Also no fat, gristle, tendons, blood vessels or bones to worry about.
That will be one bland, inedible hunk of meat. Fat is where the flavor and tenderness comes from. Why do you think T-bones, delmnicos and strip steaks taste so good? They have ribbons of fat in them. Same goes for pot roasts. Loads of fat, loads of flavor. This is the same reason most pork nowadays is so bland. We've bred out most of the fat in pigs (except for the bacon portion).
Flavor also comes from the bones. Marrow provides the flavor and is used when making stock.
If we're going to manufacture meat from non-animals, I want my fat and bones. It goes along with my high fat, high sugar, high cholesterol way of eating. I want flavor! If I wanted blandness, I'd eat tofu.
Serious question: should the inability to prove or disprove a theory automatically preclude it?
That's a trick question but I'll do my best to answer it anyway. IANAS for the record.
Depending on what is being proposed, it may take decades or even centuries to prove or disprove a scientific theory. How long has it taken to prove/disprove some of what Newton and Einstein have proposed regarding gravity? Until recently, frame dragging was not able to be tested due to the limits of our technology. What about the idea that everything is composed of smaller and smaller particles? How long had it taken for Leucippus' idea (as revealed by Democritus) of matter being composed of atoms to be revealed to be true?
The catch with ID is it will ALWAYS be untestable since how does one test for an omnipotent being? Merely saying that things look to be designed does not mean they are. One now has to take the next step and say, "Who designed it and how do we test for this being?" ID/Creationist supporters have never, EVER, said what test they would propose to test for such a being. They simply throw their hands up and say, "God/Unknown Force/Unknown Being did it." That's not science.
And that is the key point. By definition, an omnipotent being can never be known. It is omnipotent and so, according to myth and legend, lives outside what we consider "normal" time.
What ID/Creationists want to do is rewrite science as we know it and say the supernatural, not just the natural, should be included in the scientific realm. As was stated in the Dover trial a few years back, according to the IDers, astrology is a science. If we're going that far, why not move "GhostHunters"* from the SciFi channel to Discovery.
Until ID supporters can provide a means to prove or disprove their idea, ID will always be relegated to a religious or philosophical precept.
*I have written a missive that when people claim they are seeing ghosts, what they are really seeing is a quirk in the time continuum. Read the missive at this link.
I sometimes wonder if American evangelicals read the same Bible that I do.
No, they don't. What they appear to be trying to do is take us back to the days of the Puritans. Being from Great Britain, you remember the Puritans, don't you? The ones who used force to take over the government for a time and tried to impose their religious views on the entire country?
Yeah, that's the same thing America's Evangelicals are trying to do (minus the military portion but occasionally using terrorist-like acts to force their views on others).
Just as with the Dilbert Flash fiasco, I had already mentioned the nonsense of 'Expelled' in my journal and provided four links showing the outright lies and falsehoods presented in this propaganda piece.
To cut short any discussion from those who think that a religious precept should be included in a scientific curriculum, I submit this quote from one of the linked articles so everyone is clear as to why ID is not science:
"Intelligent Design" fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.
That's all there is to it folks. ID supporters need to submit evidence to back up their claim and it will be considered. So far, the only thing ID supporters have done is a) try to show supposed holes in current Evolutionary theory (all of which have been answered) and b) claim that some unknown, untestable, omnipotent force is behind everything. At no time have they ever presented evidence to support their idea and so, rightly, ID falls under the heading as an idea which attempts to support someone's religious ideas.
I must be a flippin mind reader or able to see into the future. I just wrote about this kind of nonsense.
It's a freaking static cartoon! What possible asinine reason could there be to screw up such a simple concept? I saw this the other day and so, like Doonesbury, won't be visiting it any more due to their use of Flash.
Government is less effective than private companies. Who would have guessed?
Yeah. Look at what a great job private companies (Bear Stearns, Countrywide, Citigroup) did making loans. They were so effective at making loans, the government had to bail them out.
It's great to criticize government (I'm usually first in line) but when you're comparing something that large to one company, you can't. It's like comparing an oil tanker to a cigarette boat. Who do you think is more nimble?
more and more companies are making their pages entirely flash based.
Ding! See what Janus recently did to their front page. Because it uses Flash, not only can't the blind get to their accounts, but they have now forced people to use an insecure interface to access their account. Brilliant!
