And then it depends on which plan you've got. T-Mobile throttles cheaper plans. Frex, someone standing right next to you with an expensive plan may get five bars when you're struggling to get any connection at all on your budget plan... tho when T-Mobile wants to send you a message, it miraculously gets through despite your poor to nonexistent connection. Voice of firsthand experience.
I'm not that dedicated. Tho there are a few things that Just Ain't Right without some specific fresh bit... frex, you can't have proper soup without throwing in a peeled and chopped turnip. It disappears entirely, but alters the flavor and texture much for the better.
So my soup tricks you into eating boiled turnips.:D
I think we got Hunt's at Costco. They are really tasty but rather acidic (add a handful of brown sugar to mitigate that). The best ones for flavor seem to be the small whole slices, not the chunks.
Interesting that literature (I assume you mean stuff chefs would read?) is promoting canned. I can see that as a better route to uniform results.
It's not uniform across time, tho -- frex, canned peaches used to be very tasty (not nearly as good as tree-ripened, but better than picked-green-and-ripened), but in recent years have become bland.:(
Good observation about canning! Yeah, if you're gonna can 'em near the field (rather than across the country) then you don't need to select for transport-hardiness.
Just curious, which canned tomatoes do you find taste best? I like 'em with lots of flavor but not much acid... of what I've tried and can get locally, S&W seem to be best.
Know what's bizarre to grow yourself? Cauliflower. The entire plant is edible and it all tastes the same... there are nodules on the roots that taste just like the part we normally eat, and look similar too, but smaller. (I grew one once. It proved perennial in the desert, and took over the yard. Had roots 10 feet long like living ropes. I finally pulled it up because it was attracting mice.)
Where the hell are YOU shopping? I just paid $4.99 for a 3 pound roast chicken at Costco, which with costs less than buying the chicken and running the oven to roast it myself. (Walmart has a slightly smaller one for the same price. So do any of the chain groceries.) And I just paid $1.99/lb. for very good pork at the locally-owned grocery (it's labeled 'boneless spare ribs' but it's more like thick-sliced shoulder roast, and there's zero waste). This is in Montana, arse end of the universe. But prices were about the same, or even a little less, in north Los Angeles County, the armpit of SoCal.
I think the reason you're getting so much argument is because most people today really have NO idea how to shop for food that does indeed extend your dollar -- they =think= they do, but when you really look at what's in their cart and in their fridge -- they don't. I eat much cheaper than most people too, yet I eat better. And my diet revolves around meat. It's amazing what you can get for less than 3 bucks a pound, or under 2 bucks a pound for boneless pork.
I too learned to maximize what I got early on -- first as a student, later because I just couldn't see wasting the money, and preferred from-scratch even tho I hate cooking (most processed/fast food is my idea of a last resort, not a good meal).
Tho I let Costco cook the roast chicken, because it's cheaper than doing it myself, and I especially hate cooking chicken. The stripped carcass becomes soup in due course, a good way to use up odds and ends of all sorts. (I call it "every damn thing in the house soup", and throw in a handful of rice if there's not enough other miscellaneous.)
Yeah, I just looked up some areas I'm very familiar with, and I'm like WTF? Like big tracts of Montana, because... they are rural. There is nothing there except farms, ranches, and the occasional whistle-stop with a grain silo. Yeah, the nearest real grocery store is 50 miles away. That's how it works with big rural landscapes.
And where I lived in SoCal... bizarrely, all the 'food deserts' in my immediate area center around grocery stores.
Knowing a bit about the local economies, it looks to me more like a map of food stamp users than of access to food.
I hate cooking, but I have a far great hate of most processed food and almost all fast food. Yeah, my mom ruined me by being great at cook-from-scratch, and that's pretty much all we ate.
So how do I cope? I've found that nearly every recipe in the "New Betty Crocker Cookbook" translates gracefully to the microwave (with the exceptions of pie crust and cookies). And you can often cheat them into being one-bowl recipes without significant loss of quality. Hence, yes, I make souffles in the microwave, and it takes about two minutes of effort and five minutes of waiting.
