I suspect part of the aminoacids of the protein in food are chemically changed by the industrial processing to unnatural toxic aminoacids.
"Industrial processing" is "cooking in large batches". The activities are not sufficiently different than cooking in smaller batches to radically alter the chemistry of the resulting food.
If "industrial processing" actually produced chemotherapy drugs in the food, there'd be a lot more problems than dying after decades of consuming it.
suspect the body could use the unnatural aminoacids to build proteins.
Nope. In fact, that is the mechanism by which these drugs act - by interfering with protein synthesis.
Since your body is made from what you eat, if you don't eat enough omega 3, your body has to use the other oils and it doesn't work as well
This is not how digestion and biosynthesis works.
he book claims that while our bodies can't make omega 3, our bodies can convert it from one form to another; so it would suffice to eat only fish oil or only flax oil or whatever and trust the body to convert DHA to GLA or whatever.
Unfortunately for the book's claim, this was studied by giving people omega 3 fatty acids, and not giving them to the control group. It did not have the effect claimed in the book.
Um.....photosynthesis does not select between different isotopes of hydrogen or any other atom involved in the process.
This was rather handy when we figured out whether the oxygen released from plants comes from the water or CO2. (The released oxygen comes from the water, the O fixed into sugars comes from the CO2).
I thought recent advances have pointed to the importance of gut bacteria which isn't/wasn't well understood.
If you ever find a study/article/claim that there is one cause of any particular disease involving nutrition, you can almost always disregard their study/article/claim.
Shit's complicated. There are a giant number of interacting causes.
The burden of proof is for you to prove that Listeria exists.
The symptoms described as "Listeria" are caused by a bacteria called Listeria monocytogenes. We can see it in microscopes....that is being used to examine milk....that made people sick....and the stuff coming out of those sick people has a lot of that bacteria, while normal people do not.
I don't have to prove a negative.
You made a positive claim: that there is a conspiracy against raw milk. So, time to show your evidence.
In the 00's, the same thing was repeated with corn syrup. Monsanto released their roundup product which was used on corn for ethanol production, companies moved to corn syrup from sugar because it was less expensive
Unfortunately for your story, your timeline is off by several decades.
Companies moved to HFCS en-mass (in the US) in the 1970s because corn subsidies made it much cheaper than sugar.
The argument the airline would make is the passenger defrauded them, and that without that fraud they would have received the additional money for the N-1 route.
Suppose I buy a gallon of milk
Suppose your purchase contract includes a clause that you will use all of that gallon of milk. You know you will violate this part of the contract before you sign it. You sign it anyway. The damages are the difference in price between the gallon contract you signed and the 3 quart contract you avoided, minus any savings the dairy got by selling it as a gallon.
She isn't. She's listing several issues. After all, you didn't think she conflated cybersecurity, privacy and net neutrality because you understood it to be a list....until you needed to come up with something to call her a dumb woman.
If that was actually a problem, you need Net Neutrality to solve it. Because Net Neutrality means the new competitors with fairer (to you) enforcement practices can appear and grow.
Not having Net Neutrality means all those sites you hate for banning you can stop those competitors from getting decent service, and thus those competitors never take off.
Can you really claim to be on the internet when constitutionally protected speech can and will get you banned from facebook, twitter, youtube, itunes, paypal, uber, lyft, airbnb, netflix, patreon, all of the app stores, etc?
Yes.
It turns out, the government not throwing you in prison for your speech (aka "Constitutionally protected") does not mean private companies are required to contract with you.
If you want to stop deplatforming, you want the government to run those sites. Then "Constitutionally Protected" would actually be relevant.
You can't buy an annuity that pays the same as the lottery's annuity. However, you can buy an annuity that gives you a safe backstop, and then invest the rest with the knowledge that "at least I'll guaranteed ___ per year".
As for taxes, (and assuming US), you're already at the top bracket with the lottery-annuity, and presumably in the top bracket from your investments and not-lottery-annuity if you take lump sum - it's not like you don't pay taxes in the next year if you got the lump sum, since your investments will earn something.
And that's assuming you put it all on your personal 1040 in the lump-sum version. It's way easier to wrap those investments in some sort of tax avoidance if you have the lump sum to start with. For example, it's a lot easier to buy things that will eventually become capital gains with the larger pool of money.
That being said, most lottery winners do blow it all very quickly.
They ended up getting slightly less employment than control group.
