A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL. In order to reach that, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.
Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.
And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.
A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL. In order to reach that, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.
Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.
And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.
So what happens if you start finding yourself believing astrologers?
If their arguments are sound, then they should be believed. If they simply point to the stars - well that is not a sound argument. The point is to remove the person from the claim, and focus on the reasons for the claim.
While I can certainly agree with donating to charity to help people who have hit unexpected hard times, the root cause of the scale of the crisis is the sheer fact that the country lives in pre-industrial conditions under an oppressive, corrupt government, which ultimately means that massive numbers of people are living in concentrated areas, in buildings unfit for handling disasters. An earthquake of the exact same magnitude - or greater - in an equally populated area of the US, would have suffered a fraction of the casualties. So ultimately, the cure to their woes is not foreign aid, but more individual freedom, less government corruption, and the development of industry and improvement in living standards, which will culminate in safer buildings and residences.
brilliance and hard work don't always result in success, and that poverty isn't always an indicator of sloth or a lack of ambition
And neither of those facts creates a claim on another individual's life, goods, or services, which is the ultimate goal of your so nicely-disguised "growing up".
So basically, you were, and still are, spouting bullshit.
You understood my statements perfectly, so clearly it was not bullshit. But feel free to mischaracterize it as such. Just don't expect the characterization to be taken on faith.
Moral outlook and intelligence don't seem to be very strongly related at all.
Blame the widespread acceptance of altruism, by far the unquestionable default morality of the world, which promotes a "greater good" or "brother's keeper" value that supersedes one's own life and personal value system.
Seriously, I don't see the point in convoluting the two and clouding the discussion. Why put in such wasteful, pointless effort? The difference between scientists and priests, besides the obvious difference of understanding what is physically occurring at every level down to the microscopic, is that scientific advances allow for the application of the technology beyond the known instances. So whereas a Na'vi priest might be able to predict behavior of the planet's neural network, he could not possibly independently develop such a biological complexity in a lab, and use it for means other than those provided by the planet. A scientist could understand the biology, eventually reproduce it in a lab, and use it for all manner of new means.
Did I really have to explain that? Were you really incapable of the 5 seconds of thought it takes to uncover that?
do you know how your computer works? Do really understand?
Certainly, I do. But most people probably don't. The difference, of course, is that *some* people know how it works, whereas apparently *no* Na'vi know how their biology works. They consider it magic.
Both those points would be decided by the courts where disagreements among individuals occur. Obviously, claiming a nature reserve where someone else has already been farming or utilizing the water supply, you're going to lose the case. If, however, you claim a nature reserve on land that nobody has been using, and show evidence of maintenance/utilization of land where someone has since moved in, you would win the case. The gray areas in-between would be decided by the courts, examining evidence of who utilized the property first, and the extent to which they enforced or indicated to the public their utilization of that property (e.g. fence, signs, whatever).
So basically, many Native Americans in fact had "rightly claimed" the land that they lived and farmed on by these standards, but were forced off of said land by the Europeans who had better technology.
That's correct. And assuming that the tribes actually recognized personal property rights among their people, it was certainly wrong of the Europeans to take their property.
I do not think you are making the same point you were in your original post...
Of course not. That original point was wrong in that I was applying it to all Native Americans, when it was only potentially true of a subset.
That's true. I visited the Acoma "Sky City" pueblo, and Taos pueblo, amazing places.
So, Native Americans certainly weren't in universal agreement about land ownership, but was that more out of convenience more than any notion of fundamental property rights? Those that subsisted off grazing animals followed the animals around. Those that lived off corn stayed in place for much longer periods, but even then had to move around to maintain land quality. Those that found a nice tall mountain liked the defensibility (or claimed Divinity) and stayed there. Did any of them consider land as being personally capable of ownership by individuals - ownership that could not be taken away by force? Our could anyone's individual property be seized by the tribe leader or by other means of force that the tribe considered acceptable?
