Oh and I can't help noticing the description about D&D is reminiscent of ANY organization. A Master ordering people what to do? Sounds like the President of my country or the CEO of my company.
Did you also notice how it's wrong with relation to D&D?
The Dungeon Master doesn't tell players what to do, he's asks them what they are going to do, and the DM just tells them the consequences.
IMHO, the problem with DIRECT is that it didn't advance our capabilities. They were basically just proposing a single medium sized rocket (with multiple variants). To get to the moon would require a two launches that joined in orbit - a step backwards from the Saturn V days. It wasn't scalable for Mars trips, or even bringing large amounts of cargo to the moon.
The Ares V on the other hand is a genuine heavy lift vehicle, that would exceed the capabilities of the Saturn V, allowing not only to return to the moon, but also Mars. We would finally have the capability to start building permanent stations on the moon (and if we aren't going to do that what is the point in returning).
Two launches with in-orbit assembly would be a step forward from the Saturn V and Ares V. We could use smaller, cheaper vehicles, and ultimately send more to the Moon or Mars than would ever be feasible when you're doing it in monolithic launches.
That is the true advancement to our capabilities. That is what will let us build stations on the moon, or send a manned vessel to Mars. Ares V is just a way to do boot-on-the-ground-then-go missions which yes are pretty pointless. At least, that's what it is if you don't have the in-orbit assembly ability. And if you have that capability, then you don't need the heavy lifter.
Says the contraction-using layabout. In my day, we had to earn each letter by bringing in a badger pelt, and we would never resort to removing letters or just smashing words together with an apostrophe just to save ourselves a few extra badger-claw wounds. They built character! Then your generation was all "they're" and "it's" and "wouldn't've" and so forth. Lazybones!
This "researcher" is the total blame. Anyone who believed some soft-core porn chick with fake boobs over their physicians kind of had it coming - it's a tragedy that their children paid the price for their stupidity.
Yes, that's a tragedy. Children shouldn't (but so often do) pay the consequences for their parent's failings.
But it goes way beyond that. The children of parents who aren't stupid and listened to their doctors over Jenny McMommySense are still paying the price for the ones who were that stupid.
Because they were too young to be vaccinated, because they had an allergy, or simply because vaccines are not and never were intended to be 100% immunity for those who get them. Instead, they're intended to make it difficult for a disease to gain a foothold and spread.
Simply by creating larger pockets of the population in which the disease can get a foothold these idiots are potentially hurting EVERYONE's children. And that is simply not acceptable. Fuck Wakefield who should be in prison, fuck Jenny McIdiot, fuck all the parents who have no idea what horrors they are unleashing on themselves and the non-idiot portion of society.
"Thank you Darwin" some AC says? Darwin is laughing at you -- by idly standing by saying "Thank you Darwin" thinking only those too dumb to vaccinate will be weeded out, you're proving yourself unfit as your children could be affected too. By failing to counter this idiocy long ago, we as a society have been proving ourselves unfit. I can only hope this result will be the first step towards succeeding, but frankly I don't see how this is going to convince any anti-vaxxer. They'll just see it as another smear job and cover-up of THE TRUTH.
I drink water every day. I'm assuming that the 500000000X dilution of adam and eve's piss should be so powerful it cures all illness.
That wouldn't work unless Adam and Eve's piss in undiluted form could cause all illness. You should really talk to a professionally licensed homeopath!
No seriously, homeopathy is even dumber than just "the more diluted the more powerful". It's also "something that causes a symptom, once diluted, cures that symptom, even if it's not what actually caused the symptom in this case." So, you know, inflammation due to the venom of a biting or stinging animal can be cured by diluting some other animal's venom, or probably just any inflammatory substance.
So I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that the diluted solution of Adam and Eve's urine that we're all drinking would cure Original Sin. Boy isn't that one going to throw the Catholic Church for a loop!
I got a tiger and put it in my backyard and have yet to be hit by a meteorite. Therefore having a tiger in your yard prevents being hit by meteorites.
And therefore, my tiger repelling rock (I haven't seen a tiger around me since I acquired it) can be surreptitiously placed in someone's yard to cause them to be hit by meteorites!
It's actually emitted by the disk of material that is in the process of being sucked into the black hole, which is spinning extremely fast and becomes extremely hot. Some of it ends up getting spewed out from the poles. So it's a byproduct of the process by which the black hole eats things.
