Parent may have been clueless to the tongue-in-cheek nature of my post but whoever modded this down was nonetheless a fucking moron; it's well understood that the flesh of nearly-completely-carnivorous creatures (such as felines) is highly toxic and can kill you if you eat it.
Not really. Salmon, tuna, and swordfish are completely carnivorous and are eaten worldwide. Alligators and snakes are eaten in various parts of the US and are carnivorous. Indigenous Arctic peoples ate diets drawn primarily from seals (all carnivorous) and whales (many of which are carnivorous). Squids and octopi are carnivores.
Now, that said, carnivore meat does carry some risks, all in the form of bioaccumulation of toxic materials. (e.g. Mercury and other heavy metals, PCBs, etc.) But "highly toxic" is a bit over-dramatic. You can eat a serving of carnivorous fish once a week and be fine. You can also eat far more than that and survive, but you may run into health risks or, more importantly, pass on unsafe levels that will affect your child's development if you get pregnant. Adults only risk death if those kinds of fish are your primary protein source and/or you get them from an actively polluted area. (See, e.g. Minama disease.)
But the meat *itself* is fine, in absence of human-cause problems.
At that point, even if you filter them out, the flour is "tainted" in your mind and is no longer edible. Same goes for a spot of mold on a slice of bread.
Well, to be fair, that's actually accurate in the case of bread. The mold you can see belies the presence of the mold you can't see. By the time mold density is big enough to see, it's all throughout the rest of the bread already.
Of course, mold below those thresholds is *probably* safe. But it's best not to risk it if it's gotten that far in part of the bread.
Well, one big difference is that you're not generally expected to *eat the shell* on shellfish. Most insects are just way to small to peel effectively, and most are not built in a way that make it easy, like shrimp are.
Besides, I have it on good authority that most bugs have a "nuttier" flavor than a "seafood" flavor. Some are said to taste kind of bacony. Some are pretty tart, like ants with their formic acid. Some have fruit flavors, like the water bug. Crickets are supposed to be kind of metallic tasting. Insects and arthropods are a very diverse branch of the tree of life and taste different as larvae and adults. Assuming that all bugs taste similarly is kind of like saying that all mammals taste like beef or all birds/lizards taste like chicken.
Of course, I've never had any myself, so I'm just passing around internet rumors too. I'd very much like to correct that, but I'm too intimidated by the possibility of cooking it "wrong" and giving myself a false bad impression. I've been Googling places that might serve insects in the city I live in, but no successes so far (other than overwrought, negative reviews for places with bad hygiene).
Sadly, that is not how the Supreme Court always interprets things. While the general principle has been that noncitizens have the same rights as citizens, they've often been ambivalent on the specific details. Consider Hamdi v. Rumsfield (2004), in which the court held that citizens who were kept prisoners as "unlawful combatants" has the right of habeas corpus, but that non-citizens held similarly did not.
Another example is Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952), in which the Court held it legal to expel immigrants who were Communist Party members -- a discrimination based purely on political belief that would not be legal to perform against citizens.
In Demore v. Kim (2003) the Court noted that "Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens" in the realm of immigration law. There, the court upheld a statute that required aliens charged with certain crimes to be detained in prison pending a deportation hearing regardless of whether they were a danger or a flight risk (and thus normally entitled to bail). It was the first case holding that anyone can be put in preventative detention without an individualized assessment of the need for said detention.
[I]f you operate at 1000 times faster you exponentially reduce the distance the signal can travel in that time
Nitpick: Exponential does not just mean "extremely" when you use it with actual math and numbers. A constant multiplier is still a linear reduction, no matter how large or small.
9/11 has happened long ago enough that the knee-jerk reactions are dying down, and people are starting to question what we're doing in order to make sure 3000 people don't die over the course of a few years.
Yeah, but now people are in the position of having taken indefensible positions and must defend them or have to face up to the fact that they were wrong. People will not do that.
Just look at the debate over torture in this country. As in the fact that we even have a debate over torture. Only a quarter of Americans say that torture is never justifiable under any circumstances. A little under a fifth say that it's "often" justified to gain information from terror suspects. The rest are somewhere in the middle, with a strong partisan divide over the issue, but one that has weakened since Obama has failed to take substantive action on the issue except to nail whistleblowers to the wall -- all but tacit support for torture policies.
