The current crop of children are no better or worse than you. They are just not you. Most people are dumb enough to not remember the bad. They forget the bad, and remember the good.
Why does it matter that the slavers were Black? If the Whites hadn't been pulling into port, buying, eventually, the slavers wouldn't have been slavers.
Nobody said otherwise. Are you saying it's OK, because the victims were Black?
These considerations lead to some interesting conclusions. Salt is likely harmless up to 6000mg/day, if you have enough potassium--and early man eating little grain, hunted meat, and whatever greenery and berries he got his hands on would have been loaded with potassium. Likewise, as scientific evidence has suggested (not proven, but firmly suggested), early man probably had a high amount of protein in his diet from nuts and hunting.
Why that for salt? Did early man drink salt water, or otherwise eat salt? Salt as a spice is relatively new. Spices at all, and cooking are new-ish as well. The caveman is shown "cooking" after fire, but cooking didn't need to happen until after the "discovery" of germs, which is documented at 3000 years ago or so, where treating food was documented as preserving it. And hard to preserve foods, like pork, were declared "bad" by the government (which was religion at the time).
The salt thing was a bad mistake by scientists, exacerbated by stupid journalists. The study results weren't corrected for ethnicity. Whatever the diets were, Africans have a lower salt tolerance than most others. So small amounts of salt have no effect on most people. But can have very bad effects on others. When not corrected, that looks like a weak "bad" effect on everyone. So long as I drink enough water, I can likely consume massive amounts of salt, as I'm of an ethnicity not generally affected by salt. Perhaps a famine or other event long ago purged most non-African gene lines of salt sensitivity
Even so, the food pyramid does suggest meat and dairy. I'm dubious on dairy, but I don't think a meal of green things and potato bread is going to keep you optimally healthy. It works for a few people; for many people, it's livable; there are a very few people, like me, who would flatly die (my immune system fails catastrophically within two weeks without animal protein and fat intake, mechanism unknown); and there are a great many people who are healthier with a fair amount of meat and a fair amount of vegetation in their diet, along with some starch for a pad.
And none of the studies really treat individuals as individuals. As you've said, you are near-unique, with a bizarre addiction to animal fat. I've gone years with no animal fat or protein with no effect on my immune system.
One of the best diets I've seen is Chinese diet. No rice (despite the perception in the US), and almost no meat (too expensive). 95% vegetables. Meat as a flavoring (mainly) in the main dish. No bread. No rice. The only processed grain at all is noodles, all hand made fresh. Added as soup texture, mainly. Never as a main, the way the US Chinese food is served.
Chinese diet (which contains no Chinese food, as known in the US) is very healthy. That's why you see lots of short, skinny Chinese people. Low protein, so low growth, and healthy, so fewer fat people.
One of the problems with human diets is the desire for one diet for life. We need more calcium and protein until 25 or so, and then more vitamins and veg, with no "need" for meat or high-protein for any other than professional athletes.
Meat intolerance doesn't occur as a result of not eating meat. There is scientifically no basis for this, and no such thing has been observed.
The basis is that the bacteria that best digest meat die out, replaced by bacteria more efficient in consuming vegetables. There is a scientific basis for this. Thankfully, you stated one fact in your rant presenting opinion as fact. Every fact you post is wrong, you just post so few. The rest is wrong opinion presented as fact.
"Real Vegan" is the deep self-image, and functions like Catholicism or Orthodox Judaism: its tenants cannot be violated without violating the self.
You are wrong. You are asserting your wrong opinion as fact. It's impossible to prove an opinion wrong, because it's not rooted in fact. So there's nothing to be done but tell anyone hearing your wrong opinion asserted as fact that it's wrong, and you are a bigot.
Yes. Plea bargains are also torture. They threaten greater harm if you don't confess. That's the original definition of torture. The harm wasn't the torture, the threat of harm for not confessing was torture.
What makes you think it's over? Italy has no concept of "double jeopardy" and someone found not guilty may be tried again and later found guilty. Have you never heard of Amanda Knox?
Great, so why aren't you arguing with all the people asserting on here that lower calories will always result in a reduction of weight. It's simply thermodynamics, and digestive efficiency and metabolic rates are irrelevant.
But no, instead you "argue" with me, while agreeing, leaving the statements you directly contradict unchallenged. Why?