No, the control group got jobs at a slightly lower rate. But the difference was not statistically significant, so you need to treat it as the same rate. The difference is probably caused by random factors (Such as train runs late, one guy misses interview because of it, doesn't get job)
The goal of the test was to keep all the old systems of payout in place (by US standards, impossibly generous) and then invest extra 600-ish euro to make them find much more employment as it would amortise against "get salary but lose generous benefits" effect.
Um...no. The UBI group lost the 'regular' benefit programs when they got jobs anyway, so there is still a loss of income (presuming the new jobs paid enough, but that should be the same for both groups).
The goal was to provide a financial backstop so that people could take more risk in their employment. It's a lot easier to take a job that doesn't guarantee a regular paycheck if you're getting a regular payment from the government.
The "failure" was that people did not take riskier jobs and pseudo-jobs (Uber, etc).
However a common fear of UBI programs is that people would just sit around and do nothing. And it turned out that didn't happen.
They got less jobs actually. Just not a whole lot less.
Actually, the control group got less jobs, just not statistically significant. Since it's not a statistically significant difference, it's the same.
As goal was to invest in these people so they find much more employment, the test was an utter failure.
There was no "investment". There was stability. Stability made the people happier, but did not cause more people to take risks that lead to lower unemployment.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should visit the "rust belt" before passing judgement.
Lived there for several years after not following that poster's advice.
Follow that poster's advice. You can taste the despair when you walk out the door in the morning.
They are not giving Amazon money, they are receiving less tax revenue.
No. They were giving Amazon a mixture of tax incentives and grants, as well as spending on improvements that would have primarily benefited Amazon.
No, they can not do this because New York City doesn't run the subway. New York State does.
When you consider wall-to-wall environmental impact between my diesel truck and a prius, there is no comparison. My truck wins hands down.
Only for the first ~3 years.
Drive them longer than that, and the Prius wins.
I suspect part of the aminoacids of the protein in food are chemically changed by the industrial processing to unnatural toxic aminoacids.
"Industrial processing" is "cooking in large batches". The activities are not sufficiently different than cooking in smaller batches to radically alter the chemistry of the resulting food.
If "industrial processing" actually produced chemotherapy drugs in the food, there'd be a lot more problems than dying after decades of consuming it.
suspect the body could use the unnatural aminoacids to build proteins.
Nope. In fact, that is the mechanism by which these drugs act - by interfering with protein synthesis.
Since your body is made from what you eat, if you don't eat enough omega 3, your body has to use the other oils and it doesn't work as well
This is not how digestion and biosynthesis works.
he book claims that while our bodies can't make omega 3, our bodies can convert it from one form to another; so it would suffice to eat only fish oil or only flax oil or whatever and trust the body to convert DHA to GLA or whatever.
Unfortunately for the book's claim, this was studied by giving people omega 3 fatty acids, and not giving them to the control group. It did not have the effect claimed in the book.
Here's Dr Ken Berry MD's recent deep dive into the bullshit research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
On one hand, we have a significant pile of peer-reviewed studies with controls, involving nitrites from food and non-food sources.
On the other hand, we have one guy talking on Youtube.
You chose to follow the Youtube guy.
You are what is wrong with society today.
Um.....photosynthesis does not select between different isotopes of hydrogen or any other atom involved in the process.
This was rather handy when we figured out whether the oxygen released from plants comes from the water or CO2. (The released oxygen comes from the water, the O fixed into sugars comes from the CO2).
I thought recent advances have pointed to the importance of gut bacteria which isn't/wasn't well understood.
If you ever find a study/article/claim that there is one cause of any particular disease involving nutrition, you can almost always disregard their study/article/claim.
Shit's complicated. There are a giant number of interacting causes.
The burden of proof is for you to prove that Listeria exists.
The symptoms described as "Listeria" are caused by a bacteria called Listeria monocytogenes. We can see it in microscopes....that is being used to examine milk....that made people sick....and the stuff coming out of those sick people has a lot of that bacteria, while normal people do not.
I don't have to prove a negative.
You made a positive claim: that there is a conspiracy against raw milk. So, time to show your evidence.
In the 00's, the same thing was repeated with corn syrup. Monsanto released their roundup product which was used on corn for ethanol production, companies moved to corn syrup from sugar because it was less expensive
Unfortunately for your story, your timeline is off by several decades.
Companies moved to HFCS en-mass (in the US) in the 1970s because corn subsidies made it much cheaper than sugar.