That would be a good thing on the whole, right? If a key part of the Standard Model is reasonably conclusively falsified, then we get to rethink the whole deal rather than just propping up the epicycles. And if we rethink, then perhaps we can start making real advances.
Many scientists are hoping for just that, exactly because of the amazing new doors it would open. Though not really because they have a bone to pick like you seem to... the Standard Model is hardly a matter of propping up epicycles. It's a fantastically elegant theory with incredibly successful predictive power.
To think we can only make real advances by abandoning the Standard Model is to make an unsupported presumption that it's holding back our understanding of the true nature of the universe.
However, I do agree that duplicating effort in an attempt to discover things a few months sooner is more about scientist/politician pride than about sane expenditures of resources.
Maybe for those proximate to the actual decision to spend the money.
But for us, it's about enhancing our descendants' lives in ways we can't even imagine today, just like those who worked on quantum tunneling couldn't have imagine the things created using applications of their research. If it takes a hundred years for such applications to become commonplace, so what? The return on investment of that research was unfathomable.
If the LHC is the better piece of equipment, then mothball the Tevatron since they're nominally collecting similar data, except that the LHC uses better equipment.
More data is more data, and the Tevatron is still doing good work today even though the LHC already exceeds its power. However I'm ultimately not too sad over the Tevatron being mothballed because the LHC is the better instrument.
Hey, there is some sort of relative income level where I'd be happy to design stuff, but when the deals are so skewed that in a single year in finance you can make what an engineer has made his whole life, well, you have to do what's right for your descendants.
I don't care about the skew relative to some other job, I only care if the pay in the job I want is adequate.
Which it sounds like it really wasn't for the opportunities you had in Britain, which is truly a shame.
Interesting you point that out, when Congress is the one that spends the money, not the President, and the best term during the Clinton years was a Republican Congress. I'm not attempting to make a political statement with this, but I do want to point out that despite our strong president system, the reality is that the President has no direct economic power. He suggests a budget and can push through certain bills like tax cuts or health care etc., but the spending falls on Congress, so any budget deficit/surplus blame/credit goes to Congress.
No direct power, but clearly a lot of indirect power to steer the direction of Congress. So it's too simplistic to just say any blame/credit must go solely to Congress, since a lot of the time the good/bad legislation they pass wouldn't exist were it not for the President's actions.
Let's revise with this in mind then, shall we?
The best years were with Clinton in the Presidency and a Republican-controlled Congress.
And the LHC will eventually leave higgs to the SLHC which will still be too flimsy to pull it off but physics lovers will masturbate to it nonetheless...
Actually if I'm not mistaken the LHC has enough energy to cover the maximum theoretical Higgs mass. So if the LHC doesn't find it, then it'll be left to the SLHC to blow the doors open on this mystery and give us the clues to what's really happening. Assuming the LHC itself won't do that; it's always possible that the Higgs doesn't exist but the LHC can find many new amazing things that do.
Well after X amount of time making Y amount of observations, you can say that you would have less than probability Z of not seeing a Higgs if it existed. When Z gets really small, people start concluding that it probably doesn't exist.
This has already happened for various ranges of Higgs masses; the Tevatron in particular has ruled many of them out. And the theory itself puts limits on the Higgs mass. So if at some point in the future we can say there's only an infinitesimal chance of the Higgs having avoided our detection anywhere in its possible mass range, well, then it's time to go back to the theoretical drawing board.
If there were prospects for a young engineer from Oxford, maybe I wouldn't have done what most of the other engineering students did. I think it took one term before everyone realised you can work your ass off for decades designing stuff and getting paid peanuts, or you can work your ass off for a few years designing derivatives and get paid ten times that. Who in their right mind wouldn't go for the gold? That's what society is telling young engineers to go do.
Um, I may be getting paid peanuts compared to you hot shots in finance, but it's a pretty damn comfortable living, and I love the work both because it's challenging and because I'm making things that are real. Being able to actually go out and buy a ridiculously complicated achievement of technology, that I helped design, is very gratifying.
So to me your question sounds like "Who in their right mind doesn't prioritize making the maximal amount of money over making as much as they need and then some and enjoying what they do?" and the answer would be "Everyone who is in their right mind." Not to presume you don't enjoy what you do. But it strikes me as crazy to give up something I love and can make a good living at, for something I don't because it has a bigger payoff.
I can still completely understand what you're saying about where we as a society are directing young potential engineers. It's society itself that equates money with worth and tells people that they're suckers for merely being able to buy a nice home and car (and computer) instead of the bestest home and car. And we show them through actions that the engineers are disposable, and the financial analysts indispensable. Because the latter make more money and are thus more worthy.
