the communities that have the longest living populations (such as various Mediterranean regions
Meat has always been popular around the Mediterranean. Beef, lamb, goat, and plenty of seafood. For some reason (I blame Ancel Keys, who visited the area during Lent), people have popularized the idea that the Mediterranean diet was low in meat. That's just wrong.
And not all Mediterranean communities have especially long lives; but the ones that do have lower meat intake. (they eat some, mainly seafood when they do). Same with Okinawa in Japan which is also home to the oldest living people, It's common with every one of the communities on earth with large numbers of people reaching 100. They all eat very little meat. (although they also all eat at least some meat).
There are plenty of stories in the news of kids from vegan parents suffering from malnutrition, even death. And some of the deficiencies could be very subtle, and develop over many years.
Poor nutrition is already costing us billions in healthcare. Just the cost of diabetes is over $250 billion per year, most of which could be avoided by better food.
I agree we have the capability to come up with a fake meat product that is just as nutritionally good as real meat, but there is no incentive for the producer to do so, except when ordered by law. And the law is dictated by corporate lobbyists, so there's not much hope. We're still dealing with trans fats, for instance, even though we know they are bad for us.
It's hard to NOT get the nutrients you need from a plant based diet. You'd have to eat the same unbalanced meal over and over again. I'm sure there are way more cases of kids suffering from malnutrition from their parents feeding them hamburger and fries, or chicken nuggets for every meal.
There is nothing in meat that you can't easily get from plants. You don't even have to TRY that hard as long as you eat a varied diet. The real problem caused by malnutrition is almost certainly not eating a varied diet rather than eating a vegetarian diet. It's probably easier to suffer malnutrition from eating too much meat rather than not eating any meat. (that probably wouldn't be newsworthy though). The average health of the population would probably be higher if we had more vegetarians. (Disclaimer: I eat meat and love it).
Whether you eat meat or not, if you eat the same thing every day you're not going to have the best of health.
On the other hand, we have people who are currently subjecting themselves to be lab rats, testing whether we can survive without meat.
Hardly lab rats. A sizable percent of India (the world's most populous country) have been eating a vegetarian diet for centuries. The longest lived communities in the world all share a common trait: very little meat consumption.
It's not an experiment. You can survive without eating meat, and you will probably live longer if you don't eat much of it. It's not that we can't live without meat, it's that meat is tasty and we enjoy eating it.
I know less meat and more veggies is healthy for me, but I'm not giving up meat because I love meat.
Humans are designed to eat meat. We require large amounts of unique amino acids that are virtually impossible to get from plants. Why cater to those idiots?
Actually it's very easy to get amino acids from plants. Any one grain + any one legume = the complete complement of amino acids.
As for humans being designed to eat meat- the communities that have the longest living populations (such as various Mediterranean regions, and parts of Japan) have always eaten very little meat., and usually just fish when they do have meat.
I eat meat, I like meat. I'm not coming at this as a vegetarian, just pointing out that you're incorrect. We don't require huge amounts of meat. We can get amino acids very easily from plants. Vegetarians most certainly are not idiots- they just have a different lifestyle to you and I. (and they'll probably live longer as a result of it)
In the Animatrix, the machines have more than two eyes.
I don't know why people in A.I./etc are so obsessed with doing everything with a single camera. Those things are cheap these days.
Two cameras would probably be smart. Nature evolved to have multiple eyes for a reason (plus it introduces a fail-safe).
With that said. It's probably NOT the cameras that are expensive, but writing code to interpret data from two different cameras and merge it into an interpreted 3D image that is expensive.
I guess in summary what I'm saying is that Trump didn't get elected because he was religious. He got elected because he snuck through the nomination process, which is where he normally would have been filtered out.
The point is, he pretended well enough that people were willing to vote for him. He said he went to church, he said things like "God bless America", and so on. If he had regularly said things like "I don't believe in God", the election probably would have gone very differently.
Quite possibly, although I don't think anyone was really convinced. This was a fairly unusual election though. Both main parties fielded unusually weak candidates that did not get the true backing of their party. Clinton's nomination was down mainly to the presence of super delegates and probably would have lost in a fair fight against Sanders. Trump's approval rating with republicans was in the 30% or lower range for most of the nomination process, he only got nominated because he ran a populist campaign against a crowded field of conservatives who took votes from each other in the nomination process. Trump probably would not have got nominated (in part because of his lack of faith) in a one on one fight against Rubio, Cruz, or Bush.
Once the nominations were in. No republican was going to let Hillary win just because Trump wasn't religious. Republicans were energized because of 8 years of Obama. Democrats were complacent because no-one really liked Hillary and thought she was a shoe-in anyway. The rest is history.