Partisan politics is the reason for this. Once "your guy" has made a decision, you must either find a rationale to support it or admit that you voted in the wrong guy. And for far too many people, the former is the natural instinct rather than the latter. Our political landscape for at least a generation or three has been forever shaped by the action of George W. Bush and the attempts of his party to rationalize them and then his successor Barack Obama's failure to do anything substantive to improve our war on terror policies and the attempts of his party to rationalize that too.
That's why poll numbers on support for torturing terror suspects show a slim majority now, whereas there was a 60-40% split against it for 2001-2008. Are you surprised that on questions of spying on Americans that the trend is not similar? Slim majorities were opposed to MAINWAY when it was exposed in 2006. Now slim majorities support PRISM and a growing majority wants to see Snowden punished for exposing it.
That's the tragedy of partisan democracies: If both sides do something terrible, all the sheep find themselves justifying no matter how bad it is.
I would say we are Rome, but I have to believe that Rome actually fell before it got this bad.
You need to read more Roman history then. After all the phrase "bread and circuses" was coined or popularized back in the 2nd century, 200-300 years before Rome's "fall." The circuses themselves as a means of appeasing the people go back at least to the fallout from the assassination of Julius Caesar, right at the beginning of the Empire, when Marcus Brutus attempted to defray public anger over Caesar's death. (It didn't work, because Octavius turned around an held games in honor of Caesar's memory a couple of weeks later.)
Plus, it's hotly debated whether Rome ever actually "fell" or just withered away.
I can understand the distinction. It's pretty obvious because I share similar sentiments.
I don't want advertisers to push their products on me. I don't want to be made aware of something shiny that I could be spending my money on instead of saving towards my long-term goals. I don't want them to wear down the finite reserves of willpower that we all have against temptation by better finding the things that might tempt me. I don't want all their little neuromarketing tricks designed to guide me to just keep pushing that button for a reward. The last thing I want is for them to know me better and to exploit my weaknesses by constantly bombarding me with shiny things I want. It's annoying enough when they *fail* to attract my interest.
If I want something, and I've made the decision to seek it out, I want to find answers about the range of products myself. I want to pull down the information on my choices myself and make the most informed decision I can. I don't want anyone massaging or regulating the results to guide me towards a choice someone paid for me to see. I just want the facts -- reviews, product statistics, a comparison of what the trade-offs are.
Yes, it is. Which is why we've moved beyond the days of "this site is best viewed in Internet Explorer at 800 x 600 resolution" to the days of creating sites that are intelligently designed to work on multiple browsers and obey the principles of graceful degradation if a given browser doesn't support some wizzy feature you like.
At least, that's the theory. Some sites still suck.
Actually, it's more like the skill was lost in favor of one that was considered far more useful for survival -- inflammation and scarring.
Scarring stops bleeding and infection far faster than regeneration can and is a vital advantage in quick and dirty wound recovery. Scarring comes about because of a mutation that allows collagen to cross-link and build quicker scaffolding to seal the wound, but it comes at the cost of not being able to regrow tissues in the now "paved over" area. In the wild, this gave our distant mammalian ancestors the valuable ability to just kind of "write-off" the area and get up and going as fast as possible and avoid being preyed upon in a moment of weakness.
We may dismiss scarring today as ugly and wasteful of an opportunity to be made whole again, but without it, we probably wouldn't exist today.
True, it would be a little uncomfortable indoors without A/C or at least good ventilation, but you would have to start talking at least 35C or maybe 40C before making US southerners uncomfortable outside.
That's not necessarily true. Almost all homes and apartments in the South are air conditioned unless you're very poor. That kind of spoils us when it comes to high heat, as I learned when I moved for a few years out to the Pacific Northwest where they don't bother with A/C because it's only really needed in August.
Maybe it's different if you're an outdoors type, but for most of us 40 C is "stay the f--- indoors" weather, especially when humidity is as high as it is in most of the South.
