geekprime is right. There is something physically wrong with you if you can't taste the differences in meat. Not only should you be able to tell the difference in taste between the different cuts of meet, you should be able to taste the categories of foods that your meat ate.
Absolute BS. Looking like a starving refuge is not healthy.
I am one of those "obese" by government, medical, and insurance standards. Yet, my stomach muscles stand out just fine. The statistics on 'overweight' and 'obesity' are simply wrong. The BMI is a joke.
I have been hydrostatically weighed, and my lean muscle mass alone puts me into the 'overweight' category for the BMI. The only way for me to have a 'normal' weight per the BMI is to literally amputate body parts. If I amputated a leg, I might make it, but I would have to watch my amputations, because if I took off both legs, I would be 'obese' again.
Here is a good example of what is called 'obese' by US standards.
Eating meat is not unhealthy. Avoiding meat is what is unhealthy.
It is justified because BSG was the the Maryilyn Manson of SciFi shows. It was a laundry list of "What's Edgy" that just comes out as posing. It's pretty clear that the way BSG was designed was by sitting down making a list of what sells to the masses. Heck, they stole a character directly out of Startrek Voyager. I'm sure you will say that they were nothing alike, after all, one was 7 and the other was 8. Totally different numbers! The entire show was one big cheesefest. Yes, they had a better budget than BSG, but it is clear that they threw money at the problem rather than skilled writers. The story was rambling, and didn't even maintain consistency of it's story through the first season. I wanted to like the show. I really did. Unfortunately, it just sucked. Actually to be fair, if they didn't call it BSG, I might have given them more leeway. Instead, they set a bar that they couldn't reach. Maybe they should have called it Galactica 1980 instead. It would have been closer.
As all good science fiction does, current events and the human condition were examined, placing the characters in moral quandaries throughout the show. Religion, origins, etc. were explored while maintaining a reasonable level of scientific realism. Significantly, B5 had none of these things.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion. The only 'scientific realism' that I saw in BSG was the lack of sound in space. Since that has been a harping point amongst nerds for some time before, it just came off as another of the checklist items of "what's edgy". Contrary to half thought out beliefs, there is sound is space. You can perform an experiment right now to prove it. Say "Test. Test. Test." Go ahead, try it. Was there sound? Yep. Are you in space? Yep. Sound may not travel through a vacuum, but there is definitly sound in space. So, should you hear it in a TV show? That is artistic choice. Certainly if the perspective is from a first person, you should not be able to hear a ship fly by. On the other hand, if you are getting a third person perspective, thus are already recieving information that no character is getting, it makes exactly as much sense that you can hear the ships as you can see them.
On the other hand B5 was constantly making a point to work with science. From explaining why the different races ship blow up in different colors, to acknowledging that not every species breaths the same air, to acknowleding that they could have pests. BSG on the other hand just says "God did it".
Which brings us to religion. There is nothing new in BSG in it's "examination" of religion. It is just rehashing the Christian mythos with nothing new added. How you missed religion in B5 is beyond me. The entire 5 year story arc was riding the religious theme. Perhaps you missed it because it wasn't the same old story you've heard a million times. Maybe it was because it actually examined the religion instead of just saying "God did it". From the beginning to the end, B5 examined religion through the Shadows. Not only examining good and evil from the mortal view, but questioning the good and evil of the gods themselves. Going even farther, questioning whether the ideas of good and evil even apply.
Basically your analysis is that BSG's simplistic trendy addition of those subjects counts, while B5's deeper analysis of the subject going so far as to even question if the questions are even asked right, doesn't count.
Yes, they do as well as unlimited internet. They also will charge you less if you bring your own phone, or decide not to upgrade. In fact, the last time I was in the store, they explained that they were switching to a new policy where they didn't subsidize the phone, they just charged you the lower rate for the service, and would give you a 22 month loan for the purchase of a phone. For most people, that works out the same, but for those that want to keep their phone longer, or upgrade more frequently, it is quite a bargain.
On the contrary. Exactly the opposite. All it takes is a button press that will reload the factory install, and no one will brick their phone. If the only read-only part of the phone was code that would load whatever the phone owner wanted, you wouldn't see the things hacked. I guarantee more phones get bricked now with these lockouts in place than you would see if people were allowed to load whatever they wanted.
