little to no carbonation typically, also healthier if you believe the studies
More calories typically in your stouts... also much more flavour though... a superior product in my opinion. Stouts and Porters make up 90% of the beer I drink but I don't drink much because of the calories. When it comes to beer quality is more important than quantity.
CO2 is used to stun animals before slaughter. It's more humane than just cutting straight to shooting a bolt into a cow's head to stun them.
But the reason for the cooking in the UK is more about their history and the expense involved in raising meat in the UK. They have some pretty strict feeding and medication regulations for slaughter animals. Where here in the USA, we administer antibiotics, growth hormones and have no issues with GMO corn, in the UK you cannot do any of that and sell the meat. So it's hard to import meat and feed and Britain isn't exactly a great place to raise cattle being cold and wet a lot of the time.
Britain has a perfectly acceptable climate for cattle. There is lots of pastoral land in Britain dedicated to dairy or beef herds. (More dairy than beef however).
"When set to mimic the actual fishing rate over the two decades spanning the dataset, the model outcomes were consistent with both the new and old fish data. When fishing mortality rates were increased in the model, larger fish moved progressively deeper.
I think this falls under confirming the obvious. Our fishing creates an evolutionary pressure. Fish that survive our hunting will tend to be the ones that prefer places where our nets don't reach as often. As long as we don't hunt them to the point where the population collapses it's perfectly obvious that we would see them evolve in response to our fishing tactics over time.
If this were primarily evolutionary driven, we would find more smaller ones in deep water too as the surviving big fish pass on the behavioral genes to go deep to their young.
I think this could be behavioral. Small fish need smaller foods than big fish. Smaller foods are nearer the surface because that's where the primary conversion of sunlight to growth is with micro-flora and the micro-fauna that feed on them.
This might be more complex than the knee-jerk "it must be humans" response. Of course, it could turn out to be that we just eat the big fish in the upper-levels, but it's not OBVIOUS until we test it and find out that this is true.
Even in a controlled environment like a fish tank, in lots of species, the younger fish hang out at the top of the water more than older fish. (now the reverse can be true in some species if the fry hide at the bottom instead- but most fry go to shallow or higher waters). No one is fishing fish out of my fishtanks.
In the ocean (or a pond, or a fishtank) small microscopic lifeforms are found in higher densities at the surface- because that is where the sunlight is. Whatever eats those lifeforms needs to be nearby... whatever eats those needs to be near them.
The larger you get, the more varied food you can eat- you don't necessarily have to stick with micro-fauna and micro-flora at the surface.
It may be that we eat the fish at the surface- and that's why no big ones there... or it could be because large fish simply don't NEED to be near the surface like small ones do.
This is probably a very smart move, unlike MoviePass. $20 a month is probably too much for average Joe who only sees two or three movies a year; but it might encourage somepeople to sign up thinking less than $6.50 a movie - sign me up... and the gym factor sets in. It's cheap enough people don't cancel- but people stop going anyway... free money for theatres- those not going subsidize those that do.
This would have been great when I was a young, single and dating. I would buy two of these passes and hold onto both. This would have been a cheap way to date. Cinemas are an expensive way to date right now. If you go a month without a girlfriend... well, now you see 6 movies that month. Or treat one of your friends.
Movie Pass isn't a threat for AMC- they get paid regardless... but this is a smart move by AMC.
I have never owned an iPod. I listen to the BBC podcasts and several others. Cheaper than subscribing to Sirius for the BBC world service. And doesn't use up my data like streaming would.
I can use it in the subway because it doesn't care I don't have 4G or wifi down there. I can use it out in the country in an area with no 4G coverage. I have never owned an iPod or any other apple device; I use podcasts daily.
Not because I don't think Google can make a better product technologically - but because I don't want the software to suddenly change its policies and randomly do something I don't want because it has a chance of making Google some money.
I don't want to be listening to a carefully researched discussion touching on the tragedies of Nazi Germany, the suddenly have the next MP3 be Glenn Beck by association - then have all my adverts everywhere suddenly be pro-Trump propaganda.
Google is legitimately good for searching for things (Google scholar is great!), but living in a nation with 40+% Trump supporters has completely messed up the associations and logic behind targeted advertising - it's kind of made it poisonous along with the nation at large.
Ryan Fenton
I followed a link to some silly UFO news article once. For months thereafter Google Now kept sending me every ridiculous UFO alien conspiracy theory on the web.
I used to fully embrace all things Google, but that has all changed for myself. Podcasting is great, but you should probably try and avoid using Google's junk to produce them. Who knows what's baked into Google's podcasting app?
