Perhaps related: there recently was a study on one symptom of aging in dogs, namely "old dog head" where they get this sunken-in-head look due to losing muscle over the skull (above the eyes).
Turns out this has nothing to do with being an old dog, and everything to do with protein deficiency -- and that old dogs need more protein than before. Feed 'em enough protein, and they'll keep their youthful muscling, and don't get "old dog skull" at all.
Aren't they? I'm 58 and I recently got the 'children's package' vaccine (whooping cough and whatever else is in it) from the county health bus. Far as I know they'll stick anyone who comes in the door.
And I'm the other way around. Introduce something as theory and proofs, and I'll get it (and then I can extrapolate it to examples). Introduce it as examples without theory, tho, and I may never understand it. This is why I did well in math all the way up to college calculus, which was presented as examples. All my prior math had been theory and proofs type stuff.
Which probably has more to do with whether it's a variety that stores well than its 'organicness'.
And I can tell you how to reliably grow wholly 'organic' carrots that are bitter to the point of being inedible... just grow 'em in very alkaline soil in the desert. Egads, they were nasty... but 100% 'organically grown'!!
("Very alkaline": when the county extension guy tested it, at first he thought his meter was broken -- it was off the scale.)
That's pretty much my philosophy, too (and I totally agree on your main reason). You can either farm efficiently, or you can farm everywhere there's a square foot of potentially-arable land... or you can reduce Earth's population by 5/6ths (per the analyses I've seen). CHOOSE.
But it's a safe bet that 99% of people who buy 'organic' think they're actually doing nature a favor.
Well, there are pro-elk organizations that are hostile to wolves because the wolves are perceived as destroying the elk harvest. But that came about because the reintroduced wolves have become overpopulated for their environment and consequently are overhunting their prey species.
But one might consider that this is a plea for conservation that does not come at the expense of any particular segment of the ecosystem.
"Third, given the first two, your de-extinct species is likely to simply go extinct again unless you correct the environmental issues that led to the first extinction."
Fourth, what happens when there are no brakes on its population because the appropriate predators and other risks to its survival no longer exist? What happens when this species thrives to the point that it drives out (and possibly extincts) current species?
Reintroducing an extinct species is taking a terrible risk with the current balance of nature, right up there with introducing rabbits to Australia.
"The truly liberal mind is by definition uncertain; it admits it may be wrong, but once set and the decision made the wavering stops, and no sort of hell can sway it."
Actually, we're finding that putting probiotics in dog food (or other daily dosing) is a bad idea; it tends to lead to chronic diarrhea. Probably the gut population gets unbalanced in that direction by the constant additions. "Good" bacteria are just like most things -- some is good, more is not necessarily better.
To my astonishment, in MT and ID I've found the best place to buy good quality locally-grown sweet corn is... WalMart. Best selection of varietal apples, too. Strange, but not to complain!!
The root of the problem is agriculture's own efficiency, that in modern times requires fewer and fewer warm bodies to produce more and more crops. Less than 2% of the population is still involved in agriculture. Probably fewer than 5% still have a living grandparent who was a farmer, so they don't even get secondhand memories. It's much easier for them to believe in anti-ag pseudoscience and scaremongering, which they can see around them every day. It's hard to believe in the value of ag and "flyover" states they never see.
The reason some fish that's farm-raised doesn't taste as good is largely because of the warmer environment. This especially affects trout (mushy and tasteless).
Conversely, I've found wild-caught catfish to be bland, while farm-raised are tasty. So... it depends.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on your county :)
We had 'em in Los Angeles Co., and also here in Montana. Here it comes thru about every two months.
Which I think sounds like a really good idea, either way you do it.
And if it just hoists the whole to a VM, no need for config dumpster diving for individual programs that may not play nice with Wine.
Or, why running Win9x is pretty durn safe. Malware that expects XP-or-later networking just gets confused.
Perhaps related: there recently was a study on one symptom of aging in dogs, namely "old dog head" where they get this sunken-in-head look due to losing muscle over the skull (above the eyes).
Turns out this has nothing to do with being an old dog, and everything to do with protein deficiency -- and that old dogs need more protein than before. Feed 'em enough protein, and they'll keep their youthful muscling, and don't get "old dog skull" at all.
