No, you can get all of the essential amino acids from plants. It does require a bit of knowledge - some plants don't contain very much, so you need to balance it out - but you can do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to, but it is possible.
That's no longer true - and even then, only one company had approval to use ammonia on beef, and (in the US at least) you can't use it on chicken. The company that used (past tense) ammonia no longer does. Furthermore, it's a common misconception that it's most of the animal - most organs and all bones are actually excluded. It may include some tendons, but those are safe to eat, although don't contribute much flavor.
That was my first thought as well. Maybe some sort of system to detect if there's a tear in the nets, but otherwise it should be pretty easy to just throw some nets up.
If I mine something from an asteroid, why shouldn't it be mine? All this does is say that the US recognizes your ownership; other countries aren't under an obligation to, at this point. It's not really much different from laws regarding fishing in international waters. If you catch it, it's yours (except for limits in place on certain kinds of marine life, for instance).
Government spending != socialism. A government-run program, especially a research program, isn't necessarily a socialist program, and I don't see how the Apollo program counts as socialism.
To address a few points here - if Mr D is a troll (I've been here less than a year, you're right) then I can see why it could be appropriate. I have no problem with you using your freedom of speech, and I certainly wouldn't try to stop you.
I think your pseudonym is hilarious and very clever btw, so it's lovely to "meat" you.
Thanks! I've only had one person attack me for being an AC so far, but I still enjoy it.
Mr. Rogers was under-appreciated, I think. No worries - I know people do sockpuppet here, and it can be hard to tell the difference. I quite like that Voltaire quote, I may have to use it sometime.
I'd suggest this paper, this one, and this. Tritium is obviously dangerous, but it does appear that there is a low acceptable dose. DNA can certainly be damaged by radiation emitted from radionuclides, I don't think anybody will contest that. And of course, I agree that it's too early to pin cancer cases on Fukushima. The Japanese government should be handling this better, I fully agree on that point too.
Of course I know that. However, Congressional authorization of military action does not (4th paragraph specifically) give the President or military the same powers as a declaration of war would.
You can if there was a clause in the ToS that says you can, and I'm pretty sure Microsoft put one in. Furthermore, unless the contract has rules for a timeline of termination ("you have to give x months notice before cancelling", etc) then either party can opt out.
It's not false advertising - they have, up until now, allowed people to use unlimited space. Now they've decided to change what they're advertising, and telling people about it. That's perfectly fine. I guarantee you in the ToS, they added a clause about how they can change the amount of storage, and as long as they're telling people ahead of time - which they are - that's fine too. Calling it "abuse" is incorrect, I agree, but it's not false advertising, and I don't think the EU would be able to make a compelling prosecution case here.
When you say "illegally invaded", what laws, specifically, were broken? US law was followed for the invasion - every time Congress voted on whether or not to pull the troops (which was as often or more so than they were required to do), they voted to keep them there. False pretenses, sure (although I'm not sure whether Bush himself knew that), but the invasion itself wasn't illegal by US laws. You could argue the invasion was illegal by Iraqi laws, but that's a silly argument, because by that logic, every invasion ever was illegal.
Was the invasion a good idea? Almost certainly not, at least as it was carried out. Saddam, while a terrible human being, did keep the region mostly stable. Going in to remove him for his crimes against his people could have been justified, but it should have been done in a much smarter fashion, if it was to be done at all.
Not all colleges. My particular college was undergrad-focused, and a lot of emphasis was placed on teaching students. There was a small master's program, but no PhD program. Faculty were expected to do research, but that wasn't weighted nearly as much as teaching evaluations (and serving on various committees, of course). It's unfortunately not common at most American schools, but there are some out there that care more about students.
Where in he constitution does it say that the military needs to be almost the size of all the other militaries in the world combined?
Strictly speaking, the US military is nowhere close to the size of all other militaries in the world combined. It receives almost that much funding (I think) but other countries (especially China) have more troops and in some cases, more equipment.
Most things you said are wrong. The US's infrastructure is certainly not as good as it should be, I'll give you that. However, most American public schools can't be considered "failing schools" - again, not as good as they should be, given the amount of money the Department of Education throws around - but not a failure. In addition, Medicare and Medicaid both exist, which are medical care for citizens. It's not all citizens, but it's some of the ones who need it most. Lastly, while CEOs have been making more, real wages are rising - not so much in terms of necessities like housing and cars (which sadly are necessary in most of America) - but leisure and entertainment, certainly. Clothes are cheaper, houses and cars are better and safer, smart phones exist and a lot of people have them, TVs are better, and flying is cheaper. Most "real wage" calculations don't take into account the quality of things you can buy, just the inflation rate, which isn't a good way of measuring things.
No, that's the Republican interpretation of libertarian. Some right-libertarians are like that, but it's a much smaller percentage than you think; the assholes of any group are always the loudest, and of course the richest ones get heard better because they can advertise more. Left-libertarianism agrees with reasonable safety nets, and even some right-libertarians agree with them on a more local level - just not on a federal level, which seems silly to me, but whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you can get all of the essential amino acids from plants. It does require a bit of knowledge - some plants don't contain very much, so you need to balance it out - but you can do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to, but it is possible.