If you're blocking the left lane, move over, I don't care what the speed limit is. Forcing people to pass on the right is far worse.
As I said elsewhere, I get tailgated in the *slow lane* where I live. Usually while going 5-10 over. If you don't run into that, then I'd like to live there. I miss my short stint in another state where people drove the freaking speed limit and gave each other space. If only I could have gotten a job there...
The minute you try and control others by blocking the left lane, and forcing them to pass on the right, what happens? You create a more dangerous situation by making others pass on the right, and road rage.
Isn't it the aggressor's fault for spreading the rage around? The tailgater is the one creating a potential accident. Nothing requires that person to follow at an unsafe distance until one of us decides to change lane. How am I the one "trying to control others" by minding my own business? I'm not the one trying to push someone else around.
Have you ever been rear ended by a tailgater?
No, but I've also never been forced to commit sexual acts on myself by someone giving me the finger. Doesn't make their naked aggression and attempt to spread around their own rage and misery justifiable.
Huh. I thought that meant the exact opposite: that the speed limits provide the exception to the requirement to keep up with the flow of traffic, not that the requirement to keep up is the exception to the speed limit.
You do realize that YOU are breaking the law by not moving over when you are driving in the left lane? Yes, even if you are speeding. YOU should learn to read the damn traffic laws, forfeit your license, or both.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that only apply in two situations:
1) You are travelling less than the speed limit AND slower than the flow of traffic. (Vehicle Code Section 21654.) 2) You are on a two-lane road, and there are more than five vehicles lined up behind you. (Vehicle Code Section 21656.)
I've always though California's split speed limit was insanity and a recipe for road rage, sudden braking and congestion, and accidents. Do you have any idea what the rationale is for it?
For some reason people believe governments make wiser decisions than wealthy individuals, but most of the long term projects happening in the world these days, the kind of things that matter to human survival as a species, and not just "the right party" winning the next short term election, are all being funded by wealthy individuals.
No, many of the long term projects that get a lot of media attention are funded by wealthy individuals. Taxpayer dollars go to many long-term projects that will benefit humanity as well.
The LHC, Super Kamiokande, and almost all the big physics projects are taxpayer funded. Almost all the big brain mapping initiatives going on today are publicly funded -- particularly through the NIH. Most climate monitoring is done by national governments and universities. Government funding is about the only thing keeping new antibiotics research alive since it's unprofitable.
Personally, I'd rather vote for people to put the money into projects that won't deliver short-term profits in hopes of greater long-term profits than cross my fingers and hope that if we let some people amass enough concentrated money that they'll spend it on something other than their own, narrow interests. For every Carnegie or Gates there are a dozen Koch brothers, Trumps, and second-generation rich twits like Paris Hilton.
What about all the stuff his foundation does about malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV? Or the stuff he's doing for sanitation and disaster relief? Heck, even if you're looking for something closer to home, then what about try to fund a better condom so that people will be faced with less of a choice between pleasure and safety?
I may not like the man and bear a huge grudge for some his more destructive effects on the computer industry, but all of that kind of seems piddling compared to the effect his actions will have on billions of the world's poorest people. I have been forced to grudgingly admire him for quite some time now over his philanthropy and the transparency and effectiveness of his charity compared to some of its "rivals."
Assume for a moment that you had his job. Wouldn't you?
In my experience, most cops have more of a sense of humor, especially black humor, than the public realizes. Comes the territory of any kind of difficult, unappreciated job.
Okay, that's a pretty horrible potential future, but I think I could live with it if they also targeted tailgaters and people who don't use their turn signals.
In no way did their statement imply direction or control over their evolution. They merely described the selective pressure under which the mutations would have given them a survival advantage. Don't hijack their words to air your quibbling, semantic pet peeves.
He is the god known for eating his immortal goats over and over again, which he can only do if he doesn't break their bones. So, I guess he's semi-relevant to bones.
Slashdot Mirror
Parent may have been clueless to the tongue-in-cheek nature of my post but whoever modded this down was nonetheless a fucking moron; it's well understood that the flesh of nearly-completely-carnivorous creatures (such as felines) is highly toxic and can kill you if you eat it.
