The general consensus is that coffee is GOOD FOR YOU unless you have specific health issues like hypertension, high blood pressure, etc. Go troll on a different subject. You'll lose on this one.
Beer! Now that's another subject. Dark and thick is the best. Just had a Left Hand Brewing Company Nitro "Wake Up Dead" Stout. It almost doesn't need a glass. Yummy.
Even in Japan, octopus meat is usually cooked (boiled) for sushi. The arms of the common octopus and the giant octopus (most common varieties for sushi) are edible raw, and are treated as a delicacy, but they are very chewy--you'd need to get a good sushi chef to slice it paper thin to have any hope of chewing it off. The Koreans do eat living octopus arms that are only chopped and not sliced, but they use a different, smaller species that isn't as well suited for sushi.
I didn't know that. The other items on the menu at our favorite sushi place are noted as being cooked (e.g., unagi, ebi) or lightly flamed (seared tuna, scallops if you ask for them that way) but otherwise raw. I just assumed that since the octopus wasn't noted as cooked, it was raw. Unlike most of the other items on the menu that I might see in a fish market, I've never been to a fish market that had octopus (cooked or not).
I enjoy learning and, especially, learning about the things I eat. Thanks. Also, something tells me that the octopus being boiled isn't going to make it acceptable to my friends and family who stick to cooked items on the sushi menu....
Lots of things are against the law and yet people still murder, rape, kidnap, steal, etc., etc. What makes you think some idiot will follow a law that says they can't fly their flying car if it has a bit of a bend? I followed some jerk whose brake lights didn't work last week. I'm sure that's illegal, too.
I always knew there was something else I didn't like about Democrats besides their tax and spend, big, nanny-state government ways and now I know. No sense of humor.
Try it raw on rice (sushi style). You'd be surprised how good it tastes with soy sauce and wasabi. The texture is a little chewy which puts some people off.
Never thought I'd like escargot but had enough to drink one time and I've been hooked ever since. Who woulda thunk that snails make a great vehicle for garlic and butter?
I've had octopus a couple of times. Tends to be a little chewy. I'll stick to ahi tuna (maguro and toro), yellowtail, scallops, freshwater eel (unagi), surf clams, etc. Still haven't had enough to drink to try sea urchin. Just something about the appearance and texture.
Two very different things: why does the universe exist and how did the universe come to exist. There is no why for the universe. It is. Looking for a why is what theists do.
Clarifying the clarification: I was only attempting to answer the question, "Why do atheists flock to science?" My answer was simply that, rather than arguing something vacuous, they simply say, "Meh, the scientific explanation will do for me." That is hardly flocking but just throwing a "good enough" explanation back at the theist that they will hopefully leave us alone.
What's wrong with saying 'I don't know?' Demanding that atheists know how the Universe came to be seems just as wrong as demanding that you explain how God came to be. Except that the atheists can at least claim to have at least some evidence that the Universe exists (even if it could all be false), so they can at least start their search for an answer with relatively solid footing.
If you are in a normal discussion as to how something knowable works but of which you have no knowledge, saying "I don't know," would be quite reasonable. Unfortunately, quite a few of the "true believers" seem to take someone saying, "I don't know," in this context as an invitation to be "educated" with their particular mystical explanation. So, unless you want to hear the current mystical explanation, just say the scientific explanation works well enough for you and let them expend their energies attacking that. It's usually much more entertaining than the lesson you get with "I don't know."
Maybe, "I'm OK with not knowing," would work better than "I don't know." Trying to convey that you're more comfortable with a blank slate than one that is filled with mystical gobbledy-gook is hard to get across to those who embrace the mystical gobbledy-gook.
Seems silly to point out but, if you don't believe some god created the universe, life, etc. then you need some explanation for the universe around us and us as observers of that universe. The flying spaghetti monster is one alternative but it sort of makes sense that quite a few atheists will just say that the scientific explanation of the universe works for them; no more, no less. It's not something to be carried on your sleeve. I'd hardly call that "flocking to science." I haven't heard of too many militant atheists picketing some religious get together with signs saying, "Believe in string theory!" or "Quantum Gravity has the Answer!"
Many atheist have a belief that god does not exist. They want others to join them in their belief. Sounds like a religion to me.
