I really think that whole fruit tends to have an appetite suppressant. Maybe it's just the way that I eat it. I eat the whole apple, except for the stem. I eat the entire orange/grapefruit/banana, except for the peel. I noticed that a coworker would eat 3 apples/day, but he would only eat around the outermost parts. He probably didn't even come close to the core. For him, eating an "entire" apple would be nothing, but he hardly got anything out of 1 apple.
I've never even heard of fruit lovers saying, "Just 1 more...okay, 1 more...okay, really, this is the last 1...I guess 1 more in moderation wouldn't hurt...etc.". That's something that junk food addicts say.
I've heard some bad stuff about high-fructose corn syrup. You seem to portray it as all natural, despite what you literally said. I find that a little disturbing. I can't argue the issue, because I've only heard about it through YouTube videos. So, you believe that they don't use chemicals to treat the syrup?
I don't think that parents have complete control, because I don't think that it's healthy to keep kids locked up to prevent them from seeing what's on their friends' TV sets. When I was young, we'd go over to our friends' homes and watch TV with them. Maybe they don't do that anymore. Also, there is media outside of TV, like billboards.
I take it that you work for the high fructose corn syrup industry, or the fast food industry?
Thanks for the condensed explanation. I looked it up, found the first page, and even went to it, but I didn't read it thoroughly, because I thought that it was just about hypertext as HTML. If I had just spent a few more moments, then I would have found all that I needed.
I've never heard of binge eating fruit, let alone fruit of only 1 kind [e.g. "I was so sad that I ate 30 granny smith apples, last night."]. I've never heard of overeating fruit, either. I have heard that apples cause cancer. That FUD came from the research, where the scientists concentrated 30 apples and injected some of the stuff into lab rats, or something like that. How dangerous is it to eat 10 apples/day? I ask, because that would be beyond the norm, and if it is safe, then we can rule out extreme cases of 10+ apples/day. This should also apply to other fruit and vegetables.
I'm not arguing that all fruit is automatically safe. I'm just saying that normal use, and slightly more, is safe. That isn't necessarily true with fast food. I think that "Supersize Me" proved it. It is possible to eat fruit, legumes, and vegetables, all day, every day, but not fast food.
I'm not calling for a ban on unhealthy food. I'm really calling to ban the companies' attempt at marketing towards kids. This undermines the parents' attempts to steer their kids in the right direction. Essentially, giving the kid a toy is a "positive" reinforcement for the unhealthy food.
You're not telling me that you'd approve of children's commercials for smoking, would you?
I don't think that fruit or vegetables cause those problems. They tend to have a natural appetite suppressant, and I believe that they tend to have nutrients that balance out the negative effects of other nutrients.
Were you thinking more in terms of meat and carbs?
Interesting. I forgot about the ship travelling at warp, but I didn't think that interstellar distances were a problem. Maybe they needed to show the ship at warp speed, and then show them beaming on to the ship. Maybe they need to hype up the challenges a bit more.
Yes, I don't think that it's the actor's fault either. I should have mentioned it. I totally agreed with all that you said.
I think that if this were a different kind of movie, then the new Scotty could have worked.
I think that the former actors didn't have much to work with, because of the limited budgets. I also think that a lot of the success of the characters happened because of the former actors just selling it with all that they had. Maybe I'm out to lunch when I say this, but to just rewrite the Scotty character, but give many of the other characters similar characteristics, really discredits the work that James Doohan did.
For Uhura, she wasn't consistent with the former Uhura, but she was still a high status character.
As I write, I just thought of something. You said, "I get the possible need of water pipes in engineering". I argue that there was no need for Scotty to get trapped in the water. A running theme of Star Trek, is that no matter where you want to go, you never end up in rock or in a wall or floor. We could argue about how realistic it is, and I do acknowledge that transporters were new for the reboot's time period, but the audience has already bought into it's reliability, so to stick him in water just for humour might not be such a good idea.
Another thing about the old Scotty is that he was just a supporting character, and for the most part didn't need lines like, "I like this ship, it's exciting!".
Another thing that I found so odd was Chekov being able to ramble off a lot of scientific babble. I didn't think that he would know that. Those lines should have been given to Scotty.
I am just so surprised, because I met a UK gal who moaned about how she found it so difficult to use debit in Canada. I got the impression that using debit was easy in the UK.
I guess that it's all because culture and finances.
I don't understand what the problem is. I read your post. I did a search on the internet. Some people might not be able to get a free prepaid credit card. O2 customers can. That being said, there some very cheap cards, it seems.
Also, the debit card that I'm talking about is the card that you get when you open a bank savings account, or chequing account. I've heard about banks that charge people money to open it, and they offer the customers no interest, but I didn't think that the UK would be like that.