The same applies for those links you see. Click on 'Institutional Cash'. See what happens?
Yurk. Who would eat a coconut that floated for days on the sea ?
I would. Coconuts have evolved in such a way that their thick, outer hull keeps it afloat should it happen to fall into water. Coconuts can float for hundreds (thousands?) of miles to distant beaches without incident. The tough, inner object that we find in stores is kept completely dry during this time. The white insides and milk are perfectly safe to eat.
A bit late in replying but just to do some quick follow-up:
but not somebody who is going to lead a project down a dead end road of learning some obscure, bleeding edge technology.
During that same interview, I also mentioned that I adhere to the KISS principle. The simpler, the better and the less chance there is for something to go wrong. So I have that avenue covered. Obviously it didn't help me get the job but I least I mentioned it.
There's a thought for you.
While being a consultant might be interesting, I am at the unenviable intersection where I'm highly competent at what I do now, but don't quite have the skillset to move to the next level except under certain circumstances. I have a lot of theoretical knowledge and have watched people do things I would like to do but my current position does not (or will not, take your pick) allow me to do those higher level things.
Put another way, there probably isn't anything, short of programming, that I can't do, I just need to be given the opportunity to do it. Thus the quandry, if I don't have the skills to move on, how do I acquire those skills if I can't do them?
The real kicker is I haven't yet met my limitations. Everything that has been thrown at me I have accomplished. Sure, it means I've had to figure out how to do those things but I have done so.
I'm currently in the process of writing two columns for my hole-in-the-wall web site (no, not a blog). One is titled, "How not to get ahead", and is a highly sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek description of of what I perceive today's work place seems to be about when it comes to employer's looking for people. The second one is titled, "The 3 rules you need to be successful" and is meant exactly as it sounds. Yes, I'm sure those three rules are in some self-help book but I've condensed them for people and offer them for free.
As a final note, every time I read some article about what to/not to say in an interview or how to move up the food chain, I just have to laugh. People can talk all they want about how to make a good impression and be a good employee but in the end, it all comes down to that piss shit adage of who you know, not what you know. Even in tech.
For once, someone gets something close when pulling out statistics.
Using Wiki, New Jersey is 70 miles wide by 110 miles long while New Hampshire is 68 miles wide by 190 miles long.
On a side note, instead of locating the power source in one state, spread it out over southern California (they need all the energy they can get), Arizona, New Mexico and Texas and maybe Florida (hurricanes might pose an issue).
Modern cars get better mileage with the windows rolled up and the AC on than with the with the AC off and the windows rolled down.
That depends on your speed. Yes, I'm pulling out MythBusters because not only did they do this experiment, they went back and repeated it because they inadvertently screwed it up the first time.
The cut off point for when to use A/C or not is 50 mph. Below that, it is more efficient to leave the windows down than it is to use the A/C. Above that speed, the reverse is true.
How did they screw this up? They went 50 mph and tried things both ways. D'oh!
Anyone who works in a tech related field and wants to stagnate, *should* be walked out the door IMHO.
About a month ago I interviewed for a position the next step up the food chain from where I am now. During the interview I explicitly stated that I like learning new things, having a varied work environment and so forth.
I'm still at my old job looking to move on. Apparently wanting to enrich ones self with new skills and knowledge is verboten in government jobs and the private sector isn't looking much better.
I can attest from direct observation, that lengthening the yellow light and leaving a gap between the time the cross traffic light turns green, does not work. On my way to work, all the lights I hit are configured that way. You know what happens? People use that 1-2 second gap to continue driving through, even if there is no room for them on the other side. Thus, they end up blocking the intersection for the cross traffic people.
In some cases, I've nearly had my nose taken off because people are still trying to cross the intersection or make a turn across my bow when my light turns green. Figure that's 4 seconds after their light has turned red (2 seconds for the gap and 2 seconds for my car to move into the intersection).
An easier, though slightly more costly method, of catching people who run red lights is to leave the lights the way they are station 2 cops at an intersection. One watches the light and notes who has run the light then relays that information to his partner just down the way who pulls the people over. Record it on a video camera so there is absolute proof of who actually did run the light.