Strangely enough, that is also the only right we humans need within our own society.
It's strange that you think that. Society is not about being left alone. Society is very much about human interactions. You have the right to leave society entirely and thereby be left alone. But within a society there are surely more rights necessary than just that. For example the right to have justice administered fairly when your interactions with other humans fall afoul of society's laws. You do not have the right to be left alone in that case.
A society that gave you no rights except the right to be left alone (by not participating in that society) would be an awful one, where the only sane choice would be to exercise the right to leave.
Because sufficiently generic hardware is not sufficiently fast at the desired task, graphics computation. Even with the optimization intel has put into this, they'll be MORE than an order of magnitude of graphics performance behind the dedicated solutions of their competitors.
Indeed, and this isn't even a hypothetical situation. Intel tried exactly what the GP wanted with Larrabee. It didn't work.
But the observation was women were restricted in opportunities and pay in nearly all fields until recently -- education and nursing being counterexamples, yet hardly the only non-physically-intensive professions. I am not and need not blame everything entirely on oppression, however said oppression did demonstrably exist and restrict women. How sadly binary your thinking is, where there's either this acknowledging historical fact and being a "womynist", or crafting absurd models of a perfect meritocracy in which women could easily have risen to their level of capability and simply fell short.
If that rant was true, why would anyone hire a male? If females have the same productivity, yet 25-50% less labor cost...
LOL.
Because in the same society in which women were presumed so inferior as to not be fit to own property, naturally no employer considered them to be equally productive even if it was demonstrably the case. Of course in this same society, the supply of women trying to enter the job pool was drastically lower as a woman's place was in the home. It wasn't until the 1940s that women entered the workforce in large numbers, and latter than that when dual-income homes became common. So even if a particular employer had realized this reduction in labor cost, there simply weren't enough women seeking employment for it to apply globally.
Except that isn't happening. Hmmm. Must be a giant worldwide conspiracy to drastically cut profit margins. Yeah, that's it.
LOL. Of course. Because if large numbers of people engage in economically sub-optimal decision making as a result of ignorance, prejudice, and sexism, then that obviously means that in reality the sub-optimal behavior could not have existed.
How many George Washington Carvers did the world miss out on because of prejudice against Africans? The loss of economic productivity from the inventions they would have created is surely tremendous. Ergo, either the capacity for Africans to be scientists and inventors is a myth with only a few exceptions, or it was a vast conspiracy to cut profits.
It's certainly possible that in a species where rape is a viable reproductive strategy for males that females would evolve some mechanisms to retain the ability to select who they reproduce with. Mallard drakes are notorious rapists -- they don't even care if the victim is female, or even alive. Both sexes have corkscrew-shaped sex organs, but the females' turn in the opposite direction. As a result, research has shown that while the majority of copulations are involuntary on the part of the female, the majority of conceptions are the result of voluntary copulation, because if she doesn't cooperate the drake is unlikely to achieve sufficient penetration.
I would hesitate to assume this same evolutionary logic applies to humans and tears. In any event, I would imagine it's more complicated and touches more aspects of our social nature.
You've attempted cooking a non-traditional form of meat at home (more than once). Tragically, that means your cooking skills are probably within the top 5% of the population:(
I've successfully cooked two forms of non-traditional meat -- bison and ostrich -- at home, and I'm well-known as a terrible cook. Really, I'm awful.
So if someone says kangaroo is tricky, then I'm not going to try it. But bison and ostrich, which are both delicious by the way, and both taste like really tasty beef, are easy despite being lean meats. You cook em just like you would a lean steak. Which for me means broiled on a broiler pan and settling for +/- one level on the doneness scale. But really, they're easy.
Eat anything preprocessed? insects are in them, ground up with the rest of it.
With a government-mandated maximum amount of bug parts and other contaminants like rat feces or the severed body parts of workers (thanks Upton Sinclair).
There's a big difference between having incidentally eaten bug parts and rat crap, and opening up a can of Hormel Chili and having it be all dead roaches and rat droppings.
Predators are also frequently excellent at spotting movement. Which is why many prey animals' first instinct when they see a predator is to freeze completely still.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh and I can't help noticing the description about D&D is reminiscent of ANY organization. A Master ordering people what to do? Sounds like the President of my country or the CEO of my company.
Did you also notice how it's wrong with relation to D&D?
The Dungeon Master doesn't tell players what to do, he's asks them what they are going to do, and the DM just tells them the consequences.