Another handy device is the countertop roaster. Throw in a large lump of frozen meat and a few potatoes, carrots, and an onion, dash on some salt and pepper, set at 300F degrees, go away for two hours, and it's food. For variety, cover with a can of stewed tomatoes and/or mushroom soup (or sliced tomatoes and mushrooms). Takes about five minutes to prepare a week's worth of meals.
Flaxseed meal is worse. Can't find the chart offhand but as I recall the phytoestrogen content is 300,000 units per kg. For comparison, soybeans contain 100,000 units/kg, and the next most of any foodstuff has 25,000. Mean has 800.
Phytoestrogens in flaxseed meal are apparently better-absorbed than those in soybean meal -- flaxseed in dog food will cause a 50% loss of fertility, and some male puppies will have midline deformities (open skull, open gut, underdeveloped mouth with cleft palate, and occasionally, hermaphrodites), tho I have not seen the issue with soybean meal (tho it causes such an increase in gut mucus production that the phytoestrogens may not be well-absorbed). But there's considerable research indicating soy as a large component in human diets causes the same sorts of problems.
While the site kinda listed all one way, the research linked was very interesting, and should be a wakeup call to those promoting soy for everything. Remember, soy farmers want bigger markets too... just like grain farmers did 50 years ago.
This low-cholesterol craze is doing *damage*, especially the damned statin drugs. Look for a wave of statin-induced multiple sclerosis in the future (guess what myelin is largely composed of). It's also been pointed out that statins may increase cancer risks by damaging cell walls (which are also largely cholesterol), allowing cancer-causing viruses to invade where otherwise they could not.
This guy's blog is mostly about the hype and bad science (and sometimes outright cherry-picked fraud) behind the OMG fat-bad cholesterol-bad industry: http://www.proteinpower.com/dr... The biochemist in the audience nods and says "Yep, yep, and yep..."
And you are right, "eat as much as you want" fat (and protein) means you won't eat all that much, cuz you'll be satiated much sooner.
[I say, not entirely in jest, that if you can still see the food, there's not enough butter! and I have middling-low cholesterol and am not overweight. So there.]
Not really. Grain is more profitable than livestock. (And veggies are more profitable than grain, but are more climate/water-limited.) This is why here in the western US, damnear every acre that CAN grow crops IS in crops, and livestock are mostly on the marginal land that's too steep, too dry, or too rocky for cultivation. Especially when you also have to grow hay to feed those livestock over the winter... that's land you can't use for pasture or for other crops.
We grow more surplus grain than anything else. They wanted a market for it that paid more than livestock feed. And here we are today.
Basically, your long-term appetite is controlled by protein intake. Get enough of it, and you no longer crave carbs and in particular, no longer crave sweets (unless you're hypothyroid, but that's a different issue). The next factor in appetite control is fats... don't get enough, and again, you'll crave carbs.
SM is better than FF that way, but it's still the only app that routinely pegs CPU at 100%, sometimes for no visible reason (nothing much happening).
One insanely stupid thing is that for some time now it won't save from cache. Instead, if you decide to save something, it RE-DOWNLOADS it. This is just marvelous when it's a 10mb image and your connection is slow... you get to download it twice, once to see it, once to save it. Is there a setting to make it look first in cache?
(Cache is what's fucking up/leaking memory, for that matter...)
I dunno what FF does, but in SeaMonkey, I have an address bar, and a Search button. If I type in the address bar and hit Enter, it goes to the domain (no need to type in the pesky www. or.com). If instead I click Search, it goes to Google and search happens. This saves me the bother of having a Google bookmark... for that I have StartPage.
Re:Poor Firefox what have they done to you?
on
Firefox 29: Redesign
·
· Score: 1
Y'all bring up a good point. Mozilla gets something like 90% of its funding from Google contracts (one wonders why Google doesn't buy Mozilla outright). What if the endgame here is to merge Firefox and Chrome, essentially making FF go away... easier to convert users if they're already trained to FF's version of the Chrome interface.