Believing that there isn't a god is a belief: the acceptance of an assertion without sufficient evidence. Accepting that there probably isn't a god due to the total lack of objective evidence isn't a belief. It's just accepting observable, objective reality. Still, a good atheist maintains a scientific doubt about atheism.
... I come down on the systemd side when I want my laptop to correctly connect to the appropriate WiFi network (but only if not connected to a wired network).
The NetworkManager is written by literally the same people who work on the SystemD.
If it hadn't worked before, why you think it would work afterwards?
It works better than the alternative for managing dynamic network connections. That isn't saying much since the alternative is doing it manually or with handcrafted shell scripts.
I was looking for an appropriate thread to make the same suggestion. I come down on the side of the sysvinit people when it comes to servers and other stable installations. OTH, I come down on the systemd side when I want my laptop to correctly connect to the appropriate WiFi network (but only if not connected to a wired network). It really makes sense to support both. Stability, reliability and simplicity for the server folks and something more flexible for desktops and laptops.
Definitely well known for a long time. I remember seeing an article around 1990 about one of the radar systems that I worked on in the mid-1980s as being able to track the B-2. Both systems were over the horizon radars (very long wave length; antenna arrays stretching for a mile or so). Good tracking accuracy if you looked at it as a percentage of the range but the minimum range was like 400-500 miles (not classified; characteristic of the radar) so even a 1% accuracy means at best a location within 4 or 5 miles. Great for early warning but not useful for targeting. Also, not something that can be made mobile; let alone stuffed into an interceptor.
Definitely worth his severance to get him out of Nokia and back to Microsoft. Says a lot when a company's stock goes up on news that the CEO is leaving. Now if he could only have the same level of success at Microsoft as he had at Nokia.
Feel free to exit at any time to help mitigate the problem. I plan on staying around as long as possible if for no other reason than just to piss off misanthrops like you.
Worked OK then (more than a few memory leaks). Works much better now.
Kind of amusing the people who want to get rid of it just because it's old. Especially amusing are the people who seem to think they could re-write it in a week. Delusional but amusing.
When I view the stereoscope images off camera, they "don't match" with regard to color. Just a slightly different hue but very noticeable. A 2D shot of the same scene matches neither of the stereoscope pair and matches the "real" colors.
Stereoscpic photography has been around for a long time. It just takes shooting the same scene twice but from two slightly different points. My family at one time had a 35mm film camera that had two lenses,etc and could be used to take stereoscopic photograph pairs. You needed a special viewer to view them to get the 3D effect and you burned twice as much film but it was really cool. The lenses were about as far apart as an adult's eyes.
How far apart were the levses on your 3D EVO? The twin lenses on the Thrill are only maybe half an inch apart. Don't know if LG had to resort to some other trickery to get 3D effects with the lenses that close.
My old phone is an LG Thrill. Geat phone when it was released. Had a 3D camera so you could take 3D pictures. Reasonable 3D rendering ON THE PHONE. That's the problem. You could take 3D pictures but only people with another LG Thrill could view them in 3D. You couldn't even share just one of the two images from the stereoscopic image since neither image was actually "correct" when viewed alone. You had to view the 3D images on an LG Thrill. Dumb.
Oh yeah. It also had the ability to play 3D games. I don't play games so that was another useless feature. Also, I'm sorry but the idea behind 3D movies, games, what have you is to make the experience "immersive". It's really hard to feel immersed when you have this little teeny, tiny smartphone screen. Lifesized 3D on a wall sized 4K screen is immersive.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually there have been quite a few studies regarding coffee, caffeine and health:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd...
The general consensus is that coffee is GOOD FOR YOU unless you have specific health issues like hypertension, high blood pressure, etc. Go troll on a different subject. You'll lose on this one.
Beer! Now that's another subject. Dark and thick is the best. Just had a Left Hand Brewing Company Nitro "Wake Up Dead" Stout. It almost doesn't need a glass. Yummy.
Cheers,
Dave
Even in Japan, octopus meat is usually cooked (boiled) for sushi. The arms of the common octopus and the giant octopus (most common varieties for sushi) are edible raw, and are treated as a delicacy, but they are very chewy--you'd need to get a good sushi chef to slice it paper thin to have any hope of chewing it off. The Koreans do eat living octopus arms that are only chopped and not sliced, but they use a different, smaller species that isn't as well suited for sushi.