That's no longer true - and even then, only one company had approval to use ammonia on beef, and (in the US at least) you can't use it on chicken. The company that used (past tense) ammonia no longer does. Furthermore, it's a common misconception that it's most of the animal - most organs and all bones are actually excluded. It may include some tendons, but those are safe to eat, although don't contribute much flavor.
Free, you say? Do you find it actually works well, and how hard is it to set up? Does it introduce any new security risks?
That was my first thought as well. Maybe some sort of system to detect if there's a tear in the nets, but otherwise it should be pretty easy to just throw some nets up.
If I mine something from an asteroid, why shouldn't it be mine? All this does is say that the US recognizes your ownership; other countries aren't under an obligation to, at this point. It's not really much different from laws regarding fishing in international waters. If you catch it, it's yours (except for limits in place on certain kinds of marine life, for instance).
ACs generally can't see tag lines/sigs.
Government spending != socialism. A government-run program, especially a research program, isn't necessarily a socialist program, and I don't see how the Apollo program counts as socialism.
Relevant SMBC.
Whoosh...
I think your pseudonym is hilarious and very clever btw, so it's lovely to "meat" you.
Thanks! I've only had one person attack me for being an AC so far, but I still enjoy it.
Mr. Rogers was under-appreciated, I think. No worries - I know people do sockpuppet here, and it can be hard to tell the difference. I quite like that Voltaire quote, I may have to use it sometime.
Sorry it's taken me a while to reply.
I'd suggest this paper, this one, and this. Tritium is obviously dangerous, but it does appear that there is a low acceptable dose. DNA can certainly be damaged by radiation emitted from radionuclides, I don't think anybody will contest that. And of course, I agree that it's too early to pin cancer cases on Fukushima. The Japanese government should be handling this better, I fully agree on that point too.
Of course I know that. However, Congressional authorization of military action does not (4th paragraph specifically) give the President or military the same powers as a declaration of war would.
You can if there was a clause in the ToS that says you can, and I'm pretty sure Microsoft put one in. Furthermore, unless the contract has rules for a timeline of termination ("you have to give x months notice before cancelling", etc) then either party can opt out.
It's not false advertising - they have, up until now, allowed people to use unlimited space. Now they've decided to change what they're advertising, and telling people about it. That's perfectly fine. I guarantee you in the ToS, they added a clause about how they can change the amount of storage, and as long as they're telling people ahead of time - which they are - that's fine too. Calling it "abuse" is incorrect, I agree, but it's not false advertising, and I don't think the EU would be able to make a compelling prosecution case here.
You know the US hasn't been at war, officially, since WWII, right?
When you say "illegally invaded", what laws, specifically, were broken? US law was followed for the invasion - every time Congress voted on whether or not to pull the troops (which was as often or more so than they were required to do), they voted to keep them there. False pretenses, sure (although I'm not sure whether Bush himself knew that), but the invasion itself wasn't illegal by US laws. You could argue the invasion was illegal by Iraqi laws, but that's a silly argument, because by that logic, every invasion ever was illegal.
Was the invasion a good idea? Almost certainly not, at least as it was carried out. Saddam, while a terrible human being, did keep the region mostly stable. Going in to remove him for his crimes against his people could have been justified, but it should have been done in a much smarter fashion, if it was to be done at all.
Any box that doesn't have a hard vacuum inside is full of chemicals.
I suppose you could get that idea if you think the Tea Party = libertarian, but otherwise you're off base.
Not all colleges. My particular college was undergrad-focused, and a lot of emphasis was placed on teaching students. There was a small master's program, but no PhD program. Faculty were expected to do research, but that wasn't weighted nearly as much as teaching evaluations (and serving on various committees, of course). It's unfortunately not common at most American schools, but there are some out there that care more about students.
Where in he constitution does it say that the military needs to be almost the size of all the other militaries in the world combined?
Strictly speaking, the US military is nowhere close to the size of all other militaries in the world combined. It receives almost that much funding (I think) but other countries (especially China) have more troops and in some cases, more equipment.
Most things you said are wrong. The US's infrastructure is certainly not as good as it should be, I'll give you that. However, most American public schools can't be considered "failing schools" - again, not as good as they should be, given the amount of money the Department of Education throws around - but not a failure. In addition, Medicare and Medicaid both exist, which are medical care for citizens. It's not all citizens, but it's some of the ones who need it most. Lastly, while CEOs have been making more, real wages are rising - not so much in terms of necessities like housing and cars (which sadly are necessary in most of America) - but leisure and entertainment, certainly. Clothes are cheaper, houses and cars are better and safer, smart phones exist and a lot of people have them, TVs are better, and flying is cheaper. Most "real wage" calculations don't take into account the quality of things you can buy, just the inflation rate, which isn't a good way of measuring things.
Libertarians are big-government conservatives.
...What? That's not even wrong.
Libertarians don't disagree with having a judicial system. You need courts to enforce contract law, for instance.
"explicitly the Libertarian Party's platform"
Do you know what "explicitly" means? Can you really not think of another reason for wanted employment discrimination laws to be removed?
No, that's the Republican interpretation of libertarian. Some right-libertarians are like that, but it's a much smaller percentage than you think; the assholes of any group are always the loudest, and of course the richest ones get heard better because they can advertise more. Left-libertarianism agrees with reasonable safety nets, and even some right-libertarians agree with them on a more local level - just not on a federal level, which seems silly to me, but whatever.