As anonymous coward pointed out above, Trump isn't religious and got the top job.
I remember seeing research a while back that listed different groups and how many people would consider voting for them. The lowest group of all was "atheist". Below "poor", below "black", below "muslim", below "ex-convict".
The average American is less likely to vote for an atheist than any other demographic. I suspect that is because many Americans have the stereotype of the atheist like one of those Dawkins disciples who go around wearing all black with pierced faces and telling religious people how evil and wrong they are for believing in religion and being awful prats in general.
Most Atheists and Agnostics aren't like that. We keep our thoughts to ourselves unless specifically asked, and respect other people's opinions. We're not the loud-mouthed Dawkins and Fry type who hate religious people that the media portrays us as.
I'm not a religious man (I'm not a religious woman either); however, I've got to say, nothing in any religious text I've ever read suggested that God couldn't have created other worlds and other sapient beings.
If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, why wouldn't he create other intelligent beings to entertain himself? It would explain why earth ISN'T the centre of everything, because we're not even his only project... heck, we might not even be his main project.
NASA isn't hiding any aliens from us. Discovering alien life would be the best thing that could happen for NASA. Nothing would boost their budget more, or get the public supporting them more.
The last thing NASA would possibly want to do is hide the existence of ETs from us.
I don't care how good the pussy is, it ain't worth ditching friends I"ve known for a large part of my life, and trust with my life.
Most of my close friendships prior to marriage were with women/girls. From about High School onwards, I've just preferred the company of women, even ones I wasn't interested in bonking. All those friendships sort of dried up after marriage. Some immediately, some just over time. Not the wife's fault, she understood it was platonic friendships (her sister was my best friend when I first met my future wife- her sister semi-set us up). My female friends, I guess, all felt uncomfortable hanging around a married man. All my closest friends drifted away over time.
In my case it was worth it. What I have with the Mrs. is way better than anything I ever had with friends.
To be 100% fair, many concerts are just the artists lip-synching their own stuff most of the time. The atmosphere comes from other people in the audience. That atmosphere doesn't carry over on a CD though- fans cheering on CD is about as welcome as a laugh track on a sitcom.
The US hasn't shot down any Russian planes. The US shot down a Syrian plane. Perhaps you are confusing the situation with when Turkey shot down a Russian plane last year. Nothing really came of that besides some dick wagging.
North Korea has been like that for decades. North Korea lacks the ability to cause the end of man kind. They could certainly kill a lot of South Koreans and cause a lot of destruction there and hurt the economy world wide- but they're not going to end mankind.
While it is likely bad for the long term effects of the environment, we are not running out of space. The best scientific minds 130 years ago thought today's population was impossible, and they were right (using 1890s tech). More people means more geniuses who can solve problems. We will likely achieve fusion within 50 years, and have cheap automation driven by weak AI. In the long term nothing is stopping artificial farms from reaching a half mile depth around the globe, we stack nearly 30k people per square mile in cities already and just the land mass of earth has roughly 200 million sq miles. That's 6 trillion people considering we can up the current city density through nearly unlimited energy and cheap power. Further we could start using the oceans too, floating cities are already being planned. While I am in favor of expanding humanity, we need to realize that there is plenty of room right now if we take into account increases in technology. Within 500 years we may see the planet support over one trillion people, it seems likely to me at least.
I wouldn't want to live on this planet with 999,999,999,999 other people.
Hawkings is obviously a very intelligent man who has made some very important contributions.
He's also right, we should be trying to establish outposts outside of earth; but his claiming we have 100 years left is alarmist and unscientific.
We don't know when the earth might collide with a giant asteroid or if nuclear war might erupt and wipeout mankind. We certainly couldn't say it will happen within 100 years with any scientific certainty.
Even with the worst case global warming, the earth will still be more hospitable than any body in the universe outside of earth.
Yes, we should be trying hard to find alternative places to settle, but let's not go nutso and alarmist about this and make claims that no one can accurately back up.
Slashdot Mirror
So the Russians did it?
They would be the logical assumption. No one gains more by destabalising Ukraine.
Finally, we may be seeing the year of the Linux Desktop... ...Malware.
the communities that have the longest living populations (such as various Mediterranean regions
Meat has always been popular around the Mediterranean. Beef, lamb, goat, and plenty of seafood. For some reason (I blame Ancel Keys, who visited the area during Lent), people have popularized the idea that the Mediterranean diet was low in meat. That's just wrong.