I detest Chrome, and I ain't goin' there. Sticking with SeaMonkey for the foreseeable future (and PaleMoon for the few sites that SM doesn't grok... interesting that right now the only one that's an issue is making comments on YouTube.)
Switch the dog's diet to something free of soy and fish, low in fibre, and well-cooked (which with kibble requires that ingredients be very finely ground, to the point that you do not see any obvious particles), and the problem will go away.
[I use about 5 tons of dog food per year. I have a clue here.]
"Experienced investigators are able to produce a much less stressful working environment for animals, so they tend to get different results from neophyte investigators even when following the same protocol."
This doesn't surprise me in the least. You'll see the same among dog trainers (my profession) where an old hand and a novice will *appear* to be doing the same things, but the dogs react very differently (so the old hand makes rapid progress, while the novice struggles to achieve the same results). Also, dogs trained by men tend to be more relaxed than dogs trained by women, even when they're following the same methods and applications (ie. protocols).
As a general rule, when an alpha male is present, everyone acts more self-controlled (including reduced reactions to pain); this appears to be hardwired, as it's broadly true in mammals. Putting a female in the same position makes the other animals more reactive (which likely includes more reaction to pain).
Totally OT, but your list of stuff to add to hosts produces an interesting optical illusion, as if these lines are waving like a flag. (At least in my Arial at 150%.)
Tho considering the, um, 'quality' of people I've seen hanging out in gas station parking lots, I think the previous poster has a point -- I'll bet the major use these pay phones get nowadays is for drug deals -- the cops know it, and the phones are on camera... basically, maintained as honeypots.
(I say this remembering where payphones and gang hangouts intersected, where I used to live in SoCal...)
For all we know, the anonymous caller was the one who was impaired... or perhaps ran off the road all by herself, and was looking for someone to blame so she wouldn't get dinged for it on her car insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
And then it depends on which plan you've got. T-Mobile throttles cheaper plans. Frex, someone standing right next to you with an expensive plan may get five bars when you're struggling to get any connection at all on your budget plan... tho when T-Mobile wants to send you a message, it miraculously gets through despite your poor to nonexistent connection. Voice of firsthand experience.
I'm not that dedicated. Tho there are a few things that Just Ain't Right without some specific fresh bit... frex, you can't have proper soup without throwing in a peeled and chopped turnip. It disappears entirely, but alters the flavor and texture much for the better.
So my soup tricks you into eating boiled turnips. :D
I think we got Hunt's at Costco. They are really tasty but rather acidic (add a handful of brown sugar to mitigate that). The best ones for flavor seem to be the small whole slices, not the chunks.
Interesting that literature (I assume you mean stuff chefs would read?) is promoting canned. I can see that as a better route to uniform results.
It's not uniform across time, tho -- frex, canned peaches used to be very tasty (not nearly as good as tree-ripened, but better than picked-green-and-ripened), but in recent years have become bland. :(
Or be eaten alive by wolves (who don't always bother to finish killing the deer before tucking into the haunch). That's natural, right?
Good observation about canning! Yeah, if you're gonna can 'em near the field (rather than across the country) then you don't need to select for transport-hardiness.
Just curious, which canned tomatoes do you find taste best? I like 'em with lots of flavor but not much acid... of what I've tried and can get locally, S&W seem to be best.
Know what's bizarre to grow yourself? Cauliflower. The entire plant is edible and it all tastes the same... there are nodules on the roots that taste just like the part we normally eat, and look similar too, but smaller. (I grew one once. It proved perennial in the desert, and took over the yard. Had roots 10 feet long like living ropes. I finally pulled it up because it was attracting mice.)
Where the hell are YOU shopping? I just paid $4.99 for a 3 pound roast chicken at Costco, which with costs less than buying the chicken and running the oven to roast it myself. (Walmart has a slightly smaller one for the same price. So do any of the chain groceries.) And I just paid $1.99/lb. for very good pork at the locally-owned grocery (it's labeled 'boneless spare ribs' but it's more like thick-sliced shoulder roast, and there's zero waste). This is in Montana, arse end of the universe. But prices were about the same, or even a little less, in north Los Angeles County, the armpit of SoCal.