Yeah, yeah. This doesn't solve the issue of changing the timing patterns but at least there is no question of who did what. You can always use the video in your defense to show how short the lights are since the issue is being recorded.
True. There is no reason to think that a doctor would find something that might cause a reaction with Ritalin, or any drug, but there is obviously a greater chance of such interaction being found if a person does see a doctor before taking medication than if they just pop pills bought from someone else.
There will always be an element of risk when taking medication. That is a given. Medicines, by their very nature, are developed and tested to serve the greatest possible number of 'average' people who don't have adverse reactions. However, there is always that one person who does have a reaction to a drug no matter how much testing has been done.
Someone not medically qualified to dispense a powerful medication. Most definitely illegal.
but I doubt many people would be up in arms about it.
Until one of the people who bought the Ritalin dies from using it because of some adverse reaction they had to it. Then we'll have to listen to a litany of people moaning about what a smart guy Johnny was and how this shouldn't be allowed to happen to anyone else's child.
I personally don't care if Johnny or Susie dies because they thought it would cool to take a powerful medication without a doctor's advice. Darwinian evolution at its best. I just don't want to hear the whining that goes with finding the body sprawled out on the bed with their face buried in their own puke. If they were as smart as people claim they were, they wouldn't have been taking medication which requires a prescription without first consulting a doctor.
Except for the fact that in the case of one plane, the one that went down in PA, some people on the plane were able to call out and notify authorities of their hijackings and provide some information as to the number of hijackers, weapons, etc. In the case of the hostesses, they used on board phones, not cell phones, but some passengers did call their family and/or authorities.
I realize you mean the other way, someone calling you, for why cell phones shouldn't be used on planes due to the panic issue, but I'm still against them being used. Not that I have any inclination to fly anytime soon but if I did, I get enough of someone else's yammering walking around stores. I don't need to be confined for a few hours with no way to get away from, "Yeah, I be tellin her dat she ain't gonna be good wif him. Uh huh."
Many people don't save because there is no real incentive to save anymore.
Which is exactly what I said. The Fed is doing everything in its power to prevent people from saving because if people save money, they're not buying junk. If they're not buying junk, the economy won't recover because the banks/mortgage brokers/hedge funds/et al refuse to do what is necessary and write off their bad loans. Instead, the Fed and Wall Street are trying to draw out money from people through artificially low interest rates in the hopes people will buy something because the interest rate they are charged is low.
Why should I help banks make money in return for a pittance when my money can be put to work more effectively elsewhere?
And just where do you think banks get the money to loan to people like you when you buy a house/boat/goat? They use your money to make those loans. In return, you get interest on the money they use. Sure, the banks make more off the loaned money than you get in interest but someone has to pay the bank employees for doing the paperwork, pay for the electric bill to run the bank, pay for new equipment, etc. That's the way capitalistic markets work.
Besides, I didn't say people should put all their money into savings or money market accounts. I merely pointed out that since people should have some money set aside for emergencies or large purchases, with interest rates as low as they are and inflation as high as it is, there is no incentive to save for rainy days. Or are you suggesting that people should continually tap their IRAs or 401s when they need money?
This thing won't end until someone figures out what to do with all these lousy loans.
Well, if things were operating as they should in a capitalistic/free market, the bad loans would be written off, the banks/loan originators/brokers/hedge funds would take their lumps and we would move on.
However, as the Fed has resorted to socialist policies to thwart the free market, the loans will stay on the books as more tax dollars are used to prop up Wall Street firms and banks, we will stay mired in this zero to negative growth situation and people will not be able to save because of the Fed's efforts to prevent saving from occurring.
After all, debt doesn't matter. Spending every paycheck, borrowing against the value of your house and maxing out your credit cards is the only solution, according to the Fed, that we can get out of this Fed-induced quagmire.
Slashdot Mirror
That will be one bland, inedible hunk of meat. Fat is where the flavor and tenderness comes from. Why do you think T-bones, delmnicos and strip steaks taste so good? They have ribbons of fat in them. Same goes for pot roasts. Loads of fat, loads of flavor. This is the same reason most pork nowadays is so bland. We've bred out most of the fat in pigs (except for the bacon portion).
Flavor also comes from the bones. Marrow provides the flavor and is used when making stock.