I think you should be able to. My point was that while you might not get hurt if you don't confront them, the criminal feels safe going into the next house. Burglars consider the danger of entreating houses. If they believe they will find the end of a shotgun as they climb through a window, they will move on. Getting arrested on the other hand is something they have already decided they are prepared to accept. Better the homeowner that feels confident they can take the burglar confront him than things get ugly with someone who doesn't.
Statistically you have a better chance of subjecting another person to the same life threatening situation you are in if you let it go. If you think burglars don't think about who might be armed, who might have an alarm, and who is and isn't home, you are dead wrong. I have known several burglar, and they absolutely consider those things when picking a house.
Which is fine since it is the nice introduced by the vinyl that people like so much. Whether they realize it or not. Surprisingly, I am starting to run into more people that do realize it.
I presumed that the analysis wouldn't actually be done on the phone. That the raw data would be transmitted to a lab, and the results displayed on the phone. That would be the easiest way to make porting to various platforms easier.
That was my assumption on why the registry is what it is. The only other logical reason would be so that configurations could be stored in a database for quick access.
If that was the reason, the proper way to do that would have been to have applications write their configurations in their own directory, and have the registry created by picking up the configurations and inserting them into the database. This way a corrupted registry would be self healing, and a corrupted config file would only affect the single program.
I have thought the same thing. The one addition I would add is a wifi chip that is set up to only turn on and connect on a schedule. Even if the picture changed hourly, and 1x a day the wifi would power up and download any new data that was waiting from the network, you would still have awesome battery life. Good enough that you could hang it on the wall without plugging it in, and only need to swap out the battery every few months. Plus the bigger the picture, the more battery power it could hold behind it without increasing depth. Since the wifi would be constant irrelevant of the size, bigger pictures would need recharges less often.
Honestly, if the color is halfway decent, use them in the digital picture frames. The color doesn't have to be spectacular, just halfway decent. The main reason I never bought a digital picture frame, much less multiple picture frames is that I couldn't rationalize running a computer monitor 24/7 just as a piece of art. Throw in an ultra low power clock and wifi so that the wifi can be turned off except on a predetermined schedule for updating the SD card, and you have a real winner.
You are absolutely right, if it can be assumed that a piece of spinach is equivalent to a pig.
Or that a pig is equivalent to a human. Oh, since you are saying that being a higher order from a human perspective decides whether it is OK to eat something or not, you have just argued that eating pigs is just fine.
Pigs are some of the most intelligent creatures on the planet, they have highly advanced nervous systems, and they can communicate with us on some levels.
So, you arbitrarily pick what kinds of life you will destroy, and what you won't, and then declare yourself superior because of it. Well, there is an equal school of thought that says you protect the weak, not use them for your own convenience and pleasure.
Spinach has none of these traits. Yes, I am sure you can go on and on mocking me for saying that pigs are a "higher form of life" than spinach, but in fact that's the basis of all ethical decisions.
No, I won't mock you for that. I will just point out that a human is a higher form of life than both spinach and a pig, so if eating one is ethical because of it's "higher" status, then so is the other.
It can be said with relative certainty (from the viewpoint of a human animal) that killing a pig is a greater harm than picking a leaf of spinach.
No, it cannot. Your assertion that you don't even try to have a civil discourse on the subject. The fact that millions of people every day eat pigs, and don't think twice about it being even the slightest bit harmful proves beyond a shadow of the doubt that your statement is wrong, and that you are so close minded that you are simply incapable of seeing all sides of an issue.
So killing a pig for its meat when that is totally unnecessary and actually rather unhealthy is then only for the pleasure of the taste and perhaps the convenience of the protein.
Making up that eating pig is unhealthy just makes you look stupid, and your argument about people only eating them for pleasure and convenience applies 100% equally to your raising of defenseless spinach in unnatural environments and eating them alive.
The rational was that America was evil. A work of the devil, and thus anything American that can be attacked is attacking evil. The higher profile the better. It would be naive to think that there wasn't any politics behind it, but to deny that religion was not a prime influence is absurd.
Given the logic of your argument, being a vegetarian and eating plants is "just for pleasure and convenience".