And not all Mediterranean communities have especially long lives; but the ones that do have lower meat intake. (they eat some, mainly seafood when they do). Same with Okinawa in Japan which is also home to the oldest living people, It's common with every one of the communities on earth with large numbers of people reaching 100. They all eat very little meat. (although they also all eat at least some meat).
There are plenty of stories in the news of kids from vegan parents suffering from malnutrition, even death. And some of the deficiencies could be very subtle, and develop over many years.
Poor nutrition is already costing us billions in healthcare. Just the cost of diabetes is over $250 billion per year, most of which could be avoided by better food.
I agree we have the capability to come up with a fake meat product that is just as nutritionally good as real meat, but there is no incentive for the producer to do so, except when ordered by law. And the law is dictated by corporate lobbyists, so there's not much hope. We're still dealing with trans fats, for instance, even though we know they are bad for us.
It's hard to NOT get the nutrients you need from a plant based diet. You'd have to eat the same unbalanced meal over and over again. I'm sure there are way more cases of kids suffering from malnutrition from their parents feeding them hamburger and fries, or chicken nuggets for every meal.
There is nothing in meat that you can't easily get from plants. You don't even have to TRY that hard as long as you eat a varied diet. The real problem caused by malnutrition is almost certainly not eating a varied diet rather than eating a vegetarian diet. It's probably easier to suffer malnutrition from eating too much meat rather than not eating any meat. (that probably wouldn't be newsworthy though). The average health of the population would probably be higher if we had more vegetarians. (Disclaimer: I eat meat and love it).
Whether you eat meat or not, if you eat the same thing every day you're not going to have the best of health.
On the other hand, we have people who are currently subjecting themselves to be lab rats, testing whether we can survive without meat.
Hardly lab rats. A sizable percent of India (the world's most populous country) have been eating a vegetarian diet for centuries. The longest lived communities in the world all share a common trait: very little meat consumption.
It's not an experiment. You can survive without eating meat, and you will probably live longer if you don't eat much of it. It's not that we can't live without meat, it's that meat is tasty and we enjoy eating it.
I know less meat and more veggies is healthy for me, but I'm not giving up meat because I love meat.
Humans are designed to eat meat. We require large amounts of unique amino acids that are virtually impossible to get from plants. Why cater to those idiots?
Actually it's very easy to get amino acids from plants. Any one grain + any one legume = the complete complement of amino acids.
As for humans being designed to eat meat- the communities that have the longest living populations (such as various Mediterranean regions, and parts of Japan) have always eaten very little meat., and usually just fish when they do have meat.
I eat meat, I like meat. I'm not coming at this as a vegetarian, just pointing out that you're incorrect. We don't require huge amounts of meat. We can get amino acids very easily from plants. Vegetarians most certainly are not idiots- they just have a different lifestyle to you and I. (and they'll probably live longer as a result of it)
In the Animatrix, the machines have more than two eyes.
I don't know why people in A.I./etc are so obsessed with doing everything with a single camera. Those things are cheap these days.
Two cameras would probably be smart. Nature evolved to have multiple eyes for a reason (plus it introduces a fail-safe).
With that said. It's probably NOT the cameras that are expensive, but writing code to interpret data from two different cameras and merge it into an interpreted 3D image that is expensive.
I guess in summary what I'm saying is that Trump didn't get elected because he was religious. He got elected because he snuck through the nomination process, which is where he normally would have been filtered out.
The point is, he pretended well enough that people were willing to vote for him. He said he went to church, he said things like "God bless America", and so on. If he had regularly said things like "I don't believe in God", the election probably would have gone very differently.
Quite possibly, although I don't think anyone was really convinced. This was a fairly unusual election though. Both main parties fielded unusually weak candidates that did not get the true backing of their party. Clinton's nomination was down mainly to the presence of super delegates and probably would have lost in a fair fight against Sanders. Trump's approval rating with republicans was in the 30% or lower range for most of the nomination process, he only got nominated because he ran a populist campaign against a crowded field of conservatives who took votes from each other in the nomination process. Trump probably would not have got nominated (in part because of his lack of faith) in a one on one fight against Rubio, Cruz, or Bush.
Once the nominations were in. No republican was going to let Hillary win just because Trump wasn't religious. Republicans were energized because of 8 years of Obama. Democrats were complacent because no-one really liked Hillary and thought she was a shoe-in anyway. The rest is history.
As anonymous coward pointed out above, Trump isn't religious and got the top job.
I remember seeing research a while back that listed different groups and how many people would consider voting for them. The lowest group of all was "atheist". Below "poor", below "black", below "muslim", below "ex-convict".