So not buying their music is a crime. Got it. Can I listen to the radio? Most of the time, they aren't compensated for that. In fact, with payola, they had to pay to get prime radio time.
mens rea doesn't exist in the US. The legal term means "did they intend to take the act we are now asserting is illegal?" Not "did they intend to perform an illegal or harmful act"
So sweeping your driveway when a later rainstorm makes it wet and someone slips and dies, you have "mens rea" met for the "criminal act" of removing the grippy sand that was there, despite no relation to the act of the person that fell, and with no intent of causing that fall or knowledge of it. You knowingly swept. That's not "guilty mind" (or intent). But meets the US standard of mens rea. At least presuming you are on trial for criminal negligence for sweeping your driveway.
If you were sent to jail and dinner was other prisoners, would you become a cannibal, or trade for more broccoli? Remember, trading away Bob for dinner won't bring him back to life.
I used to not drink milk (for 15 years) and was even lactose intolerant at one point--an occurrence which is actually common among people who bluntly swear off milk, unlike meat intolerance.
So you "know" meat intolerance doesn't exist? How do you know that? Sounds like a personal belief based on opinion with religious conviction. You are what you hate. A pompous fool spreading his personal opinion/choice as the Only True Way.
You are expanding "hipster vegan" to all vegan. It just shows that you have very limited life experiences (or broad life experiences with a closed mind).
I am a libertarian. I strongly disagree with net-neutrality.
As a libertarian you strongly think that every business should be free to act in bad faith towards their customers and competitors, unless they band together and prove a fraud case, in which case you pay the trivial fine and continue.
3) IPTV is inherently inefficient vis-a-vis point-to-multipoint delivery systems (i.e., cable, OTA, satellite)
Why not IPTV over multicast? That's how I've done it. The user changes the channel (of "live" TV) and the set-top box changes the multicast listening address (cascading that through, as necessary). Cable TV is IPTV for many services, and isn't any different than you'd make an IPTV service on the same media.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you had bad parents doesn't mean all parents are bad parents.
The current crop of children are no better or worse than you. They are just not you. Most people are dumb enough to not remember the bad. They forget the bad, and remember the good.
Like we made Puerto Rico the 51st state?
Why does it matter that the slavers were Black? If the Whites hadn't been pulling into port, buying, eventually, the slavers wouldn't have been slavers.
Nobody said otherwise. Are you saying it's OK, because the victims were Black?
These considerations lead to some interesting conclusions. Salt is likely harmless up to 6000mg/day, if you have enough potassium--and early man eating little grain, hunted meat, and whatever greenery and berries he got his hands on would have been loaded with potassium. Likewise, as scientific evidence has suggested (not proven, but firmly suggested), early man probably had a high amount of protein in his diet from nuts and hunting.
Why that for salt? Did early man drink salt water, or otherwise eat salt? Salt as a spice is relatively new. Spices at all, and cooking are new-ish as well. The caveman is shown "cooking" after fire, but cooking didn't need to happen until after the "discovery" of germs, which is documented at 3000 years ago or so, where treating food was documented as preserving it. And hard to preserve foods, like pork, were declared "bad" by the government (which was religion at the time).
The salt thing was a bad mistake by scientists, exacerbated by stupid journalists. The study results weren't corrected for ethnicity. Whatever the diets were, Africans have a lower salt tolerance than most others. So small amounts of salt have no effect on most people. But can have very bad effects on others. When not corrected, that looks like a weak "bad" effect on everyone. So long as I drink enough water, I can likely consume massive amounts of salt, as I'm of an ethnicity not generally affected by salt. Perhaps a famine or other event long ago purged most non-African gene lines of salt sensitivity
Even so, the food pyramid does suggest meat and dairy. I'm dubious on dairy, but I don't think a meal of green things and potato bread is going to keep you optimally healthy. It works for a few people; for many people, it's livable; there are a very few people, like me, who would flatly die (my immune system fails catastrophically within two weeks without animal protein and fat intake, mechanism unknown); and there are a great many people who are healthier with a fair amount of meat and a fair amount of vegetation in their diet, along with some starch for a pad.
And none of the studies really treat individuals as individuals. As you've said, you are near-unique, with a bizarre addiction to animal fat. I've gone years with no animal fat or protein with no effect on my immune system.
One of the best diets I've seen is Chinese diet. No rice (despite the perception in the US), and almost no meat (too expensive). 95% vegetables. Meat as a flavoring (mainly) in the main dish. No bread. No rice. The only processed grain at all is noodles, all hand made fresh. Added as soup texture, mainly. Never as a main, the way the US Chinese food is served.