After all, "It tastes good (pleasure) and it's an easy way to get a nice packet of nutrients (convenience)."
Claiming that eating a meal that gives you a "nice packet of nutrients" is "just for pleasure and convenience" is at best a lie, but could also be explained through mental illness.
You post is rationalization at best. Your claims for vegetarianism are easily refuted and shown as the ramblings of someone who gets halfway through a problem and assumes they have the answer.
1) health wise
Wrong. Vegetarian diet is so unhealthy that you can frequently spot vegetarians by sight. They tend to be gaunt. Low in muscle mass and low in muscle tone. When vegetarian from childhood, they tend to be shorter due to malnutrition.
2) environmentally - At current rates of environmental degradation and population growth, the mass of humanity will be vegetarian very soon of necessity.
We won't be able to continue wasting 99% of our food.
The problem you are describing is overpopulation. Humans overbreeding for their food source. If populations continue to grow as you suggest, being vegetarian will not stop starvation. At best it will only delay it. I suppose eating as vegetarians COULD reduce the populations health enough that the population drops off, but humans are biologically pretty robust. I doubt the poor health of being a vegetarian is going to be enough to reduce our population.
3) ethically
Eating meat is not unethical. If we are going start playing the "killing lower life forms is unethical" game, then it is vegetarians that are unethical. They kill the most helpless life forms on the planet. They line them up and force them to live unnatural lives in unnatural environments. They genetically manipulate them to suit their needs, and consume them while they are still alive.
Life includes killing. It is unavoidable.
4) the stomachs of the poor to have to compete with the gas tanks of the rich
There is not one single person on the planet that is going hungry due to ethanol-from-sugar. World hunger is a byproduct of corrupt governments, (to a lesser extent) parental irresponsibility and the inherent difficulties in distribution. Here in the US, my aunt is actually paid NOT to grow corn. She is not alone. As long as there are thousands of farmers who are paid not to grow corn, any claim of people going hunger because there isn't enough is at best misinformed. At worst an outright lie.
If you truly believe that the meat industry is "just for our pleasure and convenience", you honestly have a mental illness. I don't say that with hyperbole. You are in the same category as people who hear voices.
Since 3rd party voters are the most likely to vote based on the actual platform instead of the party, they are the one group that can be influenced to vote for you by doing what they want. Democrats will generally vote Democrat. Republicans will generally vote Republican. There is no point in either party doing the will of the people registered to their party. 3rd party voters on the other had, they can be swayed with a good argument, or good track record on service. They are the ones that politicians must cater to.
So, voting anything but third party is "Throwing away your vote".
You keep arguing that the 100% CPU story is an urban myth. That story says that playing video can use more power than not playing video. That is a given, and really has nothing to do with Flash other than the fact that Flash can play video.
No where does it say anything about 100% CPU utilization, and it doesn't compare the Flash video that they are playing against other applications performing the same task.
You are rapidly moving from the 'wrong but believes it' category to the 'is lying' category.
I figured the reason the Stargate was canceled was because the Ori were hitting a little too close to home for someone. It was all fine and dandy when it was Egyptian religion that was being portrayed as a grand ruse, but someone was just not going to stand for Catholics being portrayed that way. The show had been languishing for a couple of seasons, and I could understand if it had been cancelled then, but once the rejiggered the cast, and brought in the Ori, the show actually had purpose again.
a family of white people in Alabama during the fifties who discover one day that they have black ancestors.
About 10 years ago, I had a friend that had that happen to her. She actually thought she was part Puerto Rican, and at ~25 found out the family secret. I found it pretty funny when it came up. She looked at me and my wife and said "So, it turns out I'm black.". I looked at her, and could only think, "Huh... Not that you mention it, I guess you are."
Exactly. They did this in the original BSG also. It was in Galactica 1980. You know, the season that completely sucked. Even the Centurions sucked though. What kind of a moron would build a war machine that had all of it's gears and actuator exposed. The original Cylons were armored. Like a tank. The new Cylons looked like they could be taken down with rock or stick tossed into the gears.
Funny, I thought it stopped being good just about the time they introduced a female Starbuck who in the first scene smokes cigars, plays poker, drinks hard liqueur, and punches out a man twice her size so that they could attempt to establish that she could fill the original Starbucks shoes.
