There has never been sufficient evidence that eating fat clogs your arteries, aside from the logical conclusion that 'it makes sense'. I watched a lecture last year where this was being said, and the lecturer wasn't giving out new information.
This is all left over fallout from the Ansel Keys (spelling) Seven Nation Study that was essentially debunked as soon as it was released.
May is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure it's an old internet fact that has some truth to it, that London has more security cameras than most countries on the planet. Just london. And has done for a very long time. This isn't surprising, or new.
you may be overestimating the number of comparisons. It's entirely possible that the faces are grouped based on particular characteristics and that any given face might be sorted into a group's parameters first, before then being compared to faces within it. It's still likely to be a stupidly big number of comparisons, but a comparison system that is designed with even a slightest degree of intelligence will have many fewer false positives that you are suggesting.
taste is, in part, a psychological thing, in so far as your personal perception based on experience, as well as the fact that it involves the brain, and therefore must be psychological.
If they were creating artificial molecules that would interact with your taste buds then it would be a mechanical problem, but this is pure psychological.
The irony is that the homosapien's violent nature wouldn't necessarily be enough to beat down on neanderthals since they were bigger and smarter than us, and that it was our SOCIAL nature that allowed us to gang up on them. Irony being that despite it (social behavior) being quite possibly the reason we became the dominant (and I suppose only remaining) hominid, we still can't get along.
The story can't be that these are newly discovered footprints. The aboriginals have known about them long enough that they are a part of their creation myths.
Or is it just that white people know about them now?
In the UK, I can swipe my card at the pump, pump, then leave. This isn't paying upfront either. Much faster than going into the kiosk to interact with a meat sack, regardless of whether I'm using cash or not.
It seems to me that fake, as traditionally used, means that something isn't what it says it is.
A fake car can't drive, a fake laptop won't turn on, a piece of fake fruit might be made of wax. There's no element of truth other than the aesthetic. It LOOKS like the thing it is claiming to be but contains none of the content.
Why, therefor, are people's extreme opinions being labelled as 'fake'? They might be lacking in truth, but all news outlets have always put their own spin on stories and further a narrative they support, in many cases lying in order to do so. In using 'fake' in such an odd way, we're now getting to a point where entire news organisations are being dismissed for some factual inaccuracies in one or two stories.
Can't we go back to calling specific 'journalists' and news outlets liars whenever they produce 'lies'?
We did it during WW2 and it seemed to work out fine. As soon as we'd broken the enigma code we had the chance to prevent attacks we were learning about but couldn't unless we wanted the Germans to know we'd cracked their code. We let people die so we could save more down the line.
A great man once said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". I'm willing to assume this is what is happening here.
Not listened to Radio in a while, but isn't Zayne Lowe (spelling?) a massive music geek? I remember listening to him a few times a couple years ago interviewing different artists about their process and he clearly wasn't working from a script.
and almost all soda consumed contains those flavourings and additives
The argument you just made is akin to saying machine guns in schools shouldn't be maligned because a.22 bolt action rifle can't be used to mow down a huge crowd.
worse tasting than doritos does not equal bad tasting
worse DOES mean less good
Nothing tastes better than when it's covered in fat, salt and sugar, but that's like saying cookies taste bad because there's a variety that comes covered in chocolate.
cancers feed on everything you feed on, but reducing carbs changes the way your body absorbs various calorie sources, meaning your body 'out competes' for the resources available, starving the cancers. Similar things happen when you do weight training.
Slashdot Mirror
There has never been sufficient evidence that eating fat clogs your arteries, aside from the logical conclusion that 'it makes sense'. I watched a lecture last year where this was being said, and the lecturer wasn't giving out new information. This is all left over fallout from the Ansel Keys (spelling) Seven Nation Study that was essentially debunked as soon as it was released.
Doesn't say that at all. Learn to read.