I think the reason you're getting so much argument is because most people today really have NO idea how to shop for food that does indeed extend your dollar -- they =think= they do, but when you really look at what's in their cart and in their fridge -- they don't. I eat much cheaper than most people too, yet I eat better. And my diet revolves around meat. It's amazing what you can get for less than 3 bucks a pound, or under 2 bucks a pound for boneless pork.
I too learned to maximize what I got early on -- first as a student, later because I just couldn't see wasting the money, and preferred from-scratch even tho I hate cooking (most processed/fast food is my idea of a last resort, not a good meal).
Tho I let Costco cook the roast chicken, because it's cheaper than doing it myself, and I especially hate cooking chicken. The stripped carcass becomes soup in due course, a good way to use up odds and ends of all sorts. (I call it "every damn thing in the house soup", and throw in a handful of rice if there's not enough other miscellaneous.)
Yeah, I just looked up some areas I'm very familiar with, and I'm like WTF? Like big tracts of Montana, because... they are rural. There is nothing there except farms, ranches, and the occasional whistle-stop with a grain silo. Yeah, the nearest real grocery store is 50 miles away. That's how it works with big rural landscapes.
And where I lived in SoCal... bizarrely, all the 'food deserts' in my immediate area center around grocery stores.
Knowing a bit about the local economies, it looks to me more like a map of food stamp users than of access to food.
I hate cooking, but I have a far great hate of most processed food and almost all fast food. Yeah, my mom ruined me by being great at cook-from-scratch, and that's pretty much all we ate.
So how do I cope? I've found that nearly every recipe in the "New Betty Crocker Cookbook" translates gracefully to the microwave (with the exceptions of pie crust and cookies). And you can often cheat them into being one-bowl recipes without significant loss of quality. Hence, yes, I make souffles in the microwave, and it takes about two minutes of effort and five minutes of waiting.
Another handy device is the countertop roaster. Throw in a large lump of frozen meat and a few potatoes, carrots, and an onion, dash on some salt and pepper, set at 300F degrees, go away for two hours, and it's food. For variety, cover with a can of stewed tomatoes and/or mushroom soup (or sliced tomatoes and mushrooms). Takes about five minutes to prepare a week's worth of meals.
Bingo...
And if someone locked me up and fed me nothing but broccoli, I'd soon appease my need for meat by jerking their arm off and eating it.
Flaxseed meal is worse. Can't find the chart offhand but as I recall the phytoestrogen content is 300,000 units per kg. For comparison, soybeans contain 100,000 units/kg, and the next most of any foodstuff has 25,000. Mean has 800.
Phytoestrogens in flaxseed meal are apparently better-absorbed than those in soybean meal -- flaxseed in dog food will cause a 50% loss of fertility, and some male puppies will have midline deformities (open skull, open gut, underdeveloped mouth with cleft palate, and occasionally, hermaphrodites), tho I have not seen the issue with soybean meal (tho it causes such an increase in gut mucus production that the phytoestrogens may not be well-absorbed). But there's considerable research indicating soy as a large component in human diets causes the same sorts of problems.
http://web.archive.org/web/201...
While the site kinda listed all one way, the research linked was very interesting, and should be a wakeup call to those promoting soy for everything. Remember, soy farmers want bigger markets too... just like grain farmers did 50 years ago.
This low-cholesterol craze is doing *damage*, especially the damned statin drugs. Look for a wave of statin-induced multiple sclerosis in the future (guess what myelin is largely composed of). It's also been pointed out that statins may increase cancer risks by damaging cell walls (which are also largely cholesterol), allowing cancer-causing viruses to invade where otherwise they could not.
This guy's blog is mostly about the hype and bad science (and sometimes outright cherry-picked fraud) behind the OMG fat-bad cholesterol-bad industry:
http://www.proteinpower.com/dr...
The biochemist in the audience nods and says "Yep, yep, and yep..."
And you are right, "eat as much as you want" fat (and protein) means you won't eat all that much, cuz you'll be satiated much sooner.
[I say, not entirely in jest, that if you can still see the food, there's not enough butter! and I have middling-low cholesterol and am not overweight. So there.]