Honestly, I could have taken the show way more seriously if they had not called it Battlestar Galactica. By calling it that, they set a high bar too meet, and unfortunately, they ended up being way too cheeseball to come even close. I suffered through the first season hoping something would come of it, and every episode got cheesier and more contrived.
Slashdot Mirror
geekprime is right. There is something physically wrong with you if you can't taste the differences in meat. Not only should you be able to tell the difference in taste between the different cuts of meet, you should be able to taste the categories of foods that your meat ate.
Absolute BS. Looking like a starving refuge is not healthy.
I am one of those "obese" by government, medical, and insurance standards. Yet, my stomach muscles stand out just fine. The statistics on 'overweight' and 'obesity' are simply wrong. The BMI is a joke.
I have been hydrostatically weighed, and my lean muscle mass alone puts me into the 'overweight' category for the BMI. The only way for me to have a 'normal' weight per the BMI is to literally amputate body parts. If I amputated a leg, I might make it, but I would have to watch my amputations, because if I took off both legs, I would be 'obese' again. Here is a good example of what is called 'obese' by US standards.
Eating meat is not unhealthy. Avoiding meat is what is unhealthy.
That's a good point. It has always cracked me up when I have seen people and even worse new articles referring to "a group of loners."
As all good science fiction does, current events and the human condition were examined, placing the characters in moral quandaries throughout the show. Religion, origins, etc. were explored while maintaining a reasonable level of scientific realism. Significantly, B5 had none of these things.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion. The only 'scientific realism' that I saw in BSG was the lack of sound in space. Since that has been a harping point amongst nerds for some time before, it just came off as another of the checklist items of "what's edgy". Contrary to half thought out beliefs, there is sound is space. You can perform an experiment right now to prove it. Say "Test. Test. Test." Go ahead, try it. Was there sound? Yep. Are you in space? Yep. Sound may not travel through a vacuum, but there is definitly sound in space. So, should you hear it in a TV show? That is artistic choice. Certainly if the perspective is from a first person, you should not be able to hear a ship fly by. On the other hand, if you are getting a third person perspective, thus are already recieving information that no character is getting, it makes exactly as much sense that you can hear the ships as you can see them.
On the other hand B5 was constantly making a point to work with science. From explaining why the different races ship blow up in different colors, to acknowledging that not every species breaths the same air, to acknowleding that they could have pests. BSG on the other hand just says "God did it".
Which brings us to religion. There is nothing new in BSG in it's "examination" of religion. It is just rehashing the Christian mythos with nothing new added. How you missed religion in B5 is beyond me. The entire 5 year story arc was riding the religious theme. Perhaps you missed it because it wasn't the same old story you've heard a million times. Maybe it was because it actually examined the religion instead of just saying "God did it". From the beginning to the end, B5 examined religion through the Shadows. Not only examining good and evil from the mortal view, but questioning the good and evil of the gods themselves. Going even farther, questioning whether the ideas of good and evil even apply.
Basically your analysis is that BSG's simplistic trendy addition of those subjects counts, while B5's deeper analysis of the subject going so far as to even question if the questions are even asked right, doesn't count.
It's like having a lock on your home's sliding glass door, vs. not having a lock on your sliding glass door.
Yes, they do as well as unlimited internet. They also will charge you less if you bring your own phone, or decide not to upgrade. In fact, the last time I was in the store, they explained that they were switching to a new policy where they didn't subsidize the phone, they just charged you the lower rate for the service, and would give you a 22 month loan for the purchase of a phone. For most people, that works out the same, but for those that want to keep their phone longer, or upgrade more frequently, it is quite a bargain.
On the contrary. Exactly the opposite. All it takes is a button press that will reload the factory install, and no one will brick their phone. If the only read-only part of the phone was code that would load whatever the phone owner wanted, you wouldn't see the things hacked. I guarantee more phones get bricked now with these lockouts in place than you would see if people were allowed to load whatever they wanted.
I think you should be able to. My point was that while you might not get hurt if you don't confront them, the criminal feels safe going into the next house. Burglars consider the danger of entreating houses. If they believe they will find the end of a shotgun as they climb through a window, they will move on. Getting arrested on the other hand is something they have already decided they are prepared to accept. Better the homeowner that feels confident they can take the burglar confront him than things get ugly with someone who doesn't.
