Weirdly, carnivorous diets are much more energy efficient than vegetarian diets.
From the perspective of a human consumer, it absolutely is. Your body has to do very little to extract nourishment from meat and can sustain itself for far longer on meat than any other food source. Meanwhile, it has to do a lot to extract it from plant matter, and in fact our bodies can't even extract nourishment from most plants, save for those we've selectively bred over thousands of years to be less fibrous. This is why true herbivores can survive well off of just any grass or leaves, but we'll starve if we try to do so.
I've personally been able to build connections from literally nothing and not knowing anybody in the industry I'm in at all, nor did I know somebody who knows somebody. Given how introverted I am, I'm sure other people can do the same.
There is a standard amount for each missionary based on home country. During my mission, those from the US paid $350 / month while Brazilians paid R$100 / month. There is a general missionary fund available for those unable to pay. All money is pooled together and missionaries get an allowance based on mission. I received about R$100 / month (rent and utilities were paid before I received my allowance). As your dad left the Church at 17, I guess that shows your bias.
It may have changed since then, (in fact, brief googling suggest 1990) but at the time, (early 70's) it was a fact, you HAD to pay for your own mission, unless your parents paid for it.
Anyways, my bias probably comes from the Book of Abraham, and maybe the fact that Joseph Smith would divine for water by putting a rock in a hat and stare into it, and his father commented that it never worked. But somehow, miraculously, it worked for translating scriptures that nobody ever saw, and the one that other people besides himself did actually see and read was found to be nowhere close to being what he supposedly "translated" it to. In fact it had nothing at all to do with Abraham or any other biblical figures whatsoever.
I think a lot of that, for the religious orgs, goes into building massive churches. LDS is insanely wealthy and spares practically no expense in making huge, ornate temples. When they're about to re-dedicate one, us "impure" commonfolk can go inside, and I did that one time and saw some life-size oxen made out of what appeared to be gold surrounding a big ornate pool presumably used for baptisms, and then some expensive looking theaters (practically a multiplex) used for displaying religious propaganda to the public, and practically all of the floors and walls adorned with either granite or marble in pretty much the entire temple, with each room (and there are many rooms) being about two stories in height with really big chandeliers. I guess another way of describing it would be something four times as big, expensive, and decorated as the whitehouse. And in spite of the massive size of this thing, very few people even go inside, and they have about 170 of them throughout the entire US.
And for some reason they see fit to ask that their members pay all of the expenses for their own missionary work, even though people of that age typically don't make much at all and it takes them years to save up for that. (My dad was required to save up for it by his parents for about 5 years, and then when he turned 17 he moved away from home and spent it on college and pretty much just ignored the church for the rest of his life.)
Well that life isn't eternal. A corps lasts at most a few hundred thousand years, after which it is ether completely gone or the skeleton becomes a stone fossil. And if you're cremated, well it kind of ends right there.
Nonetheless, I don't think I care too much about an eternity of being even less than a vegetable, because at least vegetables still have photosynthesis.
Interesting thought; I'm genuinely curious: Who contributes more to doling out welfare: private funded charities (including religions) or the government?
It sounds like service was cancelled when the bill wasn't paid, but in any event it's certainly an EXISTING access device. The law says "existing, cancelled, or revoked", and it is certainly existing.
(a) sells, offers for sale or otherwise makes available, without consent, an existing, canceled or revoked access device
Notice there's no comma between any of the words "canceled or revoked", meanwhile you inserted one there. That dramatically changes the meaning of the sentence, and you fucked it up.
In other words, the way it's written is saying that if you have an existing access device that was later canceled or revoked, and you use it anyways, then that violates the law. Meanwhile, the way your dumb ass tried to weasil word it was to say that just using an "existing" device is a crime, which actually makes no fucking sense.
Not only are you the grandma, but you're senile if you can't tell the difference, and thankfully slashdot doesn't let you edit your post to correct your blatant fuckup.