Not really. Salmon, tuna, and swordfish are completely carnivorous and are eaten worldwide. Alligators and snakes are eaten in various parts of the US and are carnivorous. Indigenous Arctic peoples ate diets drawn primarily from seals (all carnivorous) and whales (many of which are carnivorous). Squids and octopi are carnivores.
Now, that said, carnivore meat does carry some risks, all in the form of bioaccumulation of toxic materials. (e.g. Mercury and other heavy metals, PCBs, etc.) But "highly toxic" is a bit over-dramatic. You can eat a serving of carnivorous fish once a week and be fine. You can also eat far more than that and survive, but you may run into health risks or, more importantly, pass on unsafe levels that will affect your child's development if you get pregnant. Adults only risk death if those kinds of fish are your primary protein source and/or you get them from an actively polluted area. (See, e.g. Minama disease.)
But the meat *itself* is fine, in absence of human-cause problems.
At that point, even if you filter them out, the flour is "tainted" in your mind and is no longer edible. Same goes for a spot of mold on a slice of bread.
Well, to be fair, that's actually accurate in the case of bread. The mold you can see belies the presence of the mold you can't see. By the time mold density is big enough to see, it's all throughout the rest of the bread already.
Of course, mold below those thresholds is *probably* safe. But it's best not to risk it if it's gotten that far in part of the bread.
Well, one big difference is that you're not generally expected to *eat the shell* on shellfish. Most insects are just way to small to peel effectively, and most are not built in a way that make it easy, like shrimp are.
Besides, I have it on good authority that most bugs have a "nuttier" flavor than a "seafood" flavor. Some are said to taste kind of bacony. Some are pretty tart, like ants with their formic acid. Some have fruit flavors, like the water bug. Crickets are supposed to be kind of metallic tasting. Insects and arthropods are a very diverse branch of the tree of life and taste different as larvae and adults. Assuming that all bugs taste similarly is kind of like saying that all mammals taste like beef or all birds/lizards taste like chicken.
Of course, I've never had any myself, so I'm just passing around internet rumors too. I'd very much like to correct that, but I'm too intimidated by the possibility of cooking it "wrong" and giving myself a false bad impression. I've been Googling places that might serve insects in the city I live in, but no successes so far (other than overwrought, negative reviews for places with bad hygiene).
Sadly, that is not how the Supreme Court always interprets things. While the general principle has been that noncitizens have the same rights as citizens, they've often been ambivalent on the specific details. Consider Hamdi v. Rumsfield (2004), in which the court held that citizens who were kept prisoners as "unlawful combatants" has the right of habeas corpus, but that non-citizens held similarly did not.
Another example is Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952), in which the Court held it legal to expel immigrants who were Communist Party members -- a discrimination based purely on political belief that would not be legal to perform against citizens.
In Demore v. Kim (2003) the Court noted that "Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens" in the realm of immigration law. There, the court upheld a statute that required aliens charged with certain crimes to be detained in prison pending a deportation hearing regardless of whether they were a danger or a flight risk (and thus normally entitled to bail). It was the first case holding that anyone can be put in preventative detention without an individualized assessment of the need for said detention.
I am sure that whatever it is, it would have a long long mussel.
Sounds delicious. Fried or steamed with garlic and white wine?
[I]f you operate at 1000 times faster you exponentially reduce the distance the signal can travel in that time
Nitpick: Exponential does not just mean "extremely" when you use it with actual math and numbers. A constant multiplier is still a linear reduction, no matter how large or small.
Well, you are what you eat.
9/11 has happened long ago enough that the knee-jerk reactions are dying down, and people are starting to question what we're doing in order to make sure 3000 people don't die over the course of a few years.
Yeah, but now people are in the position of having taken indefensible positions and must defend them or have to face up to the fact that they were wrong. People will not do that.
Just look at the debate over torture in this country. As in the fact that we even have a debate over torture. Only a quarter of Americans say that torture is never justifiable under any circumstances. A little under a fifth say that it's "often" justified to gain information from terror suspects. The rest are somewhere in the middle, with a strong partisan divide over the issue, but one that has weakened since Obama has failed to take substantive action on the issue except to nail whistleblowers to the wall -- all but tacit support for torture policies.