Statistically you have a better chance of subjecting another person to the same life threatening situation you are in if you let it go. If you think burglars don't think about who might be armed, who might have an alarm, and who is and isn't home, you are dead wrong. I have known several burglar, and they absolutely consider those things when picking a house.
Which is fine since it is the nice introduced by the vinyl that people like so much. Whether they realize it or not. Surprisingly, I am starting to run into more people that do realize it.
I presumed that the analysis wouldn't actually be done on the phone. That the raw data would be transmitted to a lab, and the results displayed on the phone. That would be the easiest way to make porting to various platforms easier.
That was my assumption on why the registry is what it is. The only other logical reason would be so that configurations could be stored in a database for quick access. If that was the reason, the proper way to do that would have been to have applications write their configurations in their own directory, and have the registry created by picking up the configurations and inserting them into the database. This way a corrupted registry would be self healing, and a corrupted config file would only affect the single program.
I have thought the same thing. The one addition I would add is a wifi chip that is set up to only turn on and connect on a schedule. Even if the picture changed hourly, and 1x a day the wifi would power up and download any new data that was waiting from the network, you would still have awesome battery life. Good enough that you could hang it on the wall without plugging it in, and only need to swap out the battery every few months. Plus the bigger the picture, the more battery power it could hold behind it without increasing depth. Since the wifi would be constant irrelevant of the size, bigger pictures would need recharges less often.
Honestly, if the color is halfway decent, use them in the digital picture frames. The color doesn't have to be spectacular, just halfway decent. The main reason I never bought a digital picture frame, much less multiple picture frames is that I couldn't rationalize running a computer monitor 24/7 just as a piece of art. Throw in an ultra low power clock and wifi so that the wifi can be turned off except on a predetermined schedule for updating the SD card, and you have a real winner.
You are absolutely right, if it can be assumed that a piece of spinach is equivalent to a pig.
Or that a pig is equivalent to a human. Oh, since you are saying that being a higher order from a human perspective decides whether it is OK to eat something or not, you have just argued that eating pigs is just fine.
Pigs are some of the most intelligent creatures on the planet, they have highly advanced nervous systems, and they can communicate with us on some levels.
So, you arbitrarily pick what kinds of life you will destroy, and what you won't, and then declare yourself superior because of it. Well, there is an equal school of thought that says you protect the weak, not use them for your own convenience and pleasure.
Spinach has none of these traits. Yes, I am sure you can go on and on mocking me for saying that pigs are a "higher form of life" than spinach, but in fact that's the basis of all ethical decisions.
No, I won't mock you for that. I will just point out that a human is a higher form of life than both spinach and a pig, so if eating one is ethical because of it's "higher" status, then so is the other.
It can be said with relative certainty (from the viewpoint of a human animal) that killing a pig is a greater harm than picking a leaf of spinach.
No, it cannot. Your assertion that you don't even try to have a civil discourse on the subject. The fact that millions of people every day eat pigs, and don't think twice about it being even the slightest bit harmful proves beyond a shadow of the doubt that your statement is wrong, and that you are so close minded that you are simply incapable of seeing all sides of an issue.
So killing a pig for its meat when that is totally unnecessary and actually rather unhealthy is then only for the pleasure of the taste and perhaps the convenience of the protein.
Making up that eating pig is unhealthy just makes you look stupid, and your argument about people only eating them for pleasure and convenience applies 100% equally to your raising of defenseless spinach in unnatural environments and eating them alive.
The rational was that America was evil. A work of the devil, and thus anything American that can be attacked is attacking evil. The higher profile the better. It would be naive to think that there wasn't any politics behind it, but to deny that religion was not a prime influence is absurd.
Given the logic of your argument, being a vegetarian and eating plants is "just for pleasure and convenience".
After all, "It tastes good (pleasure) and it's an easy way to get a nice packet of nutrients (convenience)."
Claiming that eating a meal that gives you a "nice packet of nutrients" is "just for pleasure and convenience" is at best a lie, but could also be explained through mental illness.