I'm the same way. I used to be a google fanboy; everything they did seemed to be good quality. I think I started to come around when Google+ came out. Some things you can't help but sell your soul to the alphabet devil for; for everything else... well when I can, I avoid them.
Radio is so early 20th century, how is it still a thing? jesus. Cars are so late 19th century, how are they still a thing? mohammed. The US is so 18th century, how is it still a thing? budda. Bread is so 4000 years ago, how is it still a thing? bael.
God is fairly new, he is predated by countless other divine creators. The reason God doesn't perform miracles anymore is that he was sued by Nammu. Nammu claimed prior art at having created the earth and sent God a cease and desist letter.
I remember hearing this a lot from my TV over the past few years: "WE DON'T MAKE A LOT OF THE PRODUCTS YOU BUY. WE MAKE A LOT OF THE PRODUCTS YOU BUY BETTER." That was the BASF slogan for a lot of years. It certainly takes on new meaning with this article.
BASF, we don't make the whales in the sea; we just watch them screw each other.
This may have been asked before, but isn't this a form of an illegal wiretap? I do not think an EULA would cover domestic or international spying by a corporation even with support of police.
Huge privacy violation if nothing else. With the EU's strict privacy laws, if listening in on your users randomly is not illegal, it sure ought to be. I hope La Liga gets punished where it hurts, with massive fines.
This really isn't OK. I don't like apps like Facebook, but what La Liga is doing listening in on a microphone to me is a way worse violation of privacy. I hope La Liga gets kicked in the nuts over this, make an example of them.
Nothing is really an absolute position, regardless of party. But, in a nut-shell, Libertarians believe in less government. That equates to things like:
In my younger days I WAS a libertarian. Growing up I've abandoned that- I think it sounds better in theory then it is in practice, so yes, I know the basics of Libertarianism. (I still believe in completely free movement of goods AND people, for example - but I think it has to work in all directions to work; until other countries open their borders it won't work for us to do so alone).
As a heads up, I now live in bible belt South Carolina so my experiences may not be the same as most places. Most people who self-identify here as libertarians are FAR from libertarian. Here most libertarians I meet are "pro closing the borders, pro making abortion illegal, pro various morality laws, pro Trump's tariffs, pro a large military etc. They essentially follow the Republican party line but for whatever reason don't like the Republican party. The ones around here are NOT libertarian; I always groan when I hear someone say they're libertarian around here. Usually most people in the South seem to think libertarian means "uber-conservative". Some around here are just Republicans that like drugs- or they're big into guns. Because they like drugs and guns they think they're libertarians. One tries to tell them that's not what it is all about... they don't listen.
Most libertarians in the South are just uneducated and think they belong to a movement about which they don't know the core concepts.
Or, someone could just poke a finger up your butt. Either way works.
My doctor seems over eager to stick his finger in my bum. Two years ago he said "OK, I need you to bend over the bed"- when I looked at him funny he said "Oh, you're not 40 yet- you don't need the prostate test yet." This year in a cheerful tone he told me, "and next year you get a prostate exam".
I'm not opposed to correct medical procedures taking place. I am a bit disturbed at how enthusiastic my doctor appears to be.
Who is the "they" you speak of? I can think offhand of anybody who says "accept all the immigrants who show up."
This is technically the libertarian position, true (libertarians consider borders to be government red tape restricting people's natural freedom to go wherever they want), but most libertarians are smart enough to mostly work on less hot-button issues, like freedom of guns and drugs, instead of freedom of borders.)
I've also noticed that most libertarians aren't really libertarians. Most people I've met who self-describe as Libertarian tend to be Republicans who are pissed off at the Republican party and call themselves libertarian as a protest. When I ask them do you believe "x, y, and z" (insert libertarian positions) the answer is always, "well no... but I think we need less government". Libertarian is not republicanism minus racism and Libertarians are not just republicans that smoke pot. That's not what libertarian means.
Slashdot Mirror
little to no carbonation typically, also healthier if you believe the studies
More calories typically in your stouts... also much more flavour though... a superior product in my opinion. Stouts and Porters make up 90% of the beer I drink but I don't drink much because of the calories. When it comes to beer quality is more important than quantity.
CO2 is used to stun animals before slaughter. It's more humane than just cutting straight to shooting a bolt into a cow's head to stun them.
But the reason for the cooking in the UK is more about their history and the expense involved in raising meat in the UK. They have some pretty strict feeding and medication regulations for slaughter animals. Where here in the USA, we administer antibiotics, growth hormones and have no issues with GMO corn, in the UK you cannot do any of that and sell the meat. So it's hard to import meat and feed and Britain isn't exactly a great place to raise cattle being cold and wet a lot of the time.
