It was a time when fear of hazardous waste and industrial chemicals was high, when chemophobia -- a blanket fear of anything having to do with the word 'chemicals'
If anything, that is worse today. Point out to someone that broccoli is mostly carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and they get confused. They can't explain what it is exactly that they don't like, but "chemicals" is not the answer.
Generally I roll my eyes at the California cancer labeling law, which is known to be overly protective to say the least.
However, it does make me smile to think of hipsters in San Francisco with their man-bun and beard freaking out when they see cancer warning labels at their favorite boutique coffee shop.
Whoever invented Christianity and wanted to give it a veneer of legitimacy by picking a preacher of days past didn't bother to do even the most basic fact checking.
Oh, so you think it was created around an actual preacher? In what year approximately do you think the movement started?
I think there must not be much friction in the system of large airplanes, because people do the same stunt with their teeth. On a flat surface, all you need to do is apply a constant force for a while, and the thing starts moving.
P.S. The last time I was questioned in any official capacity, or had any interaction with official law enforcement bodies, was while entering the United States for a brief holiday... honestly, I've never been asked so many obtuse, unrelated, obscure questions
If it makes you feel any better, that is exactly the experience I had while entering the UK.
But it also writes that relations between Assange and Ecuador have badly deteriorated over the past several years. In 2014, Assange allegedly breached the embassy's network security, reading confidential diplomatic material and setting up his own secret communications network.
He annoys people and they are out to get him. It's not paranoia, he just can't help himself.
In the 1800s it became popular to question the authenticity of ancient historical characters, naturally the Bible was a prime target, but also people like Bodhidarma, or King Ashoka seemed to legendary to be real (and of course, there are many legends about him, so it seemed natural to consider him as unreal as the great flood). Over time however, a lot of the bible turned out to be real. We found external corroboration of many events. For example, there was a war mentioned in the bible where Assyria put Jerusalem to siege, and then the Lord cursed the Assyrian soldiers with sickness, so they left. Eventually a stone pillar was found commemorating that event, but from the point of view of the king of Assyria, who said he had won the battle (the pillar is now on view to the public at the Oriental Museum at the University of Chicago.....I highly recommend visiting it, and the library which has the biggest multi-volume dictionary you will ever see). Later we found an account from the Greek point of view, which said the Assyrians lost and left because mice invaded their camp. Now, which of these stories is true, that is still a historical mystery, but after the 600BC-900BC range, the record gets more and more reliable. Hezekiah's tunnel has been found.
So what we see around the world, as more evidence has been collected, is that the weight of evidence suggests that most of these people actually were real, that the legends accreted around a core historical event. As another example, not long ago, there were questions of whether Pontius Pilate was a real person or not, since there was no mention of him in contemporary historical records. Since that time, of course, we've found the Pilate stone.
There was clearly a movement centered around Jesus Christ in Jerusalem. Based on the evidence that shows how it spread to the East and the West and the South, dating the start of the movement to the fourth decade AD seems reasonable. There is also no reason to believe that it wasn't centered around an actual person. That kind of thing happens fairly often.
A more interesting question is, "Why did Christianity spread so quickly? What was it that seemed so convincing to the Romans and others who heard it?" I don't really have an answer for that.
By "food" he mean something your (or somebody's) great-grandmother would recognize as food, not some highly processed industrial convenience product.
This is just another vague, ad-hoc rule that isn't based on science (and probably not good history either.....the food available to my great-grandmothers wasn't always great).
Instead of dualistically thinking of "should" and "shouldn't" I think there's a more rational way of looking at it:
Your body is an omnivore, evolved to handle a wide variety of foods, but it needs certain macro-nutrients and certain micro-nutrients to function. If it doesn't get those, then the body will suffer. So for example, if you are eating 300 calories of sugar a day, it's going to be hard to get the rest of the nutrients your body needs without overeating (and your body will overeat to get what it needs to rebuild itself after the day and exercising). Similarly, if you eat 600 calories of french fries at McDonald's, you will have trouble getting the rest of your nutrients without eating more than you need. (So after that point you've pushed yourself into an uncomfortable situation of either gaining weight or not getting the nutrients you need.)
There are lots of different diets you can compose to make sure you have all the nutrients you need, but the focus should be on getting what you need..
It's more than self control, it also takes knowledge, which is not easy to come by. For example, if I say "red meat should not be eaten too often" there will be several commenters, and some of them smart, who reply to me in disagreement. Nutrition science isn't easy.
Slashdot Mirror
It was a time when fear of hazardous waste and industrial chemicals was high, when chemophobia -- a blanket fear of anything having to do with the word 'chemicals'
If anything, that is worse today. Point out to someone that broccoli is mostly carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and they get confused. They can't explain what it is exactly that they don't like, but "chemicals" is not the answer.
Generally I roll my eyes at the California cancer labeling law, which is known to be overly protective to say the least.
However, it does make me smile to think of hipsters in San Francisco with their man-bun and beard freaking out when they see cancer warning labels at their favorite boutique coffee shop.