Are you telling me that you have to have a credit check before you open a regular banking account? In Canada, you could open an account, even if you have the worst credit history in the world, and can afford to deposit only 1 penny, and never got a job.
You know, I was thinking a very similar thing. At first, I thought that a tall building would be great, in general, because of the smaller footprint per square foot of floor space. Then I thought about what the building is about. Does the building help to create community or encourage foot traffic? I doubt it. So, I'm not excited about it.
I didn't realize that people came here to avoid a waiting list. It should be interesting to compare amounts and what the waiting lists are for.
Yeah, I know that no system is perfect, but why bother with a system that doesn't work? You could have your government sponsored system, but it won't give you what you need, and/or it won't give you something else. Something has got to give.
With government sponsored anything, some get a little more, and the rest get a lot less.
People won't be satisfied with 1960 standards. They want 2012 standards, and they want it yesterday.;^)
The problem with giving out free stuff to the underprivileged is that you can never fully know if each person "deserves" what he asks for, because there is not enough information, and too many requests. Why 1960s? Why not 1971? It could be only $.01 more for twice the value. I assume that you're just using a hypothetical example with 1960. I'm just using numbers, as well.
Taking the money we spend on each kid and giving the parents a choice of where to spend it is a much better idea.
I hate to continue a tired meme, but I fixed that for you.
The thing that I like about that proposal is that money is taken out of the parents' hands, and then set aside for the student, yet the parent also retains a level of control. Why can't we do that with health care? I believe that we should have the choice of whether we want to invest in health insurance, but I'm willing to compromise on that. If the government allowed me to purchase insurance from the company of my choice, then I bet that both sides would be happy.
Slashdot Mirror
I really think that whole fruit tends to have an appetite suppressant. Maybe it's just the way that I eat it. I eat the whole apple, except for the stem. I eat the entire orange/grapefruit/banana, except for the peel. I noticed that a coworker would eat 3 apples/day, but he would only eat around the outermost parts. He probably didn't even come close to the core. For him, eating an "entire" apple would be nothing, but he hardly got anything out of 1 apple.
I've never even heard of fruit lovers saying, "Just 1 more...okay, 1 more...okay, really, this is the last 1...I guess 1 more in moderation wouldn't hurt...etc.". That's something that junk food addicts say.
I've heard some bad stuff about high-fructose corn syrup. You seem to portray it as all natural, despite what you literally said. I find that a little disturbing. I can't argue the issue, because I've only heard about it through YouTube videos. So, you believe that they don't use chemicals to treat the syrup?
I don't think that parents have complete control, because I don't think that it's healthy to keep kids locked up to prevent them from seeing what's on their friends' TV sets. When I was young, we'd go over to our friends' homes and watch TV with them. Maybe they don't do that anymore. Also, there is media outside of TV, like billboards.
I take it that you work for the high fructose corn syrup industry, or the fast food industry?
Well, I'm not a professional researcher, but you've got to agree that fruit binging it's not talked about.
Are you talking about high fructose corn syrup?
Parents don't have complete control over the media that their children consume. It's impossible.
Hi.
Thanks for the condensed explanation. I looked it up, found the first page, and even went to it, but I didn't read it thoroughly, because I thought that it was just about hypertext as HTML. If I had just spent a few more moments, then I would have found all that I needed.
Take care.
Hi.
Thank you for sharing your information. I found it fascinating.
It was sad for me, in that I'll probably never use it, because I never program.
Why does she use the phrase "hypertext storytelling"? Hypertext is something that refers to HTML & HTTP. Is she trying to coin a new phrase?
Clearly, he is a credit to the species.
Not even 1 woman volunteered yet?? What's going on?
I've never heard of binge eating fruit, let alone fruit of only 1 kind [e.g. "I was so sad that I ate 30 granny smith apples, last night."]. I've never heard of overeating fruit, either. I have heard that apples cause cancer. That FUD came from the research, where the scientists concentrated 30 apples and injected some of the stuff into lab rats, or something like that. How dangerous is it to eat 10 apples/day? I ask, because that would be beyond the norm, and if it is safe, then we can rule out extreme cases of 10+ apples/day. This should also apply to other fruit and vegetables.
I'm not arguing that all fruit is automatically safe. I'm just saying that normal use, and slightly more, is safe. That isn't necessarily true with fast food. I think that "Supersize Me" proved it. It is possible to eat fruit, legumes, and vegetables, all day, every day, but not fast food.
I'm not calling for a ban on unhealthy food. I'm really calling to ban the companies' attempt at marketing towards kids. This undermines the parents' attempts to steer their kids in the right direction. Essentially, giving the kid a toy is a "positive" reinforcement for the unhealthy food.
You're not telling me that you'd approve of children's commercials for smoking, would you?