Britain has a perfectly acceptable climate for cattle. There is lots of pastoral land in Britain dedicated to dairy or beef herds. (More dairy than beef however).
"When set to mimic the actual fishing rate over the two decades spanning the dataset, the model outcomes were consistent with both the new and old fish data. When fishing mortality rates were increased in the model, larger fish moved progressively deeper.
I think this falls under confirming the obvious. Our fishing creates an evolutionary pressure. Fish that survive our hunting will tend to be the ones that prefer places where our nets don't reach as often. As long as we don't hunt them to the point where the population collapses it's perfectly obvious that we would see them evolve in response to our fishing tactics over time.
If this were primarily evolutionary driven, we would find more smaller ones in deep water too as the surviving big fish pass on the behavioral genes to go deep to their young.
I think this could be behavioral. Small fish need smaller foods than big fish. Smaller foods are nearer the surface because that's where the primary conversion of sunlight to growth is with micro-flora and the micro-fauna that feed on them.
This might be more complex than the knee-jerk "it must be humans" response. Of course, it could turn out to be that we just eat the big fish in the upper-levels, but it's not OBVIOUS until we test it and find out that this is true.
Even in a controlled environment like a fish tank, in lots of species, the younger fish hang out at the top of the water more than older fish. (now the reverse can be true in some species if the fry hide at the bottom instead- but most fry go to shallow or higher waters). No one is fishing fish out of my fishtanks.
In the ocean (or a pond, or a fishtank) small microscopic lifeforms are found in higher densities at the surface- because that is where the sunlight is. Whatever eats those lifeforms needs to be nearby... whatever eats those needs to be near them.
The larger you get, the more varied food you can eat- you don't necessarily have to stick with micro-fauna and micro-flora at the surface.
It may be that we eat the fish at the surface- and that's why no big ones there... or it could be because large fish simply don't NEED to be near the surface like small ones do.
Everyone knows that Eels prefer Crystal Meth to Cocaine.
GMC... all you can drive. Pick any truck off any GMC lot- and drive it as much as you want for a month. $400 a month. Subscription pick-ups.
Also, AMC isn't nearly bankrupt, unlike moviepass
This is probably a very smart move, unlike MoviePass. $20 a month is probably too much for average Joe who only sees two or three movies a year; but it might encourage somepeople to sign up thinking less than $6.50 a movie - sign me up... and the gym factor sets in. It's cheap enough people don't cancel- but people stop going anyway... free money for theatres- those not going subsidize those that do.
This would have been great when I was a young, single and dating. I would buy two of these passes and hold onto both. This would have been a cheap way to date. Cinemas are an expensive way to date right now. If you go a month without a girlfriend... well, now you see 6 movies that month. Or treat one of your friends.
Movie Pass isn't a threat for AMC- they get paid regardless... but this is a smart move by AMC.
Among all the two people who still own IPods.
I have never owned an iPod. I listen to the BBC podcasts and several others. Cheaper than subscribing to Sirius for the BBC world service. And doesn't use up my data like streaming would.
I can use it in the subway because it doesn't care I don't have 4G or wifi down there. I can use it out in the country in an area with no 4G coverage. I have never owned an iPod or any other apple device; I use podcasts daily.
I'll stick with PocketCasts.
Not because I don't think Google can make a better product technologically - but because I don't want the software to suddenly change its policies and randomly do something I don't want because it has a chance of making Google some money.
I don't want to be listening to a carefully researched discussion touching on the tragedies of Nazi Germany, the suddenly have the next MP3 be Glenn Beck by association - then have all my adverts everywhere suddenly be pro-Trump propaganda.
Google is legitimately good for searching for things (Google scholar is great!), but living in a nation with 40+% Trump supporters has completely messed up the associations and logic behind targeted advertising - it's kind of made it poisonous along with the nation at large.
Ryan Fenton
I followed a link to some silly UFO news article once. For months thereafter Google Now kept sending me every ridiculous UFO alien conspiracy theory on the web.
I used to fully embrace all things Google, but that has all changed for myself. Podcasting is great, but you should probably try and avoid using Google's junk to produce them. Who knows what's baked into Google's podcasting app?
I'm the same way. I used to be a google fanboy; everything they did seemed to be good quality. I think I started to come around when Google+ came out. Some things you can't help but sell your soul to the alphabet devil for; for everything else... well when I can, I avoid them.
its 2018. podcasting is so 90s. jesus.
Radio is so early 20th century, how is it still a thing? jesus.
Cars are so late 19th century, how are they still a thing? mohammed.
The US is so 18th century, how is it still a thing? budda.
