
That doesn’t keep their home out of the public view. It removes it from the public view... well, sort of... unless, of course, anyone took screen-shots from Google’s street view before they took down the images.
There is a procedure to keep your house out of the public view, though. It’s called, if your driveway looks like a road, put up a sign to indicate that it is private property, not a public easement. Which they supposedly did. Which Google apparently ignored. Which is why they sued.
You can rarely get something back off the internet once it gets on.
Depends on the city.
Are you really are trying to compare a car taking pictures from the street to a peeping tom-like analogy?
No, because the car isn’t doing that, it’s actually driving up your driveway and taking pictures.
I know it is terribly difficult to follow what we’re talking about, but do try to keep up. It’s only the entire point of the lawsuit.
You seem to expect them to be logical, consistent, or reasonable. Don’t.
A couple of years ago I got a virus of some sort while browsing the web in IE6. Completely drive-by, no installation, no click here, nothing. Just a pop-up from Windows Firewall saying that application-with-Russian-characters-in-its-name would like to connect to the internet, allow it? It had actually already copied the executable onto my disk and launched it – no, that wasn’t just a ploy to get me to install it.
It was easy enough to remove (I was able to kill the process, delete the startup entry from the registry, and delete the executable), but it was still a bit unsettling.
I don’t remember why I wasn’t using Firefox, but it was a good learning experience for why it’s a really bad idea to use IE6...
Where do they serve this type thing?
Kentucky Fried Chicken
Is this inside or outside the US?
Yes
Arsenic (As) is a poison in the same way that carbon monoxide (CO) is a poison:
CO binds to the hemoglobin molecule in the same way that oxygen (O2) does (in fact, hemoglobin favors CO quite strongly in preference to O2). The blood then starts delivering CO to the cells instead of O2. The cells need O2 to live, and they can’t use CO, so they die.
As combines chemically in many of the same ways that phosphorus (P) does (As is directly underneath P in the periodic table), and P is one of the basic building blocks of life. So it’s no surprise that the As replaced the P in the body of this bacterium. The surprise is that the bacterium apparently can live with that. Most life forms can’t; they’d die before even a small percentage of their P atoms had been displaced by As.
If I had to wager a guess, I’d say that it’s only possible because it’s such a simple life form and As apparently works just well enough for it to use it instead of P without dying. But then, I’m not a NASA scientist nor am I itching for federal funding, so I’m probably not blowing this anywhere near out of proportion enough.
For the detailed explanation of why As is toxic, I relied on Wikipedia... but basically, it replaces P, and then bad stuff happens. But Wikipedia’s explanation is not for the faint of heart:
Arsenic disrupts ATP production through several mechanisms. At the level of the citric acid cycle, arsenic inhibits lipoic acid which is a cofactor for pyruvate dehydrogenase; and by competing with phosphate it uncouples oxidative phosphorylation, thus inhibiting energy-linked reduction of NAD+, mitochondrial respiration, and ATP synthesis. Hydrogen peroxide production is also increased, which might form reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. These metabolic interferences lead to death from multi-system organ failure, probably from necrotic cell death, not apoptosis.
It doesn't, as I've been stating all along (or at the very least, trying to).
Then this argument is nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation.
Take those same raw chick peas and cook them, and the human body (and every animal, for that matter) can absorb the nutrients much more effectively.
Or sprout them, in which case they’re still raw.
But I’m actually pretty sure that by “raw grains” he really just meant “grains that haven’t been processed, refined, bleached, and enriched”.
From context, I'm guessing something to eat that has meat on/in it?
Sort of. It’s a bacon and cheese sandwich made with fried chicken instead of a bun.
There are no absolute morals.
Yet, you just told us what we should do to prevent something that you think is bad:
“we should just use our supposedly intelligent minds to perfect in vitro meat so that no animals will have to suffer”.
If there are no absolute morals, you don’t get to have an opinion about how other people ought to behave. Your morals don’t apply to them.
It's because I think they should. Is my opinion really so hard to grasp?
Well, OBVIOUSLY. And nobody is having trouble grasping your opinion; it was quite clear. He asked why, and no, “cause I said so” isn’t a valid reason.
You claim that you don’t believe in right and wrong, but you expressed a moral absolute: “Suffering or not, pointless deaths should be prevented”. Now justify it.
What makes your opinion any more valid than that of a person who thinks that causing lots of pointless death and needless suffering is the perfect way to spend a sunny Saturday afternoon?