IMHO, the problem with DIRECT is that it didn't advance our capabilities. They were basically just proposing a single medium sized rocket (with multiple variants). To get to the moon would require a two launches that joined in orbit - a step backwards from the Saturn V days. It wasn't scalable for Mars trips, or even bringing large amounts of cargo to the moon.
The Ares V on the other hand is a genuine heavy lift vehicle, that would exceed the capabilities of the Saturn V, allowing not only to return to the moon, but also Mars. We would finally have the capability to start building permanent stations on the moon (and if we aren't going to do that what is the point in returning).
Two launches with in-orbit assembly would be a step forward from the Saturn V and Ares V. We could use smaller, cheaper vehicles, and ultimately send more to the Moon or Mars than would ever be feasible when you're doing it in monolithic launches.
That is the true advancement to our capabilities. That is what will let us build stations on the moon, or send a manned vessel to Mars. Ares V is just a way to do boot-on-the-ground-then-go missions which yes are pretty pointless. At least, that's what it is if you don't have the in-orbit assembly ability. And if you have that capability, then you don't need the heavy lifter.
Says the contraction-using layabout. In my day, we had to earn each letter by bringing in a badger pelt, and we would never resort to removing letters or just smashing words together with an apostrophe just to save ourselves a few extra badger-claw wounds. They built character! Then your generation was all "they're" and "it's" and "wouldn't've" and so forth. Lazybones!
This "researcher" is the total blame. Anyone who believed some soft-core porn chick with fake boobs over their physicians kind of had it coming - it's a tragedy that their children paid the price for their stupidity.
Yes, that's a tragedy. Children shouldn't (but so often do) pay the consequences for their parent's failings.
But it goes way beyond that. The children of parents who aren't stupid and listened to their doctors over Jenny McMommySense are still paying the price for the ones who were that stupid.
Because they were too young to be vaccinated, because they had an allergy, or simply because vaccines are not and never were intended to be 100% immunity for those who get them. Instead, they're intended to make it difficult for a disease to gain a foothold and spread.
Simply by creating larger pockets of the population in which the disease can get a foothold these idiots are potentially hurting EVERYONE's children. And that is simply not acceptable. Fuck Wakefield who should be in prison, fuck Jenny McIdiot, fuck all the parents who have no idea what horrors they are unleashing on themselves and the non-idiot portion of society.
"Thank you Darwin" some AC says? Darwin is laughing at you -- by idly standing by saying "Thank you Darwin" thinking only those too dumb to vaccinate will be weeded out, you're proving yourself unfit as your children could be affected too. By failing to counter this idiocy long ago, we as a society have been proving ourselves unfit. I can only hope this result will be the first step towards succeeding, but frankly I don't see how this is going to convince any anti-vaxxer. They'll just see it as another smear job and cover-up of THE TRUTH.
I drink water every day. I'm assuming that the 500000000X dilution of adam and eve's piss should be so powerful it cures all illness.
That wouldn't work unless Adam and Eve's piss in undiluted form could cause all illness. You should really talk to a professionally licensed homeopath!
No seriously, homeopathy is even dumber than just "the more diluted the more powerful". It's also "something that causes a symptom, once diluted, cures that symptom, even if it's not what actually caused the symptom in this case." So, you know, inflammation due to the venom of a biting or stinging animal can be cured by diluting some other animal's venom, or probably just any inflammatory substance.
So I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that the diluted solution of Adam and Eve's urine that we're all drinking would cure Original Sin. Boy isn't that one going to throw the Catholic Church for a loop!
I got a tiger and put it in my backyard and have yet to be hit by a meteorite. Therefore having a tiger in your yard prevents being hit by meteorites.
And therefore, my tiger repelling rock (I haven't seen a tiger around me since I acquired it) can be surreptitiously placed in someone's yard to cause them to be hit by meteorites!
It's actually emitted by the disk of material that is in the process of being sucked into the black hole, which is spinning extremely fast and becomes extremely hot. Some of it ends up getting spewed out from the poles. So it's a byproduct of the process by which the black hole eats things.
That would be a good thing on the whole, right? If a key part of the Standard Model is reasonably conclusively falsified, then we get to rethink the whole deal rather than just propping up the epicycles. And if we rethink, then perhaps we can start making real advances.
Many scientists are hoping for just that, exactly because of the amazing new doors it would open. Though not really because they have a bone to pick like you seem to... the Standard Model is hardly a matter of propping up epicycles. It's a fantastically elegant theory with incredibly successful predictive power.