Some rap is good, like MC Hammer and Coolio. What I can't stand is any music that has no rhythm.
Modern rap is mostly some derp taking about how he's "pimpin the hoes" or holding up a 7-11.
Modern r&b and modern hip-hop basically sound like that same shit these days as well, it's as if all three genres have become the same. If I wanted to listen to people with no rhythm talk about how they want to fuck the world, I'd watch C-SPAN.
As for country, pretty much the only singer I listen to is Johnny Cash.
You're the one playing word games here. To wit, you inserted a comma that wasn't in the original wording of the law. And yes, it does make a difference. To draw an analogy, you changed this:
Reason I bought a smartwatch initially was for the GPS and compass features for outdoorsy stuff, and I never wore it for anything else. But after a while I noticed how useful it was when apps started showing different notifications. Like for example, it shows which direction I need to turn next while using google maps navigation, which is useful in case I missed what the voice said, and I can skip crappy gangsta rap songs easily while using play music without having to take my eyes off the road.
Exactly, and for anything to be a crime, there has to be a law against it. Is there a law against joining an open wifi network without permission from the owner?
It's not theft cause the electricity was already in the wire and you never signed a contract with whoever put that electricity in the wire...must be legal...
Except the law specifically labels that as theft. There is no law that says you can't receive internet access that you didn't pay for. If there was such a law, then it would be illegal to hop on any wifi network that you don't own, even if it's left open.
(a) sells, offers for sale or otherwise makes available, without consent, an existing, canceled or revoked access device
He just bought it, and has the consent of the carrier to use it, and it isn't canceled or revoked.
(b) uses, without consent, an existing, canceled or revoked access device;
Neither canceled nor revoked, nor was it used without consent. He might have used it in a manner that the carrier didn't intend, but if that was the case, then rooting would be a crime, wouldn't it?
(c) knowingly obtains any telecommunications service with fraudulent intent by use of an unauthorized, false, or fictitious name, identification, telephone number, or access device. For purposes of this subdivision access device means any telephone calling card number, credit card number, account number, mobile identification number, electronic serial number or personal identification number that can be used to obtain telephone service.
This one almost has it, except it specifically says by use of, quote: "an unauthorized, false, or fictitious name, identification, telephone number, or access device" and lo and behold, not a single one of those conditions applies here. And given that he didn't do any of that, the second sentence is notwithstanding.
So no, you'll need to reach harder if you want to claim theft here.
Nope, I very much replied to this one first. And it's not my fault that after so many replies, slashdot flattens discussions so that future replies can't be distinguished as being part of the same or part of separate threads.
Except it depends on the source. For example, 55/45 is used in sugary drinks, of which they also use less than conventional sugar in an otherwise identical formulation. At which point I have to ask, are you arguing that ordinary sugar is better for you? Because if so you're being retarded again.
However, just for the sake of argument, let's assume I'm wrong and you're right. Let's assume HFCS can have a better fructose to glucose ratio than sucrose. You assert that the difference isn't enough to matter. So, then, why even bring it up?
Because the person I replied to claimed otherwise...is that good enough reason to bring it up?
Fructose is C6H12O6. It contains no glucose, the fructose to glucose ration of fructose is 1:0.
Dude you're being retarded. I never at any point claimed that fructose contains glucose. I said HFCS and sucrose contains glucose. Go read my post again, perhaps try reading it a little slower if your comprehension is really that bad, because there was no ambiguity.
Slashdot Mirror
Weirdly, carnivorous diets are much more energy efficient than vegetarian diets.
From the perspective of a human consumer, it absolutely is. Your body has to do very little to extract nourishment from meat and can sustain itself for far longer on meat than any other food source. Meanwhile, it has to do a lot to extract it from plant matter, and in fact our bodies can't even extract nourishment from most plants, save for those we've selectively bred over thousands of years to be less fibrous. This is why true herbivores can survive well off of just any grass or leaves, but we'll starve if we try to do so.