Partisan politics is the reason for this. Once "your guy" has made a decision, you must either find a rationale to support it or admit that you voted in the wrong guy. And for far too many people, the former is the natural instinct rather than the latter. Our political landscape for at least a generation or three has been forever shaped by the action of George W. Bush and the attempts of his party to rationalize them and then his successor Barack Obama's failure to do anything substantive to improve our war on terror policies and the attempts of his party to rationalize that too.
That's why poll numbers on support for torturing terror suspects show a slim majority now, whereas there was a 60-40% split against it for 2001-2008. Are you surprised that on questions of spying on Americans that the trend is not similar? Slim majorities were opposed to MAINWAY when it was exposed in 2006. Now slim majorities support PRISM and a growing majority wants to see Snowden punished for exposing it.
That's the tragedy of partisan democracies: If both sides do something terrible, all the sheep find themselves justifying no matter how bad it is.
I would say we are Rome, but I have to believe that Rome actually fell before it got this bad.
You need to read more Roman history then. After all the phrase "bread and circuses" was coined or popularized back in the 2nd century, 200-300 years before Rome's "fall." The circuses themselves as a means of appeasing the people go back at least to the fallout from the assassination of Julius Caesar, right at the beginning of the Empire, when Marcus Brutus attempted to defray public anger over Caesar's death. (It didn't work, because Octavius turned around an held games in honor of Caesar's memory a couple of weeks later.)
Plus, it's hotly debated whether Rome ever actually "fell" or just withered away.
I can understand the distinction. It's pretty obvious because I share similar sentiments.
I don't want advertisers to push their products on me. I don't want to be made aware of something shiny that I could be spending my money on instead of saving towards my long-term goals. I don't want them to wear down the finite reserves of willpower that we all have against temptation by better finding the things that might tempt me. I don't want all their little neuromarketing tricks designed to guide me to just keep pushing that button for a reward. The last thing I want is for them to know me better and to exploit my weaknesses by constantly bombarding me with shiny things I want. It's annoying enough when they *fail* to attract my interest.
If I want something, and I've made the decision to seek it out, I want to find answers about the range of products myself. I want to pull down the information on my choices myself and make the most informed decision I can. I don't want anyone massaging or regulating the results to guide me towards a choice someone paid for me to see. I just want the facts -- reviews, product statistics, a comparison of what the trade-offs are.
In other words, don't call me, I'll call you.
Yes, it is. Which is why we've moved beyond the days of "this site is best viewed in Internet Explorer at 800 x 600 resolution" to the days of creating sites that are intelligently designed to work on multiple browsers and obey the principles of graceful degradation if a given browser doesn't support some wizzy feature you like.
At least, that's the theory. Some sites still suck.
Actually, it's more like the skill was lost in favor of one that was considered far more useful for survival -- inflammation and scarring.
Scarring stops bleeding and infection far faster than regeneration can and is a vital advantage in quick and dirty wound recovery. Scarring comes about because of a mutation that allows collagen to cross-link and build quicker scaffolding to seal the wound, but it comes at the cost of not being able to regrow tissues in the now "paved over" area. In the wild, this gave our distant mammalian ancestors the valuable ability to just kind of "write-off" the area and get up and going as fast as possible and avoid being preyed upon in a moment of weakness.
We may dismiss scarring today as ugly and wasteful of an opportunity to be made whole again, but without it, we probably wouldn't exist today.
Well Ireland did have a summer for once this year although it's pissing it down at this moment.
At first, I though you wrote "although they're p---ing it down," and I thought, "Man I heard it was a hard drinking culture, but damn..."
True, it would be a little uncomfortable indoors without A/C or at least good ventilation, but you would have to start talking at least 35C or maybe 40C before making US southerners uncomfortable outside.
That's not necessarily true. Almost all homes and apartments in the South are air conditioned unless you're very poor. That kind of spoils us when it comes to high heat, as I learned when I moved for a few years out to the Pacific Northwest where they don't bother with A/C because it's only really needed in August.
