No...they make it by ingesting nectar, partially digesting it, and regurgitating it. Or, as SuperKendall put it, "throw[ing] up". It just so happens that we find bee vomit not only edible but delicious, unlike, say, cow cud or penguin puke, so we made up a special name for it (honey) that lets us eat it without thinking about where it comes from*. Call it "bee barf" and nobody would touch it, absence of bacteria notwithstanding.
*OK, we made up the name before we knew precisely how it was made. Still, the reluctance of others in this thread to accept that calling it bee vomit is technically correct proves how unpalatable most people find the mere concept.
No, but shit is, and that was the subject of the article.
And the thrust of the post that started this thread was other stuff besides. If you only want to talk about shit...well, I would have said move to another thread, but now I think of it talking about shit is what Slashdot is for, so never mind.
As to honey, that's not comparable at all. It's not a waste product, it's intended to be eaten, so there's an incentive for it to be clean.
The fish sea birds regurgitate for their chicks is intended to be eaten, and is therefore not a waste product. It would also make you very sick. Intended to be eaten does not equate to human ideas of edible, honey merely falls into both categories.
Nobody said it was. If it's being harvested for you it's being made for you, even if the bees had other plans. This is true for everything you eat: nothing grows seeds, fruit, flesh or whatever with your appetite in mind.
...the expulsion of metal shrapnel during deployment.
Finally! I've been advocating something like this for years: install a device that ensures certain death in a crash and everyone will drive way more carefully.
The neurohelmet will never work as an input device simply because there's no way of filtering the desired content from the wow nice tits subliminal thoughts.
Let's examine the word: sub means less than or beneath, lux is a measure of brightness, ~tion is a suffix indicating a state. Therefore "subluxation" means "to be less than bright" or, as most people would say, stupid. The word is perfect as is.
So nobody wants something a bit better than a cassette 4 track for demos and they all want to wrangle ProTools or CuBase instead of concentrating on writing, this album doesn't exist, and I didn't write and produce three TV theme tunes and two commercial jingles with it (despite normally using Digital Performer).
Good to see elitist snobbery isn't an exclusive Apple product.
(And FWIW I think iPads are the wrong device for schools)
Careful...say those letters three times in a row and he appears to drag the forum down into a morass of insanely long, boring and redundant posts congratulating himself for his genius in compiling a list.
I claim that God exists because I've had spiritual experiences that lead me to believe so.
I've had visions, heard voices and music from nowhere, and had profound revelations, however I do not call them spiritual experiences because (a) I'm an atheist, and (b) I was on LSD at the time. I was perfectly aware of my brain chemistry, can you say the same?
That completely invalidates your "no evidence" hypothesis
No it doesn't, because you haven't shown that you've eliminated the possibility you could be mistaking self-hypnosis or even temporary psychosis for something supernatural. Prove those are impossibilities, and you're a step closer to proving your improbable hypothesis of an invisible man who watches everything everyone does; if you're not even prepared to consider those possibilities you're rejecting the scientific method in favour of your personal beliefs.
I recognize that my evidence is personal and subjective, although I would argue that to a certain degree it is repeatable (i.e, anyone can experience the same things if they're willing to put forth the effort).
I can recreate the effect of being on LSD if I put in the effort, all that proves is anyone can voluntarily alter their state of consciousness; it does not prove that it's truly something divine, that's merely your perception, and perception is about as far from tangible evidence as you can get, especially where altered consciousness is concerned.
I am merely asserting that a belief in God is perfectly rational.
A friend of mine was committed to a psychiatric hospital after the lock of hair on his forehead told him to attack the people who were reading his mind. As far as he was concerned the voice was real, and his belief in it rational to him (and millions of people have experienced something similar without any effort whatsoever, so that too can be called repeatable, or at least not unique). What makes your purely subjective "spiritual experience" better evidence of God than my friend's purely subjective "psychotic episode" evidence of a talking lock of hair? Again, it comes back to your perception; I can't perceive a difference, and I fail to see why your perception is somehow more valid than mine since you have not provided anything tangible to support it.
And it should be noted that there's photographic evidence that the lock of hair actually existed (even if it didn't talk); that makes my friend's belief slightly more credible, since God is notoriously camera-shy.
Note also that I have a strong scientific background
Your entire argument is essentially "I believe my experience was real, therefore the experience is evidence of my belief", which is merely circular logic, not actual evidence, so I can only conclude your scientific background is a degree from Monster Cable in subjectivism.
True, but to split hairs I didn't say he was making trouble for the Romans, just that he was a troublemaker in one of their territories. However, as the armed authority at the time it fell to the Romans to act, and the Empire becoming the conduit through which Christianity spread nicely illustrates how killing a person isn't necessarily the way to kill an idea.
I understand the Romans tried that approach with a minor troublemaker in one of their occupied territories a couple of thousand years ago. How'd that work out?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, it charged the phone, but he was no longer around to make a call...
[marketing] So dispense with cables and increase time between charges.[/marketing]
And here's the photographic proof you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Why stop them now, when his writing is at its peak?
No...they make it by ingesting nectar, partially digesting it, and regurgitating it. Or, as SuperKendall put it, "throw[ing] up". It just so happens that we find bee vomit not only edible but delicious, unlike, say, cow cud or penguin puke, so we made up a special name for it (honey) that lets us eat it without thinking about where it comes from*. Call it "bee barf" and nobody would touch it, absence of bacteria notwithstanding.