Read some articles about this and you'll see that the city council has zero gratitude for Amazon
They really don't need to have gratitude to Amazon, that's sick.
Maybe they thought you were going to help Assange.
That's an interesting point. But I do like Wikileaks.
Whoever invented Christianity and wanted to give it a veneer of legitimacy by picking a preacher of days past didn't bother to do even the most basic fact checking.
Oh, so you think it was created around an actual preacher? In what year approximately do you think the movement started?
You want to know some really nasty folks? The people going after Assange. Somehow that thought occurs to nobody.
That thought occurs to everybody. There are Hollywood movies about it even. Sorry, you're not original.
I think there must not be much friction in the system of large airplanes, because people do the same stunt with their teeth. On a flat surface, all you need to do is apply a constant force for a while, and the thing starts moving.
P.S. The last time I was questioned in any official capacity, or had any interaction with official law enforcement bodies, was while entering the United States for a brief holiday... honestly, I've never been asked so many obtuse, unrelated, obscure questions
If it makes you feel any better, that is exactly the experience I had while entering the UK.
It's ok to like what he built while also thinking he's a lousy person.
It's a reaction to drama queens.
But it also writes that relations between Assange and Ecuador have badly deteriorated over the past several years. In 2014, Assange allegedly breached the embassy's network security, reading confidential diplomatic material and setting up his own secret communications network.
He annoys people and they are out to get him. It's not paranoia, he just can't help himself.
Both of those can be true, though.
The consumer electronics industry, like Circuit City sold, has moved away from sales people.
Oh thank goodness, I have never had a good buying experience with a sales person. (Except in Japan, but that is wildly different).
In addition to what you said, making sure you get all the vitamins/nutrients you need.
A more respectful explanation follows:
In the 1800s it became popular to question the authenticity of ancient historical characters, naturally the Bible was a prime target, but also people like Bodhidarma, or King Ashoka seemed to legendary to be real (and of course, there are many legends about him, so it seemed natural to consider him as unreal as the great flood). Over time however, a lot of the bible turned out to be real. We found external corroboration of many events. For example, there was a war mentioned in the bible where Assyria put Jerusalem to siege, and then the Lord cursed the Assyrian soldiers with sickness, so they left. Eventually a stone pillar was found commemorating that event, but from the point of view of the king of Assyria, who said he had won the battle (the pillar is now on view to the public at the Oriental Museum at the University of Chicago.....I highly recommend visiting it, and the library which has the biggest multi-volume dictionary you will ever see). Later we found an account from the Greek point of view, which said the Assyrians lost and left because mice invaded their camp. Now, which of these stories is true, that is still a historical mystery, but after the 600BC-900BC range, the record gets more and more reliable. Hezekiah's tunnel has been found.
So what we see around the world, as more evidence has been collected, is that the weight of evidence suggests that most of these people actually were real, that the legends accreted around a core historical event. As another example, not long ago, there were questions of whether Pontius Pilate was a real person or not, since there was no mention of him in contemporary historical records. Since that time, of course, we've found the Pilate stone.
There was clearly a movement centered around Jesus Christ in Jerusalem. Based on the evidence that shows how it spread to the East and the West and the South, dating the start of the movement to the fourth decade AD seems reasonable. There is also no reason to believe that it wasn't centered around an actual person. That kind of thing happens fairly often.
A more interesting question is, "Why did Christianity spread so quickly? What was it that seemed so convincing to the Romans and others who heard it?" I don't really have an answer for that.
Yeah I guess that's probably true
You can do it all with public key encryption and signing. Then you don't have to worry about the transaction being undone, either.
A balanced diet....What is that?
You can get a thicker phone with a nice battery life if you want.
Because experts disagree with each other in this field.
By "food" he mean something your (or somebody's) great-grandmother would recognize as food, not some highly processed industrial convenience product.
This is just another vague, ad-hoc rule that isn't based on science (and probably not good history either.....the food available to my great-grandmothers wasn't always great).
Instead of dualistically thinking of "should" and "shouldn't" I think there's a more rational way of looking at it:
Your body is an omnivore, evolved to handle a wide variety of foods, but it needs certain macro-nutrients and certain micro-nutrients to function. If it doesn't get those, then the body will suffer. So for example, if you are eating 300 calories of sugar a day, it's going to be hard to get the rest of the nutrients your body needs without overeating (and your body will overeat to get what it needs to rebuild itself after the day and exercising). Similarly, if you eat 600 calories of french fries at McDonald's, you will have trouble getting the rest of your nutrients without eating more than you need. (So after that point you've pushed yourself into an uncomfortable situation of either gaining weight or not getting the nutrients you need.)
There are lots of different diets you can compose to make sure you have all the nutrients you need, but the focus should be on getting what you need..
It's more than self control, it also takes knowledge, which is not easy to come by. For example, if I say "red meat should not be eaten too often" there will be several commenters, and some of them smart, who reply to me in disagreement. Nutrition science isn't easy.
If it needs a class to learn it, then it's probably not easy (and what exactly will be taught in the class will be an unending source of controversy).
That is based on the moral principle that economics should define what matters.