It's obviously possible that the government seized property from people who rightly owned it, as the government has and still does (eminent domain, as you mention). And where such instances occur, it was wrong for the government to do so.
"Rightly claimed" here means "someone on another continent decided that they owned this land, and had the right to give it away".
Actually, it means, "someone who makes use of land that no other has claimed, and claims it as his own." A right is not a deed of ownership, but a freedom of action. Your right to a piece of land is indicated by your utilization of that land - for living, for growing food, whatever. So a small group of people can't claim, "We own Antarctica!", just because they happened to land there. They can justifiably claim to own the section of the continent on which they inhabit and grow food.
We're supposed to believe that the whole planet evolved that way. The Na'vi consider it magic, but it's actually supposed to be highly advanced biology. So yes, the Na'vi are low-tech, because they don't have a clue how any of it works.
Except of course that the Native Americans were nomadic, had no notion of property rights (unlike the Na'vi and their Hometree), and rejected the idea of owning land. There is no problem with that, just don't expect not to be forced off someone else's property that they've rightly claimed.
No one but this competitor is happy with this setup.
Well, if the major owner doesn't take the market's concerns into account, that which they own will lose business, so they will lose on their purchase. And they should be free to fail by their mistakes.
Except for the fact that Google is a private company. The existence of the USA PATRIOT Act essentially eradicates any trace of privacy, turning us all into public soapboxes.
Slashdot Mirror
A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL. In order to reach that, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.
Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.
And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.
Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist
A healthy level of vitamin D in the blood should be around 60 ng/mL. In order to reach that, you'll have to supplement with the animal version of vitamin D, which is the liquid softgel Vitamin D3, and not the hard tablet D2 that's made from plant matter. If it just says "Vitamin D", chances are it's D2, and you should avoid that.
Take about 4,000 to 8,000 IU per day and you're golden. On top of that, your immune system will be able to fight off the common colds that everyone else gets each year due to D deficiency.
And don't bother trying to supplement with sun. Spending our lives in the shade has dramatically reduced our ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D.
Sources: this cardiologist and this neurobiologist
So what happens if you start finding yourself believing astrologers?
If their arguments are sound, then they should be believed. If they simply point to the stars - well that is not a sound argument. The point is to remove the person from the claim, and focus on the reasons for the claim.
While I can certainly agree with donating to charity to help people who have hit unexpected hard times, the root cause of the scale of the crisis is the sheer fact that the country lives in pre-industrial conditions under an oppressive, corrupt government, which ultimately means that massive numbers of people are living in concentrated areas, in buildings unfit for handling disasters. An earthquake of the exact same magnitude - or greater - in an equally populated area of the US, would have suffered a fraction of the casualties. So ultimately, the cure to their woes is not foreign aid, but more individual freedom, less government corruption, and the development of industry and improvement in living standards, which will culminate in safer buildings and residences.
It is in some ways trivial to take "unbreakable" in a way that it equals "non-existant".
The speed of light is unbreakable! :P
And so long as nobody is forced to buy their product, they should be free to succeed or fail in their endeavors. What's your point, exactly?
Wow, objective determination all without judge, jury, or trial. Sounds like the Orwellian mindset in the UK is all too rampant.
brilliance and hard work don't always result in success, and that poverty isn't always an indicator of sloth or a lack of ambition
And neither of those facts creates a claim on another individual's life, goods, or services, which is the ultimate goal of your so nicely-disguised "growing up".
Ahh, great arguments!
Oh wait, I mean, no arguments!
So basically, you were, and still are, spouting bullshit.
You understood my statements perfectly, so clearly it was not bullshit. But feel free to mischaracterize it as such. Just don't expect the characterization to be taken on faith.
The same could be said of the bible.
Agreed. It could also be said of The Communist Manifesto, The Shock Doctrine, or IPCC AR4, for the matter.
By "get over it", of course, you mean, "compromise their principles out of convenience, instant gratification, or short-term benefit."
Moral outlook and intelligence don't seem to be very strongly related at all.