I don't think that fruit or vegetables cause those problems. They tend to have a natural appetite suppressant, and I believe that they tend to have nutrients that balance out the negative effects of other nutrients.
Were you thinking more in terms of meat and carbs?
The food isn't safe to eat, if it causes obesity or diabetes.
You're absolutely right. You're awesome.
Raising children is a community effort. The corporations can't act as if they don't share in the blame.
Interesting. I forgot about the ship travelling at warp, but I didn't think that interstellar distances were a problem. Maybe they needed to show the ship at warp speed, and then show them beaming on to the ship. Maybe they need to hype up the challenges a bit more.
Yes, I don't think that it's the actor's fault either. I should have mentioned it. I totally agreed with all that you said.
I think that if this were a different kind of movie, then the new Scotty could have worked.
I think that the former actors didn't have much to work with, because of the limited budgets. I also think that a lot of the success of the characters happened because of the former actors just selling it with all that they had. Maybe I'm out to lunch when I say this, but to just rewrite the Scotty character, but give many of the other characters similar characteristics, really discredits the work that James Doohan did.
For Uhura, she wasn't consistent with the former Uhura, but she was still a high status character.
As I write, I just thought of something. You said, "I get the possible need of water pipes in engineering". I argue that there was no need for Scotty to get trapped in the water. A running theme of Star Trek, is that no matter where you want to go, you never end up in rock or in a wall or floor. We could argue about how realistic it is, and I do acknowledge that transporters were new for the reboot's time period, but the audience has already bought into it's reliability, so to stick him in water just for humour might not be such a good idea.
Another thing about the old Scotty is that he was just a supporting character, and for the most part didn't need lines like, "I like this ship, it's exciting!".
Another thing that I found so odd was Chekov being able to ramble off a lot of scientific babble. I didn't think that he would know that. Those lines should have been given to Scotty.
I agree with you 100%. I thought that Spock, McCoy & Kirk were done just fine. I don't think that they were overdone at all.
Scotty seemed to be a bit of a stupid guy.
Your sig is very appropriate to your post.
You are correct. It was only meant to carry a typical US man and woman.
So, if I'm 130 lbs...
On a lighter note, it should be able carry a typical Canadian family of 3, though.
Is it true that your mosquitoes circle overhead for a while, and then try to peck your eyes out, before sucking blood?
UVR?? I've never heard of that. It's interesting that the suntan lotion companies always talk of UV, but not UVR. Coincidence? I think not!
I can't believe that you forgot to mention these.
dihydrousmonoxide
silicone dioxide
wind burn
I am just so surprised, because I met a UK gal who moaned about how she found it so difficult to use debit in Canada. I got the impression that using debit was easy in the UK.
I guess that it's all because culture and finances.
I don't understand what the problem is. I read your post. I did a search on the internet. Some people might not be able to get a free prepaid credit card. O2 customers can. That being said, there some very cheap cards, it seems.
Also, the debit card that I'm talking about is the card that you get when you open a bank savings account, or chequing account. I've heard about banks that charge people money to open it, and they offer the customers no interest, but I didn't think that the UK would be like that.
Are you telling me that you have to have a credit check before you open a regular banking account? In Canada, you could open an account, even if you have the worst credit history in the world, and can afford to deposit only 1 penny, and never got a job.
You know, I was thinking a very similar thing. At first, I thought that a tall building would be great, in general, because of the smaller footprint per square foot of floor space. Then I thought about what the building is about. Does the building help to create community or encourage foot traffic? I doubt it. So, I'm not excited about it.
Why can't you get a debit card? In Canada, you could get President's Choice bank card. I don't see the problem.
I didn't realize that people came here to avoid a waiting list. It should be interesting to compare amounts and what the waiting lists are for.
Yeah, I know that no system is perfect, but why bother with a system that doesn't work? You could have your government sponsored system, but it won't give you what you need, and/or it won't give you something else. Something has got to give.
With government sponsored anything, some get a little more, and the rest get a lot less.
People won't be satisfied with 1960 standards. They want 2012 standards, and they want it yesterday. ;^)
The problem with giving out free stuff to the underprivileged is that you can never fully know if each person "deserves" what he asks for, because there is not enough information, and too many requests. Why 1960s? Why not 1971? It could be only $.01 more for twice the value. I assume that you're just using a hypothetical example with 1960. I'm just using numbers, as well.
I hate to continue a tired meme, but I fixed that for you.
The thing that I like about that proposal is that money is taken out of the parents' hands, and then set aside for the student, yet the parent also retains a level of control. Why can't we do that with health care? I believe that we should have the choice of whether we want to invest in health insurance, but I'm willing to compromise on that. If the government allowed me to purchase insurance from the company of my choice, then I bet that both sides would be happy.