To think we can only make real advances by abandoning the Standard Model is to make an unsupported presumption that it's holding back our understanding of the true nature of the universe.
However, I do agree that duplicating effort in an attempt to discover things a few months sooner is more about scientist/politician pride than about sane expenditures of resources.
Maybe for those proximate to the actual decision to spend the money.
But for us, it's about enhancing our descendants' lives in ways we can't even imagine today, just like those who worked on quantum tunneling couldn't have imagine the things created using applications of their research. If it takes a hundred years for such applications to become commonplace, so what? The return on investment of that research was unfathomable.
If the LHC is the better piece of equipment, then mothball the Tevatron since they're nominally collecting similar data, except that the LHC uses better equipment.
More data is more data, and the Tevatron is still doing good work today even though the LHC already exceeds its power. However I'm ultimately not too sad over the Tevatron being mothballed because the LHC is the better instrument.
Look just because our technology can be disabled by a baguette-carrying pigeon doesn't mean it's too "flimsy" to discover the secrets of the universe!
Or does it? /trying to trick secrets of the universe from the alien.
Hey, there is some sort of relative income level where I'd be happy to design stuff, but when the deals are so skewed that in a single year in finance you can make what an engineer has made his whole life, well, you have to do what's right for your descendants.
I don't care about the skew relative to some other job, I only care if the pay in the job I want is adequate.
Which it sounds like it really wasn't for the opportunities you had in Britain, which is truly a shame.
Interesting you point that out, when Congress is the one that spends the money, not the President, and the best term during the Clinton years was a Republican Congress. I'm not attempting to make a political statement with this, but I do want to point out that despite our strong president system, the reality is that the President has no direct economic power. He suggests a budget and can push through certain bills like tax cuts or health care etc., but the spending falls on Congress, so any budget deficit/surplus blame/credit goes to Congress.
No direct power, but clearly a lot of indirect power to steer the direction of Congress. So it's too simplistic to just say any blame/credit must go solely to Congress, since a lot of the time the good/bad legislation they pass wouldn't exist were it not for the President's actions.
Let's revise with this in mind then, shall we?
The best years were with Clinton in the Presidency and a Republican-controlled Congress.
Interesting.
And the LHC will eventually leave higgs to the SLHC which will still be too flimsy to pull it off but physics lovers will masturbate to it nonetheless ...
Actually if I'm not mistaken the LHC has enough energy to cover the maximum theoretical Higgs mass. So if the LHC doesn't find it, then it'll be left to the SLHC to blow the doors open on this mystery and give us the clues to what's really happening. Assuming the LHC itself won't do that; it's always possible that the Higgs doesn't exist but the LHC can find many new amazing things that do.
Well after X amount of time making Y amount of observations, you can say that you would have less than probability Z of not seeing a Higgs if it existed. When Z gets really small, people start concluding that it probably doesn't exist.
This has already happened for various ranges of Higgs masses; the Tevatron in particular has ruled many of them out. And the theory itself puts limits on the Higgs mass. So if at some point in the future we can say there's only an infinitesimal chance of the Higgs having avoided our detection anywhere in its possible mass range, well, then it's time to go back to the theoretical drawing board.
If there were prospects for a young engineer from Oxford, maybe I wouldn't have done what most of the other engineering students did. I think it took one term before everyone realised you can work your ass off for decades designing stuff and getting paid peanuts, or you can work your ass off for a few years designing derivatives and get paid ten times that. Who in their right mind wouldn't go for the gold? That's what society is telling young engineers to go do.
Um, I may be getting paid peanuts compared to you hot shots in finance, but it's a pretty damn comfortable living, and I love the work both because it's challenging and because I'm making things that are real. Being able to actually go out and buy a ridiculously complicated achievement of technology, that I helped design, is very gratifying.
So to me your question sounds like "Who in their right mind doesn't prioritize making the maximal amount of money over making as much as they need and then some and enjoying what they do?" and the answer would be "Everyone who is in their right mind." Not to presume you don't enjoy what you do. But it strikes me as crazy to give up something I love and can make a good living at, for something I don't because it has a bigger payoff.
I can still completely understand what you're saying about where we as a society are directing young potential engineers. It's society itself that equates money with worth and tells people that they're suckers for merely being able to buy a nice home and car (and computer) instead of the bestest home and car. And we show them through actions that the engineers are disposable, and the financial analysts indispensable. Because the latter make more money and are thus more worthy.