I didn't know that. The other items on the menu at our favorite sushi place are noted as being cooked (e.g., unagi, ebi) or lightly flamed (seared tuna, scallops if you ask for them that way) but otherwise raw. I just assumed that since the octopus wasn't noted as cooked, it was raw. Unlike most of the other items on the menu that I might see in a fish market, I've never been to a fish market that had octopus (cooked or not).
I enjoy learning and, especially, learning about the things I eat. Thanks. Also, something tells me that the octopus being boiled isn't going to make it acceptable to my friends and family who stick to cooked items on the sushi menu....
Cheers,
Dave
Lots of things are against the law and yet people still murder, rape, kidnap, steal, etc., etc. What makes you think some idiot will follow a law that says they can't fly their flying car if it has a bit of a bend? I followed some jerk whose brake lights didn't work last week. I'm sure that's illegal, too.
Cheers,
Dave
Linus missed an opportunity to "adjust" the kernel version numbering scheme. This should have been released as Linux kernel 11.0.
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
Cheers,
Dave
I always knew there was something else I didn't like about Democrats besides their tax and spend, big, nanny-state government ways and now I know. No sense of humor.
Cheers,
Dave
but octopus is just gross
Try it raw on rice (sushi style). You'd be surprised how good it tastes with soy sauce and wasabi. The texture is a little chewy which puts some people off.
Never thought I'd like escargot but had enough to drink one time and I've been hooked ever since. Who woulda thunk that snails make a great vehicle for garlic and butter?
Cheers,
Dave
I've had octopus a couple of times. Tends to be a little chewy. I'll stick to ahi tuna (maguro and toro), yellowtail, scallops, freshwater eel (unagi), surf clams, etc. Still haven't had enough to drink to try sea urchin. Just something about the appearance and texture.
Cheers,
Dave
Two very different things: why does the universe exist and how did the universe come to exist. There is no why for the universe. It is. Looking for a why is what theists do.
Clarifying the clarification: I was only attempting to answer the question, "Why do atheists flock to science?" My answer was simply that, rather than arguing something vacuous, they simply say, "Meh, the scientific explanation will do for me." That is hardly flocking but just throwing a "good enough" explanation back at the theist that they will hopefully leave us alone.
Cheers,
Dave
What's wrong with saying 'I don't know?' Demanding that atheists know how the Universe came to be seems just as wrong as demanding that you explain how God came to be. Except that the atheists can at least claim to have at least some evidence that the Universe exists (even if it could all be false), so they can at least start their search for an answer with relatively solid footing.
If you are in a normal discussion as to how something knowable works but of which you have no knowledge, saying "I don't know," would be quite reasonable. Unfortunately, quite a few of the "true believers" seem to take someone saying, "I don't know," in this context as an invitation to be "educated" with their particular mystical explanation. So, unless you want to hear the current mystical explanation, just say the scientific explanation works well enough for you and let them expend their energies attacking that. It's usually much more entertaining than the lesson you get with "I don't know."
Maybe, "I'm OK with not knowing," would work better than "I don't know." Trying to convey that you're more comfortable with a blank slate than one that is filled with mystical gobbledy-gook is hard to get across to those who embrace the mystical gobbledy-gook.
Cheers,
Dave
Seems silly to point out but, if you don't believe some god created the universe, life, etc. then you need some explanation for the universe around us and us as observers of that universe. The flying spaghetti monster is one alternative but it sort of makes sense that quite a few atheists will just say that the scientific explanation of the universe works for them; no more, no less. It's not something to be carried on your sleeve. I'd hardly call that "flocking to science." I haven't heard of too many militant atheists picketing some religious get together with signs saying, "Believe in string theory!" or "Quantum Gravity has the Answer!"
Cheers,
Dave
Many atheist have a belief that god does not exist. They want others to join them in their belief.
Sounds like a religion to me.
Believing that there isn't a god is a belief: the acceptance of an assertion without sufficient evidence. Accepting that there probably isn't a god due to the total lack of objective evidence isn't a belief. It's just accepting observable, objective reality. Still, a good atheist maintains a scientific doubt about atheism.