I've personally been able to build connections from literally nothing and not knowing anybody in the industry I'm in at all, nor did I know somebody who knows somebody. Given how introverted I am, I'm sure other people can do the same.
Rats don't have teeth?
There is a standard amount for each missionary based on home country. During my mission, those from the US paid $350 / month while Brazilians paid R$100 / month. There is a general missionary fund available for those unable to pay. All money is pooled together and missionaries get an allowance based on mission. I received about R$100 / month (rent and utilities were paid before I received my allowance). As your dad left the Church at 17, I guess that shows your bias.
It may have changed since then, (in fact, brief googling suggest 1990) but at the time, (early 70's) it was a fact, you HAD to pay for your own mission, unless your parents paid for it.
Anyways, my bias probably comes from the Book of Abraham, and maybe the fact that Joseph Smith would divine for water by putting a rock in a hat and stare into it, and his father commented that it never worked. But somehow, miraculously, it worked for translating scriptures that nobody ever saw, and the one that other people besides himself did actually see and read was found to be nowhere close to being what he supposedly "translated" it to. In fact it had nothing at all to do with Abraham or any other biblical figures whatsoever.
But I won't call them ungenerous.
I'm not saying they're ungenerous, rather what I'm saying is that they spend rather lavishly on shit that ultimately doesn't even matter.
I think a lot of that, for the religious orgs, goes into building massive churches. LDS is insanely wealthy and spares practically no expense in making huge, ornate temples. When they're about to re-dedicate one, us "impure" commonfolk can go inside, and I did that one time and saw some life-size oxen made out of what appeared to be gold surrounding a big ornate pool presumably used for baptisms, and then some expensive looking theaters (practically a multiplex) used for displaying religious propaganda to the public, and practically all of the floors and walls adorned with either granite or marble in pretty much the entire temple, with each room (and there are many rooms) being about two stories in height with really big chandeliers. I guess another way of describing it would be something four times as big, expensive, and decorated as the whitehouse. And in spite of the massive size of this thing, very few people even go inside, and they have about 170 of them throughout the entire US.
And for some reason they see fit to ask that their members pay all of the expenses for their own missionary work, even though people of that age typically don't make much at all and it takes them years to save up for that. (My dad was required to save up for it by his parents for about 5 years, and then when he turned 17 he moved away from home and spent it on college and pretty much just ignored the church for the rest of his life.)
Indeed.
Well that life isn't eternal. A corps lasts at most a few hundred thousand years, after which it is ether completely gone or the skeleton becomes a stone fossil. And if you're cremated, well it kind of ends right there.
Nonetheless, I don't think I care too much about an eternity of being even less than a vegetable, because at least vegetables still have photosynthesis.
Interesting thought; I'm genuinely curious: Who contributes more to doling out welfare: private funded charities (including religions) or the government?
Also furthermore, the guy lives in Virginia, so the New York statute is completely irrelevant.
Try again. Here's what you stated:
It sounds like service was cancelled when the bill wasn't paid, but in any event it's certainly an EXISTING access device. The law says "existing, cancelled, or revoked", and it is certainly existing.
(a) sells, offers for sale or otherwise makes available, without consent, an existing, canceled or revoked access device
Notice there's no comma between any of the words "canceled or revoked", meanwhile you inserted one there. That dramatically changes the meaning of the sentence, and you fucked it up.
In other words, the way it's written is saying that if you have an existing access device that was later canceled or revoked, and you use it anyways, then that violates the law. Meanwhile, the way your dumb ass tried to weasil word it was to say that just using an "existing" device is a crime, which actually makes no fucking sense.
Not only are you the grandma, but you're senile if you can't tell the difference, and thankfully slashdot doesn't let you edit your post to correct your blatant fuckup.
Some rap is good, like MC Hammer and Coolio. What I can't stand is any music that has no rhythm.
Modern rap is mostly some derp taking about how he's "pimpin the hoes" or holding up a 7-11.