If we're going to manufacture meat from non-animals, I want my fat and bones. It goes along with my high fat, high sugar, high cholesterol way of eating. I want flavor! If I wanted blandness, I'd eat tofu.
If nothing else, PETA is getting better looking representatives when at events.
That's a trick question but I'll do my best to answer it anyway. IANAS for the record.
Depending on what is being proposed, it may take decades or even centuries to prove or disprove a scientific theory. How long has it taken to prove/disprove some of what Newton and Einstein have proposed regarding gravity? Until recently, frame dragging was not able to be tested due to the limits of our technology. What about the idea that everything is composed of smaller and smaller particles? How long had it taken for Leucippus' idea (as revealed by Democritus) of matter being composed of atoms to be revealed to be true?
The catch with ID is it will ALWAYS be untestable since how does one test for an omnipotent being? Merely saying that things look to be designed does not mean they are. One now has to take the next step and say, "Who designed it and how do we test for this being?" ID/Creationist supporters have never, EVER, said what test they would propose to test for such a being. They simply throw their hands up and say, "God/Unknown Force/Unknown Being did it." That's not science.
And that is the key point. By definition, an omnipotent being can never be known. It is omnipotent and so, according to myth and legend, lives outside what we consider "normal" time.
What ID/Creationists want to do is rewrite science as we know it and say the supernatural, not just the natural, should be included in the scientific realm. As was stated in the Dover trial a few years back, according to the IDers, astrology is a science. If we're going that far, why not move "GhostHunters"* from the SciFi channel to Discovery.
Until ID supporters can provide a means to prove or disprove their idea, ID will always be relegated to a religious or philosophical precept.
*I have written a missive that when people claim they are seeing ghosts, what they are really seeing is a quirk in the time continuum. Read the missive at this link.
No, they don't. What they appear to be trying to do is take us back to the days of the Puritans. Being from Great Britain, you remember the Puritans, don't you? The ones who used force to take over the government for a time and tried to impose their religious views on the entire country?
Yeah, that's the same thing America's Evangelicals are trying to do (minus the military portion but occasionally using terrorist-like acts to force their views on others).
To cut short any discussion from those who think that a religious precept should be included in a scientific curriculum, I submit this quote from one of the linked articles so everyone is clear as to why ID is not science:
"Intelligent Design" fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.
That's all there is to it folks. ID supporters need to submit evidence to back up their claim and it will be considered. So far, the only thing ID supporters have done is a) try to show supposed holes in current Evolutionary theory (all of which have been answered) and b) claim that some unknown, untestable, omnipotent force is behind everything. At no time have they ever presented evidence to support their idea and so, rightly, ID falls under the heading as an idea which attempts to support someone's religious ideas.
It's a freaking static cartoon! What possible asinine reason could there be to screw up such a simple concept? I saw this the other day and so, like Doonesbury, won't be visiting it any more due to their use of Flash.
Yeah. Look at what a great job private companies (Bear Stearns, Countrywide, Citigroup) did making loans. They were so effective at making loans, the government had to bail them out.
It's great to criticize government (I'm usually first in line) but when you're comparing something that large to one company, you can't. It's like comparing an oil tanker to a cigarette boat. Who do you think is more nimble?
I don't buy stuff made in China anyway.
Granted, I don't buy much of anything to begin with, but what I do buy isn't made in China.*
*Except for sunglasses and gloves. Still haven't found a way around that. Yet. But then, how often does one buy glasses and gloves anyway?
Ding! See what Janus recently did to their front page. Because it uses Flash, not only can't the blind get to their accounts, but they have now forced people to use an insecure interface to access their account. Brilliant!
The same applies for those links you see. Click on 'Institutional Cash'. See what happens?
This is why, Flash must die!
Which is pretty much what I said in a discussion about 'Expelled'. It's propaganda, pure and simple.
So what you're saying is that Linux, at least this incarnation, is adopting the Windows way of installing drivers.
I kid! I kid!
I would. Coconuts have evolved in such a way that their thick, outer hull keeps it afloat should it happen to fall into water. Coconuts can float for hundreds (thousands?) of miles to distant beaches without incident. The tough, inner object that we find in stores is kept completely dry during this time. The white insides and milk are perfectly safe to eat.
Except for the radiation.
but not somebody who is going to lead a project down a dead end road of learning some obscure, bleeding edge technology.
