Pasta is not good, not least because wheat is generally not good for you. Naturally occurring sugar is still sugar - it matters not. With fruit you may get a few extra nutrients with it, but it doesn't make the sugar content itself any better for you.
So.... They were fed foods high in fat and high in sugar. Show me a study that shows that just the fat is addictive. It's not. But there are studies showing just the opposite - that sugary foods are addictive. But the sugar lobby is strong.
Taken as a whole, the diet is high in sugar. The paper doesn't give a breakdown of where all the calories came from in the diet, but 4 of the 6 foods mentioned are high in sugar.
High fat is not the problem at all. Try gorging yourself on a block of good cheddar and see how much you can eat and how addictive it is. It's not. The addiction is all in the sugars, starches and carbohydrates in general.
Now to read the actual paper:http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nn.2519.pdf
"The cafeteria diet consisted of bacon, sausage, cheesecake, pound cake, frosting and chocolate" - in other words, full of sugar!!! Yet the news article says it's "fatty foods..." when in reality, it's sugary foods the rats were being fed, that fat being incidental. But of course, the sugar lobby is strong...
You're just making stuff up now. As for your comment on morality, theism has the Euthyphro dilemma which really destroys any argument that morality comes from god.
To say that is there is no god is a practical position for one to take when one does not believe in a god or lacks a belief in a god. Just the same as although I lack a belief in faeries, for all practical purposes I don't believe in faeries.
God(s) are indeed not necessary for a religion, and indeed as you point out Buddhism, communism often appears to be a religion also. I'd hesitate to say it is one, but in some places has become one when an individual leader is worshipped as a god.
Philosophically speaking, outside mathematics nothing really is ever proven or not, but in real life things can, for all practical purposes be proven. Atheism as a philosophical position is not something that can be proven, but practically speaking the universe acts and behaves as if there is no intervening personal god.
It is much harder to practically disprove a deist god that doesn't intervene in the universe, but only started it off, so to speak. But for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if that type of god exists or not, other than it would be "interesting to know".
Unless a priest fiddled with them, they got locked up in a laundry or the church covered up on their abuse.... There are an awful lot of reasons to partake in anti-Catholic speech.
And no, every country doesn't have a right to protect their culture because some cultural things, like female genital mutilation are so obnoxious and so wrong that they must be stopped.
And who wrote the definition, an atheist, an agnostic or a theist? Instead of asking the dictionary what an atheist is, why not ask an atheist. There are generally two statements of atheism:
1) I lack a belief in any god(s) 2) I don't believe in god(s)
No beliefs are not about things which we cannot prove. I believe the earth is reasonably spherical is a belief about something which is proven. You're confusing faith with belief. Faith is what you have about things which you cannot prove, beliefs are things we hold true no matter what their proof status.
Agnostics are making a positive statement about the limits of knowledge. They are explicitly saying that knowledge has some limits, and that god(s) are things that lie beyond those limits. Although rare, it's perfectly possible to have an agnostic theist, although I'd suspect most atheists are also agnostics because agnosticism is much more a statement about the limits of knowledge.
As you know there are two basic statements of atheism - one is a lack of belief in god(s) and the other a statement that says that god(s) do not exist. Of course, the second contains the first, but the first does not contain the second.
There are so many things that we all have a lack of belief in. I'm sure you don't believe in gnarbles (not knowing even what gnarbles are) and you are therefore a agnarblist. I could invent a very long list of nonesense names of "things" and you'd lack a belief in all of them. You don't even consider that you have an unfounded belief in a negative when you say "I don't believe in gnarbles", and you'd be right. Just as I am right when I don't have a belief in your particular god or any other particular god anyone will invent or has invented.
If a set can be the empty set, then anything is a religion. But that'd be silly. But atheism is the empty set. It is a lack of beliefs in god(s). That is not a belief, but a lack of belief. And to call atheism a religion is silly.
It's not wrong to specifically not include something in a definition - the definition of the primes specifically says 1 is not a prime.
You may think that, and repeat it enough times that you believe it, but that does not make it so. There are no beliefs in atheism, just a single lack of belief in god(s). That's it. Not a religion. It's a lack of religion if anything.
Atheism postulates nothing. Atheists just lack a belief in god(s). That's it. Just the same way that you lack belief in hobbits, goblins, faeries and pixies. Proof doesn't come into it.
If that was true, you'd be able to list those common moralities, purposes etc. But there's only one common thing between atheists and that's a lack of belief in god(s). That's it. No rituals, no dogma, no structure, no hierarchy, and nothing else in common.