The average American is less likely to vote for an atheist than any other demographic. I suspect that is because many Americans have the stereotype of the atheist like one of those Dawkins disciples who go around wearing all black with pierced faces and telling religious people how evil and wrong they are for believing in religion and being awful prats in general.
Most Atheists and Agnostics aren't like that. We keep our thoughts to ourselves unless specifically asked, and respect other people's opinions. We're not the loud-mouthed Dawkins and Fry type who hate religious people that the media portrays us as.
Scientists: We found aliens.
Religion: God has been busy!
I'm not a religious man (I'm not a religious woman either); however, I've got to say, nothing in any religious text I've ever read suggested that God couldn't have created other worlds and other sapient beings.
If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, why wouldn't he create other intelligent beings to entertain himself? It would explain why earth ISN'T the centre of everything, because we're not even his only project... heck, we might not even be his main project.
NASA isn't hiding any aliens from us. Discovering alien life would be the best thing that could happen for NASA. Nothing would boost their budget more, or get the public supporting them more.
The last thing NASA would possibly want to do is hide the existence of ETs from us.
Those kids are pigeons. Your eyesight is deteriorating.
I don't care how good the pussy is, it ain't worth ditching friends I"ve known for a large part of my life, and trust with my life.
Most of my close friendships prior to marriage were with women/girls. From about High School onwards, I've just preferred the company of women, even ones I wasn't interested in bonking. All those friendships sort of dried up after marriage. Some immediately, some just over time. Not the wife's fault, she understood it was platonic friendships (her sister was my best friend when I first met my future wife- her sister semi-set us up). My female friends, I guess, all felt uncomfortable hanging around a married man. All my closest friends drifted away over time.
In my case it was worth it. What I have with the Mrs. is way better than anything I ever had with friends.
My best friend died last night, so I had to reload a saved game from earlier in the day.
Hello "friends"!
Hello my closest, most dearest friend.
11-12 friends isn't unusual. 11-12 CLOSE friends is. How do you find time to spend time with that many people multiple times a week?
To be 100% fair, many concerts are just the artists lip-synching their own stuff most of the time. The atmosphere comes from other people in the audience. That atmosphere doesn't carry over on a CD though- fans cheering on CD is about as welcome as a laugh track on a sitcom.
The US hasn't shot down any Russian planes. The US shot down a Syrian plane. Perhaps you are confusing the situation with when Turkey shot down a Russian plane last year. Nothing really came of that besides some dick wagging.
North Korea has been like that for decades. North Korea lacks the ability to cause the end of man kind. They could certainly kill a lot of South Koreans and cause a lot of destruction there and hurt the economy world wide- but they're not going to end mankind.
I have good genes and take my fish oil... I hope I can live a few more millennia if I remember to do my pushups.
Won't the Rapture take care of the "too crowded" problem?
If the rapture is real. The vast majority of people will stay behind. A tiny % of people ascending to heaven won't save us from overpopulation.
While it is likely bad for the long term effects of the environment, we are not running out of space. The best scientific minds 130 years ago thought today's population was impossible, and they were right (using 1890s tech). More people means more geniuses who can solve problems. We will likely achieve fusion within 50 years, and have cheap automation driven by weak AI. In the long term nothing is stopping artificial farms from reaching a half mile depth around the globe, we stack nearly 30k people per square mile in cities already and just the land mass of earth has roughly 200 million sq miles. That's 6 trillion people considering we can up the current city density through nearly unlimited energy and cheap power. Further we could start using the oceans too, floating cities are already being planned. While I am in favor of expanding humanity, we need to realize that there is plenty of room right now if we take into account increases in technology. Within 500 years we may see the planet support over one trillion people, it seems likely to me at least.
I wouldn't want to live on this planet with 999,999,999,999 other people.
Hawkings is obviously a very intelligent man who has made some very important contributions.
He's also right, we should be trying to establish outposts outside of earth; but his claiming we have 100 years left is alarmist and unscientific.
We don't know when the earth might collide with a giant asteroid or if nuclear war might erupt and wipeout mankind. We certainly couldn't say it will happen within 100 years with any scientific certainty.
Even with the worst case global warming, the earth will still be more hospitable than any body in the universe outside of earth.
Yes, we should be trying hard to find alternative places to settle, but let's not go nutso and alarmist about this and make claims that no one can accurately back up.
The word asshat is an americanism, and it is a fabulous use of language.
Indeed it is. One I quickly adopted because of it's sophistication and timbre.
Everyone knows Nat King Cole is the REAL "Cole King".
Robert E. Murray is just an asshat pretender.