You post is rationalization at best. Your claims for vegetarianism are easily refuted and shown as the ramblings of someone who gets halfway through a problem and assumes they have the answer.
1) health wise
Wrong. Vegetarian diet is so unhealthy that you can frequently spot vegetarians by sight. They tend to be gaunt. Low in muscle mass and low in muscle tone. When vegetarian from childhood, they tend to be shorter due to malnutrition.
2) environmentally - At current rates of environmental degradation and population growth, the mass of humanity will be vegetarian very soon of necessity. We won't be able to continue wasting 99% of our food.
The problem you are describing is overpopulation. Humans overbreeding for their food source. If populations continue to grow as you suggest, being vegetarian will not stop starvation. At best it will only delay it. I suppose eating as vegetarians COULD reduce the populations health enough that the population drops off, but humans are biologically pretty robust. I doubt the poor health of being a vegetarian is going to be enough to reduce our population.
3) ethically
Eating meat is not unethical. If we are going start playing the "killing lower life forms is unethical" game, then it is vegetarians that are unethical. They kill the most helpless life forms on the planet. They line them up and force them to live unnatural lives in unnatural environments. They genetically manipulate them to suit their needs, and consume them while they are still alive.
Life includes killing. It is unavoidable.
4) the stomachs of the poor to have to compete with the gas tanks of the rich
There is not one single person on the planet that is going hungry due to ethanol-from-sugar. World hunger is a byproduct of corrupt governments, (to a lesser extent) parental irresponsibility and the inherent difficulties in distribution. Here in the US, my aunt is actually paid NOT to grow corn. She is not alone. As long as there are thousands of farmers who are paid not to grow corn, any claim of people going hunger because there isn't enough is at best misinformed. At worst an outright lie.
If you truly believe that the meat industry is "just for our pleasure and convenience", you honestly have a mental illness. I don't say that with hyperbole. You are in the same category as people who hear voices.
Since 3rd party voters are the most likely to vote based on the actual platform instead of the party, they are the one group that can be influenced to vote for you by doing what they want. Democrats will generally vote Democrat. Republicans will generally vote Republican. There is no point in either party doing the will of the people registered to their party. 3rd party voters on the other had, they can be swayed with a good argument, or good track record on service. They are the ones that politicians must cater to.
So, voting anything but third party is "Throwing away your vote".
You keep arguing that the 100% CPU story is an urban myth. That story says that playing video can use more power than not playing video. That is a given, and really has nothing to do with Flash other than the fact that Flash can play video.
No where does it say anything about 100% CPU utilization, and it doesn't compare the Flash video that they are playing against other applications performing the same task.
You are rapidly moving from the 'wrong but believes it' category to the 'is lying' category.
I figured the reason the Stargate was canceled was because the Ori were hitting a little too close to home for someone. It was all fine and dandy when it was Egyptian religion that was being portrayed as a grand ruse, but someone was just not going to stand for Catholics being portrayed that way. The show had been languishing for a couple of seasons, and I could understand if it had been cancelled then, but once the rejiggered the cast, and brought in the Ori, the show actually had purpose again.
a family of white people in Alabama during the fifties who discover one day that they have black ancestors.
About 10 years ago, I had a friend that had that happen to her. She actually thought she was part Puerto Rican, and at ~25 found out the family secret. I found it pretty funny when it came up. She looked at me and my wife and said "So, it turns out I'm black.". I looked at her, and could only think, "Huh... Not that you mention it, I guess you are."
Exactly. They did this in the original BSG also. It was in Galactica 1980. You know, the season that completely sucked. Even the Centurions sucked though. What kind of a moron would build a war machine that had all of it's gears and actuator exposed. The original Cylons were armored. Like a tank. The new Cylons looked like they could be taken down with rock or stick tossed into the gears.
Funny, I thought it stopped being good just about the time they introduced a female Starbuck who in the first scene smokes cigars, plays poker, drinks hard liqueur, and punches out a man twice her size so that they could attempt to establish that she could fill the original Starbucks shoes.
Honestly, I could have taken the show way more seriously if they had not called it Battlestar Galactica. By calling it that, they set a high bar too meet, and unfortunately, they ended up being way too cheeseball to come even close. I suffered through the first season hoping something would come of it, and every episode got cheesier and more contrived.