Not really. Grain is more profitable than livestock. (And veggies are more profitable than grain, but are more climate/water-limited.) This is why here in the western US, damnear every acre that CAN grow crops IS in crops, and livestock are mostly on the marginal land that's too steep, too dry, or too rocky for cultivation. Especially when you also have to grow hay to feed those livestock over the winter... that's land you can't use for pasture or for other crops.
We grow more surplus grain than anything else. They wanted a market for it that paid more than livestock feed. And here we are today.
Basically, your long-term appetite is controlled by protein intake. Get enough of it, and you no longer crave carbs and in particular, no longer crave sweets (unless you're hypothyroid, but that's a different issue). The next factor in appetite control is fats... don't get enough, and again, you'll crave carbs.
SM is better than FF that way, but it's still the only app that routinely pegs CPU at 100%, sometimes for no visible reason (nothing much happening).
One insanely stupid thing is that for some time now it won't save from cache. Instead, if you decide to save something, it RE-DOWNLOADS it. This is just marvelous when it's a 10mb image and your connection is slow... you get to download it twice, once to see it, once to save it. Is there a setting to make it look first in cache?
(Cache is what's fucking up/leaking memory, for that matter...)
I dunno what FF does, but in SeaMonkey, I have an address bar, and a Search button. If I type in the address bar and hit Enter, it goes to the domain (no need to type in the pesky www. or .com). If instead I click Search, it goes to Google and search happens. This saves me the bother of having a Google bookmark... for that I have StartPage.
Y'all bring up a good point. Mozilla gets something like 90% of its funding from Google contracts (one wonders why Google doesn't buy Mozilla outright). What if the endgame here is to merge Firefox and Chrome, essentially making FF go away... easier to convert users if they're already trained to FF's version of the Chrome interface.
I detest Chrome, and I ain't goin' there. Sticking with SeaMonkey for the foreseeable future (and PaleMoon for the few sites that SM doesn't grok... interesting that right now the only one that's an issue is making comments on YouTube.)
The ones I use in SM, yes. And I have compatibility-check turned off, having found that if something will install at all, it will work.
What exactly are you feeding her?
I've got a pack of Labs myself. (Pro dog trainer.)
Very funny :) But:
Switch the dog's diet to something free of soy and fish, low in fibre, and well-cooked (which with kibble requires that ingredients be very finely ground, to the point that you do not see any obvious particles), and the problem will go away.
[I use about 5 tons of dog food per year. I have a clue here.]
"Experienced investigators are able to produce a much less stressful working environment for animals, so they tend to get different results from neophyte investigators even when following the same protocol."
This doesn't surprise me in the least. You'll see the same among dog trainers (my profession) where an old hand and a novice will *appear* to be doing the same things, but the dogs react very differently (so the old hand makes rapid progress, while the novice struggles to achieve the same results). Also, dogs trained by men tend to be more relaxed than dogs trained by women, even when they're following the same methods and applications (ie. protocols).
As a general rule, when an alpha male is present, everyone acts more self-controlled (including reduced reactions to pain); this appears to be hardwired, as it's broadly true in mammals. Putting a female in the same position makes the other animals more reactive (which likely includes more reaction to pain).
What I want to know is if others are similarly affected, or if they're unique and special snowflakes.
I know people who have working oil wells in their front yard (not an uncommon sight in parts of the high plains) and had no such issues.
Totally OT, but your list of stuff to add to hosts produces an interesting optical illusion, as if these lines are waving like a flag. (At least in my Arial at 150%.)
Tho considering the, um, 'quality' of people I've seen hanging out in gas station parking lots, I think the previous poster has a point -- I'll bet the major use these pay phones get nowadays is for drug deals -- the cops know it, and the phones are on camera... basically, maintained as honeypots.
(I say this remembering where payphones and gang hangouts intersected, where I used to live in SoCal...)
For all we know, the anonymous caller was the one who was impaired... or perhaps ran off the road all by herself, and was looking for someone to blame so she wouldn't get dinged for it on her car insurance.