The argument the airline would make is the passenger defrauded them, and that without that fraud they would have received the additional money for the N-1 route.
Suppose I buy a gallon of milk
Suppose your purchase contract includes a clause that you will use all of that gallon of milk. You know you will violate this part of the contract before you sign it. You sign it anyway. The damages are the difference in price between the gallon contract you signed and the 3 quart contract you avoided, minus any savings the dairy got by selling it as a gallon.
The damages are the difference in price of the tickets for the actual route the customer flew.
If this hadn't been dismissed, those damages theoretically would be offset by the savings in fuel and/or standby passenger who got the seat.
Because consumers are helped when you limit their choices via back-room deals between large incumbents.
She isn't. She's listing several issues. After all, you didn't think she conflated cybersecurity, privacy and net neutrality because you understood it to be a list....until you needed to come up with something to call her a dumb woman.
100% guaranteed Trump will sign.
You're kidding, right?
Also, there's a 100% chance McConnell won't let it come up for a vote.
I hate to tell you this, but one tiny part of a candidate's platform is not a candidate's entire platform.
This was the bit that was tech-related, so it's on Slashdot.
If that was actually a problem, you need Net Neutrality to solve it. Because Net Neutrality means the new competitors with fairer (to you) enforcement practices can appear and grow.
Not having Net Neutrality means all those sites you hate for banning you can stop those competitors from getting decent service, and thus those competitors never take off.
Can you really claim to be on the internet when constitutionally protected speech can and will get you banned from facebook, twitter, youtube, itunes, paypal, uber, lyft, airbnb, netflix, patreon, all of the app stores, etc?
Yes.
It turns out, the government not throwing you in prison for your speech (aka "Constitutionally protected") does not mean private companies are required to contract with you.
If you want to stop deplatforming, you want the government to run those sites. Then "Constitutionally Protected" would actually be relevant.
Are you seriously unable to understand privacy and net neutrality are different issues?
Some kids at MIT, motivated by "a desire to play with some expensive equipment", tested this out.
Aluminum foil hats actually amplified radio signals at some frequencies.
Tin foil hats did not.
So if you want to keep the mind control rays out of your head, make sure you always pop for real tin foil.
You can't buy an annuity that pays the same as the lottery's annuity. However, you can buy an annuity that gives you a safe backstop, and then invest the rest with the knowledge that "at least I'll guaranteed ___ per year".
As for taxes, (and assuming US), you're already at the top bracket with the lottery-annuity, and presumably in the top bracket from your investments and not-lottery-annuity if you take lump sum - it's not like you don't pay taxes in the next year if you got the lump sum, since your investments will earn something.
And that's assuming you put it all on your personal 1040 in the lump-sum version. It's way easier to wrap those investments in some sort of tax avoidance if you have the lump sum to start with. For example, it's a lot easier to buy things that will eventually become capital gains with the larger pool of money.
That being said, most lottery winners do blow it all very quickly.
They ended up getting slightly less employment than control group.
No, the control group got jobs at a slightly lower rate. But the difference was not statistically significant, so you need to treat it as the same rate. The difference is probably caused by random factors (Such as train runs late, one guy misses interview because of it, doesn't get job)
The goal of the test was to keep all the old systems of payout in place (by US standards, impossibly generous) and then invest extra 600-ish euro to make them find much more employment as it would amortise against "get salary but lose generous benefits" effect.
Um...no. The UBI group lost the 'regular' benefit programs when they got jobs anyway, so there is still a loss of income (presuming the new jobs paid enough, but that should be the same for both groups).
The goal was to provide a financial backstop so that people could take more risk in their employment. It's a lot easier to take a job that doesn't guarantee a regular paycheck if you're getting a regular payment from the government.
The "failure" was that people did not take riskier jobs and pseudo-jobs (Uber, etc).
However a common fear of UBI programs is that people would just sit around and do nothing. And it turned out that didn't happen.
So the study got us plenty of interesting data.
They got less jobs actually. Just not a whole lot less.
Actually, the control group got less jobs, just not statistically significant. Since it's not a statistically significant difference, it's the same.
As goal was to invest in these people so they find much more employment, the test was an utter failure.
There was no "investment". There was stability. Stability made the people happier, but did not cause more people to take risks that lead to lower unemployment.
So....someone would quit their job to go sit on UBI....but once on UBI they would get a new job at the same rate as the control group?
When you need to tie yourself in that many knots to maintain your argument, it's time to re-evaluate your argument.