To many, atheism is a lack of belief in god(s), so not a negative, but lack of a positive. You could easily assert that agnosticism is a positive belief that certain things, like god(s) are unknown and unknowable, just as easily.
To state that "atheism is a religion of blind faith. the sooner mankind learns to accept it, the better off we'll all be" is incorrect and a straw man. Atheism is not, never has been, and cannot be a religion. It is a lack of religion, a lack of belief and a lack of faith.
It is no more foolish to assert that certain deities that posses mutually contradictory properties don't exist than to assert that 0 != 1.
It might record 1080p (1920x1080) but the measured horizontal resolution is much more like 1400 or so... So not even full 1080p. If you actually try to shoot something with high detail so you can actually see that resolution, the result is ugly because of the line skipping, you get false colors appearing, and it sort of twitters and jumps as the detail falls into the rows that got skipped.
Horizontally, the Canon measures less than half the measured resolution of a RED One. That's not slightly different, that's vastly different. I'd love to see how you can control the aliasing produced by the line skipping with external filters. Even if you could put a filter on blurry enough to do so, you'd now be into sub-HD territory with the resolution.
As for performing better in low light, you can't even brighten up the shadows on something you've shot because it all just looks like macroblocks! The codec is terrible and utterly un-suited to any kind of professional post production.
Sure, you can get good Canon glass cheap, or Nikon glass for that matter, both of which will work on your RED.
It's funny that people always go on about the DOF with the Canon - because it's only when everything is out of focus are you not able to easily see what is wrong with the picture.
No, not binning. Binning wouldn't look as bad as it does. It must be skipping entire lines to look as bad as it does. If you analyze a zone plate image through the camera, you can see this quite clearly.
The only way this aliasing can be reduced is to mis-focus the camera, or put aggressive filtering on the lens (or replace the existing OLPF with one designed for the video mode).
Due to the record companies getting a levy on blank CDs, we have audio private copying, which indeed through the "law of unintended consequences" allows Canadians to make private copies of music, but that is a right that has been paid for.
Slashdot Mirror
Pasta is not good, not least because wheat is generally not good for you. Naturally occurring sugar is still sugar - it matters not. With fruit you may get a few extra nutrients with it, but it doesn't make the sugar content itself any better for you.
So.... They were fed foods high in fat and high in sugar. Show me a study that shows that just the fat is addictive. It's not. But there are studies showing just the opposite - that sugary foods are addictive. But the sugar lobby is strong.
Taken as a whole, the diet is high in sugar. The paper doesn't give a breakdown of where all the calories came from in the diet, but 4 of the 6 foods mentioned are high in sugar.
High fat is not the problem at all. Try gorging yourself on a block of good cheddar and see how much you can eat and how addictive it is. It's not. The addiction is all in the sugars, starches and carbohydrates in general.
Now to read the actual paper:http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nn.2519.pdf
"The cafeteria diet consisted of bacon, sausage, cheesecake, pound cake, frosting and chocolate" - in other words, full of sugar!!! Yet the news article says it's "fatty foods..." when in reality, it's sugary foods the rats were being fed, that fat being incidental. But of course, the sugar lobby is strong...
These scanners are woefully in-effective and any decent bomber could walk through them and not have his bomb detected. See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/24/body_scanner_fail/
You're just making stuff up now.
As for your comment on morality, theism has the Euthyphro dilemma which really destroys any argument that morality comes from god.
To say that is there is no god is a practical position for one to take when one does not believe in a god or lacks a belief in a god. Just the same as although I lack a belief in faeries, for all practical purposes I don't believe in faeries.
God(s) are indeed not necessary for a religion, and indeed as you point out Buddhism, communism often appears to be a religion also. I'd hesitate to say it is one, but in some places has become one when an individual leader is worshipped as a god.
Philosophically speaking, outside mathematics nothing really is ever proven or not, but in real life things can, for all practical purposes be proven. Atheism as a philosophical position is not something that can be proven, but practically speaking the universe acts and behaves as if there is no intervening personal god.
It is much harder to practically disprove a deist god that doesn't intervene in the universe, but only started it off, so to speak. But for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter if that type of god exists or not, other than it would be "interesting to know".
Unless a priest fiddled with them, they got locked up in a laundry or the church covered up on their abuse.... There are an awful lot of reasons to partake in anti-Catholic speech.
And no, every country doesn't have a right to protect their culture because some cultural things, like female genital mutilation are so obnoxious and so wrong that they must be stopped.
And who wrote the definition, an atheist, an agnostic or a theist? Instead of asking the dictionary what an atheist is, why not ask an atheist. There are generally two statements of atheism:
1) I lack a belief in any god(s)
2) I don't believe in god(s)
Many atheists are also agnostics.