Maybe it's different if you're an outdoors type, but for most of us 40 C is "stay the f--- indoors" weather, especially when humidity is as high as it is in most of the South.
If you're blocking the left lane, move over, I don't care what the speed limit is. Forcing people to pass on the right is far worse.
As I said elsewhere, I get tailgated in the *slow lane* where I live. Usually while going 5-10 over. If you don't run into that, then I'd like to live there. I miss my short stint in another state where people drove the freaking speed limit and gave each other space. If only I could have gotten a job there...
The minute you try and control others by blocking the left lane, and forcing them to pass on the right, what happens? You create a more dangerous situation by making others pass on the right, and road rage.
Isn't it the aggressor's fault for spreading the rage around? The tailgater is the one creating a potential accident. Nothing requires that person to follow at an unsafe distance until one of us decides to change lane. How am I the one "trying to control others" by minding my own business? I'm not the one trying to push someone else around.
Have you ever been rear ended by a tailgater?
No, but I've also never been forced to commit sexual acts on myself by someone giving me the finger. Doesn't make their naked aggression and attempt to spread around their own rage and misery justifiable.
Huh. I thought that meant the exact opposite: that the speed limits provide the exception to the requirement to keep up with the flow of traffic, not that the requirement to keep up is the exception to the speed limit.
You do realize that YOU are breaking the law by not moving over when you are driving in the left lane? Yes, even if you are speeding. YOU should learn to read the damn traffic laws, forfeit your license, or both.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that only apply in two situations:
1) You are travelling less than the speed limit AND slower than the flow of traffic. (Vehicle Code Section 21654.)
2) You are on a two-lane road, and there are more than five vehicles lined up behind you. (Vehicle Code Section 21656.)
I've always though California's split speed limit was insanity and a recipe for road rage, sudden braking and congestion, and accidents. Do you have any idea what the rationale is for it?
For some reason people believe governments make wiser decisions than wealthy individuals, but most of the long term projects happening in the world these days, the kind of things that matter to human survival as a species, and not just "the right party" winning the next short term election, are all being funded by wealthy individuals.
No, many of the long term projects that get a lot of media attention are funded by wealthy individuals. Taxpayer dollars go to many long-term projects that will benefit humanity as well.
The LHC, Super Kamiokande, and almost all the big physics projects are taxpayer funded. Almost all the big brain mapping initiatives going on today are publicly funded -- particularly through the NIH. Most climate monitoring is done by national governments and universities. Government funding is about the only thing keeping new antibiotics research alive since it's unprofitable.
Personally, I'd rather vote for people to put the money into projects that won't deliver short-term profits in hopes of greater long-term profits than cross my fingers and hope that if we let some people amass enough concentrated money that they'll spend it on something other than their own, narrow interests. For every Carnegie or Gates there are a dozen Koch brothers, Trumps, and second-generation rich twits like Paris Hilton.
No, I'm the one in the right lane, going ten over the speed limit, and ticked off immensely by people who *still* tailgate you in the slow lane.
What about all the stuff his foundation does about malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV? Or the stuff he's doing for sanitation and disaster relief? Heck, even if you're looking for something closer to home, then what about try to fund a better condom so that people will be faced with less of a choice between pleasure and safety?
I may not like the man and bear a huge grudge for some his more destructive effects on the computer industry, but all of that kind of seems piddling compared to the effect his actions will have on billions of the world's poorest people. I have been forced to grudgingly admire him for quite some time now over his philanthropy and the transparency and effectiveness of his charity compared to some of its "rivals."
Assume for a moment that you had his job. Wouldn't you?
In my experience, most cops have more of a sense of humor, especially black humor, than the public realizes. Comes the territory of any kind of difficult, unappreciated job.
Okay, that's a pretty horrible potential future, but I think I could live with it if they also targeted tailgaters and people who don't use their turn signals.
In no way did their statement imply direction or control over their evolution. They merely described the selective pressure under which the mutations would have given them a survival advantage. Don't hijack their words to air your quibbling, semantic pet peeves.
He is the god known for eating his immortal goats over and over again, which he can only do if he doesn't break their bones. So, I guess he's semi-relevant to bones.
(That said, what a horrible life for his goats!)