Chinese diet (which contains no Chinese food, as known in the US) is very healthy. That's why you see lots of short, skinny Chinese people. Low protein, so low growth, and healthy, so fewer fat people.
One of the problems with human diets is the desire for one diet for life. We need more calcium and protein until 25 or so, and then more vitamins and veg, with no "need" for meat or high-protein for any other than professional athletes.
Consuming human meat is an excellent way to spread prion diseases,
So the *only* reason you'd not eat human if it was presented for dinner is that you are afraid of prions?
Meat intolerance doesn't occur as a result of not eating meat. There is scientifically no basis for this, and no such thing has been observed.
The basis is that the bacteria that best digest meat die out, replaced by bacteria more efficient in consuming vegetables. There is a scientific basis for this. Thankfully, you stated one fact in your rant presenting opinion as fact. Every fact you post is wrong, you just post so few. The rest is wrong opinion presented as fact.
"Real Vegan" is the deep self-image, and functions like Catholicism or Orthodox Judaism: its tenants cannot be violated without violating the self.
You are wrong. You are asserting your wrong opinion as fact. It's impossible to prove an opinion wrong, because it's not rooted in fact. So there's nothing to be done but tell anyone hearing your wrong opinion asserted as fact that it's wrong, and you are a bigot.
Yes. Plea bargains are also torture. They threaten greater harm if you don't confess. That's the original definition of torture. The harm wasn't the torture, the threat of harm for not confessing was torture.
What makes you think it's over? Italy has no concept of "double jeopardy" and someone found not guilty may be tried again and later found guilty. Have you never heard of Amanda Knox?
Great, so why aren't you arguing with all the people asserting on here that lower calories will always result in a reduction of weight. It's simply thermodynamics, and digestive efficiency and metabolic rates are irrelevant.
But no, instead you "argue" with me, while agreeing, leaving the statements you directly contradict unchallenged. Why?
I am convinced by what I read on U.S. based sites that you guys think that companies are people and that money is not property.
Just because money has value doesn't mean money is property.
So not buying their music is a crime. Got it. Can I listen to the radio? Most of the time, they aren't compensated for that. In fact, with payola, they had to pay to get prime radio time.
mens rea doesn't exist in the US. The legal term means "did they intend to take the act we are now asserting is illegal?" Not "did they intend to perform an illegal or harmful act"
So sweeping your driveway when a later rainstorm makes it wet and someone slips and dies, you have "mens rea" met for the "criminal act" of removing the grippy sand that was there, despite no relation to the act of the person that fell, and with no intent of causing that fall or knowledge of it. You knowingly swept. That's not "guilty mind" (or intent). But meets the US standard of mens rea. At least presuming you are on trial for criminal negligence for sweeping your driveway.
So cannabilism is ok, so long as the meat would have been cooked and consumed anyway?
Often it's food prepared by others. You go back and say "I got sick, what was in that?" and they tell you.
Atkins proper or food pyramid proper?
If you were sent to jail and dinner was other prisoners, would you become a cannibal, or trade for more broccoli? Remember, trading away Bob for dinner won't bring him back to life.
I used to not drink milk (for 15 years) and was even lactose intolerant at one point--an occurrence which is actually common among people who bluntly swear off milk, unlike meat intolerance.
So you "know" meat intolerance doesn't exist? How do you know that? Sounds like a personal belief based on opinion with religious conviction. You are what you hate. A pompous fool spreading his personal opinion/choice as the Only True Way.
You are expanding "hipster vegan" to all vegan. It just shows that you have very limited life experiences (or broad life experiences with a closed mind).
I'm not surprised. I'm just pointing out all the people who say "eat less means you must lose weight" are idiots. What part of that confuses you so?
I am a libertarian. I strongly disagree with net-neutrality.
As a libertarian you strongly think that every business should be free to act in bad faith towards their customers and competitors, unless they band together and prove a fraud case, in which case you pay the trivial fine and continue.
And what happened to the price of a flight from London to Paris over the same time?
Except places with more regulations on airlines, the prices are lower than the US. But much of that could be the airports, rather than the airlines.
3) IPTV is inherently inefficient vis-a-vis point-to-multipoint delivery systems (i.e., cable, OTA, satellite)
Why not IPTV over multicast? That's how I've done it. The user changes the channel (of "live" TV) and the set-top box changes the multicast listening address (cascading that through, as necessary). Cable TV is IPTV for many services, and isn't any different than you'd make an IPTV service on the same media.