Bread is so 4000 years ago, how is it still a thing? bael.
You can develop black and white film by streetlight
Please don't. Chemicals for developing black and white photos have been proven to cause cancer in bats in the State of California.
Yes, this is the vampire haven we've all been craving...
Holland, red lights... I'm not 100% sure the sucking is coming from Vampires. Vampires don't usually ask for a few euros first.
Yes, as it turns out MsMash is really Satoshi Nakamoto.
Is this where God sues on the basis of prior art?
God is fairly new, he is predated by countless other divine creators. The reason God doesn't perform miracles anymore is that he was sued by Nammu. Nammu claimed prior art at having created the earth and sent God a cease and desist letter.
I remember hearing this a lot from my TV over the past few years: "WE DON'T MAKE A LOT OF THE PRODUCTS YOU BUY. WE MAKE A LOT OF THE PRODUCTS YOU BUY BETTER." That was the BASF slogan for a lot of years. It certainly takes on new meaning with this article.
BASF, we don't make the whales in the sea; we just watch them screw each other.
BASF, we love to make you smile. BASF, just do it.
Some things shouldn't be patented. We nearly lost WW1 due to airplane patents.
We should have placed a patent on Nuclear Weapons. That would have prevented Kim getting them.
I must say, in this instance. The US got it right and the Germans got it wrong.
I can see patenting a gene they created, or patenting a non obvious use for that gene (putting whale DNA into a cat to create a cat with a blowhole).
To patent a gene in nature seems a ridiculous concept to me.
This may have been asked before, but isn't this a form of an illegal wiretap? I do not think an EULA would cover domestic or international spying by a corporation even with support of police.
Huge privacy violation if nothing else. With the EU's strict privacy laws, if listening in on your users randomly is not illegal, it sure ought to be. I hope La Liga gets punished where it hurts, with massive fines.
This really isn't OK. I don't like apps like Facebook, but what La Liga is doing listening in on a microphone to me is a way worse violation of privacy. I hope La Liga gets kicked in the nuts over this, make an example of them.
>"That's not what libertarian means."
Nothing is really an absolute position, regardless of party. But, in a nut-shell, Libertarians believe in less government. That equates to things like:
In my younger days I WAS a libertarian. Growing up I've abandoned that- I think it sounds better in theory then it is in practice, so yes, I know the basics of Libertarianism. (I still believe in completely free movement of goods AND people, for example - but I think it has to work in all directions to work; until other countries open their borders it won't work for us to do so alone).
As a heads up, I now live in bible belt South Carolina so my experiences may not be the same as most places. Most people who self-identify here as libertarians are FAR from libertarian. Here most libertarians I meet are "pro closing the borders, pro making abortion illegal, pro various morality laws, pro Trump's tariffs, pro a large military etc. They essentially follow the Republican party line but for whatever reason don't like the Republican party. The ones around here are NOT libertarian; I always groan when I hear someone say they're libertarian around here. Usually most people in the South seem to think libertarian means "uber-conservative". Some around here are just Republicans that like drugs- or they're big into guns. Because they like drugs and guns they think they're libertarians. One tries to tell them that's not what it is all about... they don't listen.
Most libertarians in the South are just uneducated and think they belong to a movement about which they don't know the core concepts.
Or, someone could just poke a finger up your butt. Either way works.
My doctor seems over eager to stick his finger in my bum. Two years ago he said "OK, I need you to bend over the bed"- when I looked at him funny he said "Oh, you're not 40 yet- you don't need the prostate test yet." This year in a cheerful tone he told me, "and next year you get a prostate exam".
I'm not opposed to correct medical procedures taking place. I am a bit disturbed at how enthusiastic my doctor appears to be.
Who is the "they" you speak of? I can think offhand of anybody who says "accept all the immigrants who show up."
This is technically the libertarian position, true (libertarians consider borders to be government red tape restricting people's natural freedom to go wherever they want), but most libertarians are smart enough to mostly work on less hot-button issues, like freedom of guns and drugs, instead of freedom of borders.)
I've also noticed that most libertarians aren't really libertarians. Most people I've met who self-describe as Libertarian tend to be Republicans who are pissed off at the Republican party and call themselves libertarian as a protest. When I ask them do you believe "x, y, and z" (insert libertarian positions) the answer is always, "well no... but I think we need less government". Libertarian is not republicanism minus racism and Libertarians are not just republicans that smoke pot. That's not what libertarian means.
Why! Dear God! Why!
I don't know why they're being blamed... but I fully endorse the blame Facebook train!
Nuthin'.
They moved all the incriminating evidence to Area 52.