Modern r&b and modern hip-hop basically sound like that same shit these days as well, it's as if all three genres have become the same. If I wanted to listen to people with no rhythm talk about how they want to fuck the world, I'd watch C-SPAN.
As for country, pretty much the only singer I listen to is Johnny Cash.
You're the one playing word games here. To wit, you inserted a comma that wasn't in the original wording of the law. And yes, it does make a difference. To draw an analogy, you changed this:
Works on contingency, no money down!
To this:
Works on contingency? No, money down!
Reason I bought a smartwatch initially was for the GPS and compass features for outdoorsy stuff, and I never wore it for anything else. But after a while I noticed how useful it was when apps started showing different notifications. Like for example, it shows which direction I need to turn next while using google maps navigation, which is useful in case I missed what the voice said, and I can skip crappy gangsta rap songs easily while using play music without having to take my eyes off the road.
Exactly, and for anything to be a crime, there has to be a law against it. Is there a law against joining an open wifi network without permission from the owner?
So, it's OK if I steal your car? I have no contract with you, and never agreed to your terms of service.
Oh, hi there Chris Dodd, it seems you accidentally taped this to a wall:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There's case law on this related to theft of cable TV service. If you find a way to watch HBO without paying for HBO, you're guilty.
That's fine, just let me know when there's any law at all that says that hopping on an open wifi without the owners permission is a crime.
It's not theft cause the electricity was already in the wire and you never signed a contract with whoever put that electricity in the wire...must be legal...
Except the law specifically labels that as theft. There is no law that says you can't receive internet access that you didn't pay for. If there was such a law, then it would be illegal to hop on any wifi network that you don't own, even if it's left open.
Well, let's see:
(a) sells, offers for sale or otherwise makes available, without consent, an existing, canceled or revoked access device
He just bought it, and has the consent of the carrier to use it, and it isn't canceled or revoked.
(b) uses, without consent, an existing, canceled or revoked access device;
Neither canceled nor revoked, nor was it used without consent. He might have used it in a manner that the carrier didn't intend, but if that was the case, then rooting would be a crime, wouldn't it?
(c) knowingly obtains any telecommunications service with fraudulent intent by use of an unauthorized, false, or fictitious name, identification, telephone number, or access device. For purposes of this subdivision access device means any telephone calling card number, credit card number, account number, mobile identification number, electronic serial number or personal identification number that can be used to obtain telephone service.
This one almost has it, except it specifically says by use of, quote: "an unauthorized, false, or fictitious name, identification, telephone number, or access device" and lo and behold, not a single one of those conditions applies here. And given that he didn't do any of that, the second sentence is notwithstanding.
So no, you'll need to reach harder if you want to claim theft here.
It couldn't legally be theft unless there was some kind of TOS stating some rules, and he violated said rules.
If only his last name was Van Damme, then he could at least ACT like his opinion on the matter wasn't purchased.
Nope, I very much replied to this one first. And it's not my fault that after so many replies, slashdot flattens discussions so that future replies can't be distinguished as being part of the same or part of separate threads.
Except it depends on the source. For example, 55/45 is used in sugary drinks, of which they also use less than conventional sugar in an otherwise identical formulation. At which point I have to ask, are you arguing that ordinary sugar is better for you? Because if so you're being retarded again.
Solitaire has ads in it now, and you have to pay a monthly fee to remove them.
However, just for the sake of argument, let's assume I'm wrong and you're right. Let's assume HFCS can have a better fructose to glucose ratio than sucrose. You assert that the difference isn't enough to matter. So, then, why even bring it up?
Because the person I replied to claimed otherwise...is that good enough reason to bring it up?
Fructose is C6H12O6. It contains no glucose, the fructose to glucose ration of fructose is 1:0.
Dude you're being retarded. I never at any point claimed that fructose contains glucose. I said HFCS and sucrose contains glucose. Go read my post again, perhaps try reading it a little slower if your comprehension is really that bad, because there was no ambiguity.