Blame the widespread acceptance of altruism, by far the unquestionable default morality of the world, which promotes a "greater good" or "brother's keeper" value that supersedes one's own life and personal value system.
Call them scientists or priests, you choose.
Seriously, I don't see the point in convoluting the two and clouding the discussion. Why put in such wasteful, pointless effort? The difference between scientists and priests, besides the obvious difference of understanding what is physically occurring at every level down to the microscopic, is that scientific advances allow for the application of the technology beyond the known instances. So whereas a Na'vi priest might be able to predict behavior of the planet's neural network, he could not possibly independently develop such a biological complexity in a lab, and use it for means other than those provided by the planet. A scientist could understand the biology, eventually reproduce it in a lab, and use it for all manner of new means.
Did I really have to explain that? Were you really incapable of the 5 seconds of thought it takes to uncover that?
do you know how your computer works? Do really understand?
Certainly, I do. But most people probably don't. The difference, of course, is that *some* people know how it works, whereas apparently *no* Na'vi know how their biology works. They consider it magic.
Both those points would be decided by the courts where disagreements among individuals occur. Obviously, claiming a nature reserve where someone else has already been farming or utilizing the water supply, you're going to lose the case. If, however, you claim a nature reserve on land that nobody has been using, and show evidence of maintenance/utilization of land where someone has since moved in, you would win the case. The gray areas in-between would be decided by the courts, examining evidence of who utilized the property first, and the extent to which they enforced or indicated to the public their utilization of that property (e.g. fence, signs, whatever).
So basically, many Native Americans in fact had "rightly claimed" the land that they lived and farmed on by these standards, but were forced off of said land by the Europeans who had better technology.
That's correct. And assuming that the tribes actually recognized personal property rights among their people, it was certainly wrong of the Europeans to take their property.
I do not think you are making the same point you were in your original post...
Of course not. That original point was wrong in that I was applying it to all Native Americans, when it was only potentially true of a subset.
So, Native Americans certainly weren't in universal agreement about land ownership, but was that more out of convenience more than any notion of fundamental property rights? Those that subsisted off grazing animals followed the animals around. Those that lived off corn stayed in place for much longer periods, but even then had to move around to maintain land quality. Those that found a nice tall mountain liked the defensibility (or claimed Divinity) and stayed there. Did any of them consider land as being personally capable of ownership by individuals - ownership that could not be taken away by force? Our could anyone's individual property be seized by the tribe leader or by other means of force that the tribe considered acceptable?
It's obviously possible that the government seized property from people who rightly owned it, as the government has and still does (eminent domain, as you mention). And where such instances occur, it was wrong for the government to do so.
"Rightly claimed" here means "someone on another continent decided that they owned this land, and had the right to give it away".
Actually, it means, "someone who makes use of land that no other has claimed, and claims it as his own." A right is not a deed of ownership, but a freedom of action. Your right to a piece of land is indicated by your utilization of that land - for living, for growing food, whatever. So a small group of people can't claim, "We own Antarctica!", just because they happened to land there. They can justifiably claim to own the section of the continent on which they inhabit and grow food.
We're supposed to believe that the whole planet evolved that way. The Na'vi consider it magic, but it's actually supposed to be highly advanced biology. So yes, the Na'vi are low-tech, because they don't have a clue how any of it works.
retelling the story of the native american
Except of course that the Native Americans were nomadic, had no notion of property rights (unlike the Na'vi and their Hometree), and rejected the idea of owning land. There is no problem with that, just don't expect not to be forced off someone else's property that they've rightly claimed.
God bless the Baby Jesus and His matter-creating activities!
No one but this competitor is happy with this setup.
Well, if the major owner doesn't take the market's concerns into account, that which they own will lose business, so they will lose on their purchase. And they should be free to fail by their mistakes.
but it has nothing to do with the fact that the temperatures really did continue to increase.
Of course, that is also bogus.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
Owned.
Except for the fact that Google is a private company. The existence of the USA PATRIOT Act essentially eradicates any trace of privacy, turning us all into public soapboxes.