*OK, we made up the name before we knew precisely how it was made. Still, the reluctance of others in this thread to accept that calling it bee vomit is technically correct proves how unpalatable most people find the mere concept.
No, but shit is, and that was the subject of the article.
And the thrust of the post that started this thread was other stuff besides. If you only want to talk about shit...well, I would have said move to another thread, but now I think of it talking about shit is what Slashdot is for, so never mind.
As to honey, that's not comparable at all. It's not a waste product, it's intended to be eaten, so there's an incentive for it to be clean.
The fish sea birds regurgitate for their chicks is intended to be eaten, and is therefore not a waste product. It would also make you very sick. Intended to be eaten does not equate to human ideas of edible, honey merely falls into both categories.
Honey is a highly refined food bees make themselves.
And how do the make it?
It is not a waste product.
Nobody said it was. If it's being harvested for you it's being made for you, even if the bees had other plans. This is true for everything you eat: nothing grows seeds, fruit, flesh or whatever with your appetite in mind.
Just say they come in "dingleberry sauce", it'll sell.
No, it's the Christian Science Monitor. How are Christians supposed to know what to get upset about next if science isn't being monitored?
...the expulsion of metal shrapnel during deployment.
Finally! I've been advocating something like this for years: install a device that ensures certain death in a crash and everyone will drive way more carefully.
Only a moron would think such a sophisticated technology would work flawlessly from the instant it was invented.
Definitely 3.5", unless ifixit employs small children.
The neurohelmet will never work as an input device simply because there's no way of filtering the desired content from the wow nice tits subliminal thoughts.
Human meat tastes like pork, so I'm covered.
In a nice honey glaze?
It hasn't occurred to you that a ban on incandescents for lighting might just exclude incandescents for heating in industrial applications?
By the look of things, PJ could turn Gandalf taking a dump into an entire movie all its own. "Hnnnn...you...shall...not...pass...hnnn".
It's "subluxation".
Let's examine the word: sub means less than or beneath, lux is a measure of brightness, ~tion is a suffix indicating a state. Therefore "subluxation" means "to be less than bright" or, as most people would say, stupid. The word is perfect as is.
Then they should release "Windows Live Xbox Office"...I'd buy that out of morbid curiosity.
No he isn't. Zombies go around looking for brains.
The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory meets the Reality Distortion Field.
Why bother to raise kids if the children's inheritance is going to be a dying cesspool of a planet?
Well, if you resent having them...
So nobody wants something a bit better than a cassette 4 track for demos and they all want to wrangle ProTools or CuBase instead of concentrating on writing, this album doesn't exist, and I didn't write and produce three TV theme tunes and two commercial jingles with it (despite normally using Digital Performer).
Good to see elitist snobbery isn't an exclusive Apple product.
(And FWIW I think iPads are the wrong device for schools)
Careful...say those letters three times in a row and he appears to drag the forum down into a morass of insanely long, boring and redundant posts congratulating himself for his genius in compiling a list.
I claim that God exists because I've had spiritual experiences that lead me to believe so.
I've had visions, heard voices and music from nowhere, and had profound revelations, however I do not call them spiritual experiences because (a) I'm an atheist, and (b) I was on LSD at the time. I was perfectly aware of my brain chemistry, can you say the same?
That completely invalidates your "no evidence" hypothesis
No it doesn't, because you haven't shown that you've eliminated the possibility you could be mistaking self-hypnosis or even temporary psychosis for something supernatural. Prove those are impossibilities, and you're a step closer to proving your improbable hypothesis of an invisible man who watches everything everyone does; if you're not even prepared to consider those possibilities you're rejecting the scientific method in favour of your personal beliefs.
I recognize that my evidence is personal and subjective, although I would argue that to a certain degree it is repeatable (i.e, anyone can experience the same things if they're willing to put forth the effort).
I can recreate the effect of being on LSD if I put in the effort, all that proves is anyone can voluntarily alter their state of consciousness; it does not prove that it's truly something divine, that's merely your perception, and perception is about as far from tangible evidence as you can get, especially where altered consciousness is concerned.
I am merely asserting that a belief in God is perfectly rational.
A friend of mine was committed to a psychiatric hospital after the lock of hair on his forehead told him to attack the people who were reading his mind. As far as he was concerned the voice was real, and his belief in it rational to him (and millions of people have experienced something similar without any effort whatsoever, so that too can be called repeatable, or at least not unique). What makes your purely subjective "spiritual experience" better evidence of God than my friend's purely subjective "psychotic episode" evidence of a talking lock of hair? Again, it comes back to your perception; I can't perceive a difference, and I fail to see why your perception is somehow more valid than mine since you have not provided anything tangible to support it.
And it should be noted that there's photographic evidence that the lock of hair actually existed (even if it didn't talk); that makes my friend's belief slightly more credible, since God is notoriously camera-shy.
Note also that I have a strong scientific background
Your entire argument is essentially "I believe my experience was real, therefore the experience is evidence of my belief", which is merely circular logic, not actual evidence, so I can only conclude your scientific background is a degree from Monster Cable in subjectivism.
True, but to split hairs I didn't say he was making trouble for the Romans, just that he was a troublemaker in one of their territories. However, as the armed authority at the time it fell to the Romans to act, and the Empire becoming the conduit through which Christianity spread nicely illustrates how killing a person isn't necessarily the way to kill an idea.
I understand the Romans tried that approach with a minor troublemaker in one of their occupied territories a couple of thousand years ago. How'd that work out?