And how much of that 'fear of needle pain' comes from parents being overprotective, thus convincing their kids that it will hurt?
When I was a kid, fear of needles was considered a phobia. Most kids would watch the needle go in, and marvel that they felt it so little.
Aren't they? I'm 58 and I recently got the 'children's package' vaccine (whooping cough and whatever else is in it) from the county health bus. Far as I know they'll stick anyone who comes in the door.
Info like this pre-vaccine iron lung ward:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And I'm the other way around. Introduce something as theory and proofs, and I'll get it (and then I can extrapolate it to examples). Introduce it as examples without theory, tho, and I may never understand it. This is why I did well in math all the way up to college calculus, which was presented as examples. All my prior math had been theory and proofs type stuff.
Oh, now I understand: Chicken nuggets are actually homeopathic chicken!
And being an old fart, I still prefer and call them the "California Angels".
One wonders if some folks running exchanges, when they see the handwriting on the wall, choose to embezzle their way to an exit strategy.
Which probably has more to do with whether it's a variety that stores well than its 'organicness'.
And I can tell you how to reliably grow wholly 'organic' carrots that are bitter to the point of being inedible... just grow 'em in very alkaline soil in the desert. Egads, they were nasty... but 100% 'organically grown'!!
("Very alkaline": when the county extension guy tested it, at first he thought his meter was broken -- it was off the scale.)
That's pretty much my philosophy, too (and I totally agree on your main reason). You can either farm efficiently, or you can farm everywhere there's a square foot of potentially-arable land... or you can reduce Earth's population by 5/6ths (per the analyses I've seen). CHOOSE.
But it's a safe bet that 99% of people who buy 'organic' think they're actually doing nature a favor.
"Both. We're having oysters, sand and all." :)
Well, there are pro-elk organizations that are hostile to wolves because the wolves are perceived as destroying the elk harvest. But that came about because the reintroduced wolves have become overpopulated for their environment and consequently are overhunting their prey species.
But one might consider that this is a plea for conservation that does not come at the expense of any particular segment of the ecosystem.
"Third, given the first two, your de-extinct species is likely to simply go extinct again unless you correct the environmental issues that led to the first extinction."
Fourth, what happens when there are no brakes on its population because the appropriate predators and other risks to its survival no longer exist? What happens when this species thrives to the point that it drives out (and possibly extincts) current species?
Reintroducing an extinct species is taking a terrible risk with the current balance of nature, right up there with introducing rabbits to Australia.
Damn good point, too.
And how do these chemicals get into salt that's been underground for millions of years??
"The truly liberal mind is by definition uncertain; it admits it may be wrong, but once set and the decision made the wavering stops, and no sort of hell can sway it."
-- D.F. Jones, The Fall of Colossus
Actually, we're finding that putting probiotics in dog food (or other daily dosing) is a bad idea; it tends to lead to chronic diarrhea. Probably the gut population gets unbalanced in that direction by the constant additions. "Good" bacteria are just like most things -- some is good, more is not necessarily better.
And when I see the 'organic' label, the chemist in me always wants to know where the 'inorganic' food is....
And then I have to wonder about the 'organic' salt... what's the contaminant??
Hmm. Perhaps one could set up a specialty shop selling 'organic' products like manure, crude oil, and coal. ;)
To my astonishment, in MT and ID I've found the best place to buy good quality locally-grown sweet corn is... WalMart. Best selection of varietal apples, too. Strange, but not to complain!!
Mod +10000
The root of the problem is agriculture's own efficiency, that in modern times requires fewer and fewer warm bodies to produce more and more crops. Less than 2% of the population is still involved in agriculture. Probably fewer than 5% still have a living grandparent who was a farmer, so they don't even get secondhand memories. It's much easier for them to believe in anti-ag pseudoscience and scaremongering, which they can see around them every day. It's hard to believe in the value of ag and "flyover" states they never see.
[Yes, I'm an ag type, so I get it.]
The reason some fish that's farm-raised doesn't taste as good is largely because of the warmer environment. This especially affects trout (mushy and tasteless).
Conversely, I've found wild-caught catfish to be bland, while farm-raised are tasty. So... it depends.
Because fanatics do not distinguish. In their eyes, you're either all good or all evil.
Most creationists seem to be believers, rather than fanatics.