Strangely enough, that is also the only right we humans need within our own society.
It's strange that you think that. Society is not about being left alone. Society is very much about human interactions. You have the right to leave society entirely and thereby be left alone. But within a society there are surely more rights necessary than just that. For example the right to have justice administered fairly when your interactions with other humans fall afoul of society's laws. You do not have the right to be left alone in that case.
A society that gave you no rights except the right to be left alone (by not participating in that society) would be an awful one, where the only sane choice would be to exercise the right to leave.
Because sufficiently generic hardware is not sufficiently fast at the desired task, graphics computation. Even with the optimization intel has put into this, they'll be MORE than an order of magnitude of graphics performance behind the dedicated solutions of their competitors.
Indeed, and this isn't even a hypothetical situation. Intel tried exactly what the GP wanted with Larrabee. It didn't work.
Women did just fine in factories during WWII.
But the observation was women were restricted in opportunities and pay in nearly all fields until recently -- education and nursing being counterexamples, yet hardly the only non-physically-intensive professions. I am not and need not blame everything entirely on oppression, however said oppression did demonstrably exist and restrict women. How sadly binary your thinking is, where there's either this acknowledging historical fact and being a "womynist", or crafting absurd models of a perfect meritocracy in which women could easily have risen to their level of capability and simply fell short.
If that rant was true, why would anyone hire a male? If females have the same productivity, yet 25-50% less labor cost...
LOL.
Because in the same society in which women were presumed so inferior as to not be fit to own property, naturally no employer considered them to be equally productive even if it was demonstrably the case. Of course in this same society, the supply of women trying to enter the job pool was drastically lower as a woman's place was in the home. It wasn't until the 1940s that women entered the workforce in large numbers, and latter than that when dual-income homes became common. So even if a particular employer had realized this reduction in labor cost, there simply weren't enough women seeking employment for it to apply globally.
Except that isn't happening. Hmmm. Must be a giant worldwide conspiracy to drastically cut profit margins. Yeah, that's it.
LOL. Of course. Because if large numbers of people engage in economically sub-optimal decision making as a result of ignorance, prejudice, and sexism, then that obviously means that in reality the sub-optimal behavior could not have existed.
How many George Washington Carvers did the world miss out on because of prejudice against Africans? The loss of economic productivity from the inventions they would have created is surely tremendous. Ergo, either the capacity for Africans to be scientists and inventors is a myth with only a few exceptions, or it was a vast conspiracy to cut profits.
LOL.
It's certainly possible that in a species where rape is a viable reproductive strategy for males that females would evolve some mechanisms to retain the ability to select who they reproduce with. Mallard drakes are notorious rapists -- they don't even care if the victim is female, or even alive. Both sexes have corkscrew-shaped sex organs, but the females' turn in the opposite direction. As a result, research has shown that while the majority of copulations are involuntary on the part of the female, the majority of conceptions are the result of voluntary copulation, because if she doesn't cooperate the drake is unlikely to achieve sufficient penetration.
I would hesitate to assume this same evolutionary logic applies to humans and tears. In any event, I would imagine it's more complicated and touches more aspects of our social nature.
You've attempted cooking a non-traditional form of meat at home (more than once). Tragically, that means your cooking skills are probably within the top 5% of the population :(
I've successfully cooked two forms of non-traditional meat -- bison and ostrich -- at home, and I'm well-known as a terrible cook. Really, I'm awful.
So if someone says kangaroo is tricky, then I'm not going to try it. But bison and ostrich, which are both delicious by the way, and both taste like really tasty beef, are easy despite being lean meats. You cook em just like you would a lean steak. Which for me means broiled on a broiler pan and settling for +/- one level on the doneness scale. But really, they're easy.
I wish my local grocers would carry them.
Eat anything preprocessed? insects are in them, ground up with the rest of it.
With a government-mandated maximum amount of bug parts and other contaminants like rat feces or the severed body parts of workers (thanks Upton Sinclair).
There's a big difference between having incidentally eaten bug parts and rat crap, and opening up a can of Hormel Chili and having it be all dead roaches and rat droppings.
Predators are also frequently excellent at spotting movement. Which is why many prey animals' first instinct when they see a predator is to freeze completely still.
Humans, though, were both predators and prey.
That was a typo. I meant to say I was taking him to Literally, the capital of Pedantistan.
My experiences is that most people studying dolphins are quick to rely on confirmation bias.
This anecdotal claim sounds rife with possibilities for confirmation bias to me.