Hehe, I think you ought to read up on the history of vegetarianism [wikipedia.org]. The Brahamins were vego for a couple of thousand years before Pythagoras discovered them
Yeah, yeah, yeah... that’s only possible when you have good sources of nutritious vegetable foodstuffs, and typical mass-produced vegetable foodstuffs are woefully lacking in that respect. “Such a manner” includes living in cities with populations reaching into the millions and most food being grown on factory farms.
I have no argument if you want to say that you can be healthy and well-nourished while adhering to a vegetarian or vegan diet. And I have no diet if you want to say that people could do it in the past, but their lives would have to be much different than ours for such a diet to work. There is absolutely no way that everyone in this modern culture could eat only vegan foods organically grown to actually have some decent nutritional value. Population density wouldn’t permit it. Individuals can do it, but if everyone tried there wouldn’t be enough food for them all.
As evidence, young children readily reach for raw fruit but never raw meat
I take it you’ve actually verified that experimentally?
Yeah, young children like sweet things (and not without good reason: bitter tastes are often correlated with decay or poison, so young children are very sensitive to bitterness). And letting young children eat honey can give them severe, possibly fatal, food poisoning. And young children will also put dirt in their mouths. And a diet consisting entirely of fruit would not be adequately nourishing anyway; young children have to be taught to eat vegetables. So all in all, you really don’t get to use the preferences of young children as an argument that their instincts are best when it comes to what they should eat and not eat.
without the killing technology of flame it should be rejected
Without the killing technology of flame, most vegetables would be rejected too. Unless you’re advocating an all-raw diet (which some people do), you don’t get to use that argument either.
The eating of raw mammal meat is a modern fashion enabled through refrigeration, antibiotics and sanitation
That’s complete bullshit. People ate raw meat fresh and even preserved it for long periods of time before any of those things ever existed (e.g. pemmican and jerky).
I haven't eaten parts of animals for most of my life and have friends that have never ever eaten meat or fish. All are fit of body and host very bright minds indeed.
If you want to talk about modern invention... that is a modern invention. Cultivating soy and legumes for protein, using the “killing technology of flame” to tender them up before consuming them (they almost invariably are cooked first, I might add), and taking a handful of multivitamins and dietary supplements is the quintessence of modern invention. In fact this is very nearly the first generation of humans that could successfully stay healthy and well-nourished while living in such a manner.
No, if there is a god, his views on what is “right” and “wrong” are fact, by very definition. If there is more than one god, things not so clear...
raw meat is instinctualy repugnant
No, it’s culturally repugnant. And even so, plenty of people still consume raw meat on a regular basis.
In addition to the obvious sushi, many forms of smoked or dried meat are not cooked (e.g. jerky and many varieties of ham), any good steak should be raw in the middle (and anyone who prefers their steak turned into shoe leather is an idiot), steak tartare is considered a delicacy, Caesar salad dressing is made with raw egg, etc. etc. etc.
What’s more, cooking meat creates carcinogenic compounds, so if it weren’t for the risk of disease and parasites, meat would be healthiest if it was consumed raw anyway.
My girlfriend had a veggie book, that claimed that eating meat was against human instinct; "who would ever think of eating a nice, cuddly squirrel?"
Unless it’s made of plush, squirrels are not “nice” and “cuddly”. They’re wild animals, they run away from us, and they bite when cornered. (Unless it’s domesticated... but isn’t PETA against that too?)
And I’ve eaten a few.
Wait... it’s immoral to consume meat because the protagonist of the meat-based indie game is made of meat, and the protagonist of this game is made of tofu, doesn’t that same concept logically extend to the tofu game implying that it’s now unethical to eat tofu?
This is so confusing.
To get an obstruction of justice charge passed, the prosecution has to convince the jury that you knew there was evidence of a crime, and you deliberately destroyed it to prevent it from ever being brought before the court.
If you do regular log deletion or disk clean-up and happen to delete some evidence, you’re probably going to be able to argue (convincingly) that it wasn’t intentional. But if you knew something was evidence of a crime and you went out of your way to destroy it, no, there’s no time limit.
If you deleted it years ago, though, I do believe that the statute of limitations would come into play to determine whether they can still charge you for it.
IANAL, but that’s my understanding of the law.
Destroying evidence is still illegal even if you haven’t been ordered not to.
It turns out there are also real words in encyclopedias.
And there are also things that aren’t real words.
I don’t have a sig, you insensitive clod.