May is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure it's an old internet fact that has some truth to it, that London has more security cameras than most countries on the planet. Just london. And has done for a very long time. This isn't surprising, or new.
you may be overestimating the number of comparisons. It's entirely possible that the faces are grouped based on particular characteristics and that any given face might be sorted into a group's parameters first, before then being compared to faces within it. It's still likely to be a stupidly big number of comparisons, but a comparison system that is designed with even a slightest degree of intelligence will have many fewer false positives that you are suggesting.
That's a shitty school, not a shitty parent
If we stop using it, it saves them money and they'll start meeting their targets more easily. Boycotting would be doing them a favour.
Correlation does not equal causation. Not entirely sure there is enough data being presented here to show that smartphones are the direct cause.
A little disposable income does not make you a 1%er
taste is, in part, a psychological thing, in so far as your personal perception based on experience, as well as the fact that it involves the brain, and therefore must be psychological. If they were creating artificial molecules that would interact with your taste buds then it would be a mechanical problem, but this is pure psychological.
The irony is that the homosapien's violent nature wouldn't necessarily be enough to beat down on neanderthals since they were bigger and smarter than us, and that it was our SOCIAL nature that allowed us to gang up on them. Irony being that despite it (social behavior) being quite possibly the reason we became the dominant (and I suppose only remaining) hominid, we still can't get along.
The story can't be that these are newly discovered footprints. The aboriginals have known about them long enough that they are a part of their creation myths. Or is it just that white people know about them now?
In the UK, I can swipe my card at the pump, pump, then leave. This isn't paying upfront either. Much faster than going into the kiosk to interact with a meat sack, regardless of whether I'm using cash or not.
They'll also stop terrorizing if you reduce the countries that harbor them to sub-atomic particles.
So in last week's case, we should have nuked London? twat Terrorist != Foreigner
or shortly thereafter, at least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Brunel did this in 1838, though smaller. How is this the world's first?
That's part of the plot to Kingsman. Was your waitress Samuel L. Jackson?
It seems to me that fake, as traditionally used, means that something isn't what it says it is. A fake car can't drive, a fake laptop won't turn on, a piece of fake fruit might be made of wax. There's no element of truth other than the aesthetic. It LOOKS like the thing it is claiming to be but contains none of the content. Why, therefor, are people's extreme opinions being labelled as 'fake'? They might be lacking in truth, but all news outlets have always put their own spin on stories and further a narrative they support, in many cases lying in order to do so. In using 'fake' in such an odd way, we're now getting to a point where entire news organisations are being dismissed for some factual inaccuracies in one or two stories. Can't we go back to calling specific 'journalists' and news outlets liars whenever they produce 'lies'?
We did it during WW2 and it seemed to work out fine. As soon as we'd broken the enigma code we had the chance to prevent attacks we were learning about but couldn't unless we wanted the Germans to know we'd cracked their code. We let people die so we could save more down the line. A great man once said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". I'm willing to assume this is what is happening here.
And humans convert almost everything into glucose and use that to respire. Like I said, they feed on what we feed on. Cancer cells ARE us.
Not listened to Radio in a while, but isn't Zayne Lowe (spelling?) a massive music geek? I remember listening to him a few times a couple years ago interviewing different artists about their process and he clearly wasn't working from a script.
There is no evidence that eating saturated fat leads to heart desease
and almost all soda consumed contains those flavourings and additives The argument you just made is akin to saying machine guns in schools shouldn't be maligned because a .22 bolt action rifle can't be used to mow down a huge crowd.
21 calories a day? I'd be on the floor with numbers like that! o_0;
worse tasting than doritos does not equal bad tasting worse DOES mean less good Nothing tastes better than when it's covered in fat, salt and sugar, but that's like saying cookies taste bad because there's a variety that comes covered in chocolate.
cancers feed on everything you feed on, but reducing carbs changes the way your body absorbs various calorie sources, meaning your body 'out competes' for the resources available, starving the cancers. Similar things happen when you do weight training.