No beliefs are not about things which we cannot prove. I believe the earth is reasonably spherical is a belief about something which is proven. You're confusing faith with belief. Faith is what you have about things which you cannot prove, beliefs are things we hold true no matter what their proof status.
Agnostics are making a positive statement about the limits of knowledge. They are explicitly saying that knowledge has some limits, and that god(s) are things that lie beyond those limits. Although rare, it's perfectly possible to have an agnostic theist, although I'd suspect most atheists are also agnostics because agnosticism is much more a statement about the limits of knowledge.
As you know there are two basic statements of atheism - one is a lack of belief in god(s) and the other a statement that says that god(s) do not exist. Of course, the second contains the first, but the first does not contain the second.
There are so many things that we all have a lack of belief in. I'm sure you don't believe in gnarbles (not knowing even what gnarbles are) and you are therefore a agnarblist. I could invent a very long list of nonesense names of "things" and you'd lack a belief in all of them. You don't even consider that you have an unfounded belief in a negative when you say "I don't believe in gnarbles", and you'd be right. Just as I am right when I don't have a belief in your particular god or any other particular god anyone will invent or has invented.
If a set can be the empty set, then anything is a religion. But that'd be silly. But atheism is the empty set. It is a lack of beliefs in god(s). That is not a belief, but a lack of belief. And to call atheism a religion is silly.
It's not wrong to specifically not include something in a definition - the definition of the primes specifically says 1 is not a prime.
You may think that, and repeat it enough times that you believe it, but that does not make it so. There are no beliefs in atheism, just a single lack of belief in god(s). That's it. Not a religion. It's a lack of religion if anything.
Atheism postulates nothing. Atheists just lack a belief in god(s). That's it. Just the same way that you lack belief in hobbits, goblins, faeries and pixies. Proof doesn't come into it.
If that was true, you'd be able to list those common moralities, purposes etc. But there's only one common thing between atheists and that's a lack of belief in god(s). That's it. No rituals, no dogma, no structure, no hierarchy, and nothing else in common.
To many, atheism is a lack of belief in god(s), so not a negative, but lack of a positive. You could easily assert that agnosticism is a positive belief that certain things, like god(s) are unknown and unknowable, just as easily.
To state that "atheism is a religion of blind faith. the sooner mankind learns to accept it, the better off we'll all be" is incorrect and a straw man. Atheism is not, never has been, and cannot be a religion. It is a lack of religion, a lack of belief and a lack of faith.
It is no more foolish to assert that certain deities that posses mutually contradictory properties don't exist than to assert that 0 != 1.
surely SCO is the most tarnished?
Most adverts are utterly irrelevant to most people anyway....
So the 1st amendment is dead.
It might record 1080p (1920x1080) but the measured horizontal resolution is much more like 1400 or so... So not even full 1080p. If you actually try to shoot something with high detail so you can actually see that resolution, the result is ugly because of the line skipping, you get false colors appearing, and it sort of twitters and jumps as the detail falls into the rows that got skipped.
Look at the images here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=175113 and tell me the 5D2 looks better. The 5D2 images are ugly.
Horizontally, the Canon measures less than half the measured resolution of a RED One. That's not slightly different, that's vastly different. I'd love to see how you can control the aliasing produced by the line skipping with external filters. Even if you could put a filter on blurry enough to do so, you'd now be into sub-HD territory with the resolution.
As for performing better in low light, you can't even brighten up the shadows on something you've shot because it all just looks like macroblocks! The codec is terrible and utterly un-suited to any kind of professional post production.
Sure, you can get good Canon glass cheap, or Nikon glass for that matter, both of which will work on your RED.
It's funny that people always go on about the DOF with the Canon - because it's only when everything is out of focus are you not able to easily see what is wrong with the picture.
A RED has superior resolution, vastly less aliasing, more choice of frame rates etc. etc. Overall, a better picture.
No, not binning. Binning wouldn't look as bad as it does. It must be skipping entire lines to look as bad as it does. If you analyze a zone plate image through the camera, you can see this quite clearly.
The only way this aliasing can be reduced is to mis-focus the camera, or put aggressive filtering on the lens (or replace the existing OLPF with one designed for the video mode).
Due to the record companies getting a levy on blank CDs, we have audio private copying, which indeed through the "law of unintended consequences" allows Canadians to make private copies of music, but that is a right that has been paid for.
But Canada does not have fair use, but instead fair dealing which is a lot less liberal than the USA's fair use.