Cheers,
Dave
Exactly. I get so tired of being asked "Then what *do* you believe?" ...
I usually go with the W.C. Fields line, "Everyone should believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink."
Cheers,
Dave
... I come down on the systemd side when I want my laptop to correctly connect to the appropriate WiFi network (but only if not connected to a wired network).
The NetworkManager is written by literally the same people who work on the SystemD.
If it hadn't worked before, why you think it would work afterwards?
It works better than the alternative for managing dynamic network connections. That isn't saying much since the alternative is doing it manually or with handcrafted shell scripts.
I usually call it NetworkMangler.
Cheers,
Dave
I was looking for an appropriate thread to make the same suggestion. I come down on the side of the sysvinit people when it comes to servers and other stable installations. OTH, I come down on the systemd side when I want my laptop to correctly connect to the appropriate WiFi network (but only if not connected to a wired network). It really makes sense to support both. Stability, reliability and simplicity for the server folks and something more flexible for desktops and laptops.
Cheers,
Dave
Definitely well known for a long time. I remember seeing an article around 1990 about one of the radar systems that I worked on in the mid-1980s as being able to track the B-2. Both systems were over the horizon radars (very long wave length; antenna arrays stretching for a mile or so). Good tracking accuracy if you looked at it as a percentage of the range but the minimum range was like 400-500 miles (not classified; characteristic of the radar) so even a 1% accuracy means at best a location within 4 or 5 miles. Great for early warning but not useful for targeting. Also, not something that can be made mobile; let alone stuffed into an interceptor.
Cheers,
Dave
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
Definitely worth his severance to get him out of Nokia and back to Microsoft. Says a lot when a company's stock goes up on news that the CEO is leaving. Now if he could only have the same level of success at Microsoft as he had at Nokia.
Cheers,
Dave
BINGO!!!!!!!
I win. Too bad a bunch of ex-Nokia folks and Microsofties had to lose though.
Cheers,
Dave
In $GOD we trust. All others must pay cash.
(your choice as to how to define $GOD)
Cheers,
Dave
...
The less humans on this planet, the better.
Feel free to exit at any time to help mitigate the problem. I plan on staying around as long as possible if for no other reason than just to piss off misanthrops like you.
Cheers,
Dave
Maybe they mean the "Linda Lovelace" test?
Unfortunately, she's dead. Doesn't take much intelligence to be dead.
Cheers,
Dave
Worked OK then (more than a few memory leaks). Works much better now.
Kind of amusing the people who want to get rid of it just because it's old. Especially amusing are the people who seem to think they could re-write it in a week. Delusional but amusing.
Cheers,
Dave
When I view the stereoscope images off camera, they "don't match" with regard to color. Just a slightly different hue but very noticeable. A 2D shot of the same scene matches neither of the stereoscope pair and matches the "real" colors.
Stereoscpic photography has been around for a long time. It just takes shooting the same scene twice but from two slightly different points. My family at one time had a 35mm film camera that had two lenses,etc and could be used to take stereoscopic photograph pairs. You needed a special viewer to view them to get the 3D effect and you burned twice as much film but it was really cool. The lenses were about as far apart as an adult's eyes.
How far apart were the levses on your 3D EVO? The twin lenses on the Thrill are only maybe half an inch apart. Don't know if LG had to resort to some other trickery to get 3D effects with the lenses that close.
Cheers,
Dave
My old phone is an LG Thrill. Geat phone when it was released. Had a 3D camera so you could take 3D pictures. Reasonable 3D rendering ON THE PHONE. That's the problem. You could take 3D pictures but only people with another LG Thrill could view them in 3D. You couldn't even share just one of the two images from the stereoscopic image since neither image was actually "correct" when viewed alone. You had to view the 3D images on an LG Thrill. Dumb.
Oh yeah. It also had the ability to play 3D games. I don't play games so that was another useless feature. Also, I'm sorry but the idea behind 3D movies, games, what have you is to make the experience "immersive". It's really hard to feel immersed when you have this little teeny, tiny smartphone screen. Lifesized 3D on a wall sized 4K screen is immersive.
Cheers,
Dave
Does anyone really care?
Cheers,
Dave