During that same interview, I also mentioned that I adhere to the KISS principle. The simpler, the better and the less chance there is for something to go wrong. So I have that avenue covered. Obviously it didn't help me get the job but I least I mentioned it.
There's a thought for you.
While being a consultant might be interesting, I am at the unenviable intersection where I'm highly competent at what I do now, but don't quite have the skillset to move to the next level except under certain circumstances. I have a lot of theoretical knowledge and have watched people do things I would like to do but my current position does not (or will not, take your pick) allow me to do those higher level things.
Put another way, there probably isn't anything, short of programming, that I can't do, I just need to be given the opportunity to do it. Thus the quandry, if I don't have the skills to move on, how do I acquire those skills if I can't do them?
The real kicker is I haven't yet met my limitations. Everything that has been thrown at me I have accomplished. Sure, it means I've had to figure out how to do those things but I have done so.
I'm currently in the process of writing two columns for my hole-in-the-wall web site (no, not a blog). One is titled, "How not to get ahead", and is a highly sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek description of of what I perceive today's work place seems to be about when it comes to employer's looking for people. The second one is titled, "The 3 rules you need to be successful" and is meant exactly as it sounds. Yes, I'm sure those three rules are in some self-help book but I've condensed them for people and offer them for free.
As a final note, every time I read some article about what to/not to say in an interview or how to move up the food chain, I just have to laugh. People can talk all they want about how to make a good impression and be a good employee but in the end, it all comes down to that piss shit adage of who you know, not what you know. Even in tech.
For once, someone gets something close when pulling out statistics.
Using Wiki, New Jersey is 70 miles wide by 110 miles long while New Hampshire is 68 miles wide by 190 miles long.
On a side note, instead of locating the power source in one state, spread it out over southern California (they need all the energy they can get), Arizona, New Mexico and Texas and maybe Florida (hurricanes might pose an issue).
That depends on your speed. Yes, I'm pulling out MythBusters because not only did they do this experiment, they went back and repeated it because they inadvertently screwed it up the first time.
The cut off point for when to use A/C or not is 50 mph. Below that, it is more efficient to leave the windows down than it is to use the A/C. Above that speed, the reverse is true.
How did they screw this up? They went 50 mph and tried things both ways. D'oh!
About a month ago I interviewed for a position the next step up the food chain from where I am now. During the interview I explicitly stated that I like learning new things, having a varied work environment and so forth.
I'm still at my old job looking to move on. Apparently wanting to enrich ones self with new skills and knowledge is verboten in government jobs and the private sector isn't looking much better.
But the light is so bright!
You mean like these folks did?
I can attest from direct observation, that lengthening the yellow light and leaving a gap between the time the cross traffic light turns green, does not work. On my way to work, all the lights I hit are configured that way. You know what happens? People use that 1-2 second gap to continue driving through, even if there is no room for them on the other side. Thus, they end up blocking the intersection for the cross traffic people.
In some cases, I've nearly had my nose taken off because people are still trying to cross the intersection or make a turn across my bow when my light turns green. Figure that's 4 seconds after their light has turned red (2 seconds for the gap and 2 seconds for my car to move into the intersection).
An easier, though slightly more costly method, of catching people who run red lights is to leave the lights the way they are station 2 cops at an intersection. One watches the light and notes who has run the light then relays that information to his partner just down the way who pulls the people over. Record it on a video camera so there is absolute proof of who actually did run the light.
Yeah, yeah. This doesn't solve the issue of changing the timing patterns but at least there is no question of who did what. You can always use the video in your defense to show how short the lights are since the issue is being recorded.
True. There is no reason to think that a doctor would find something that might cause a reaction with Ritalin, or any drug, but there is obviously a greater chance of such interaction being found if a person does see a doctor before taking medication than if they just pop pills bought from someone else.
There will always be an element of risk when taking medication. That is a given. Medicines, by their very nature, are developed and tested to serve the greatest possible number of 'average' people who don't have adverse reactions. However, there is always that one person who does have a reaction to a drug no matter how much testing has been done.
Someone not medically qualified to dispense a powerful medication. Most definitely illegal.
but I doubt many people would be up in arms about it.
Until one of the people who bought the Ritalin dies from using it because of some adverse reaction they had to it. Then we'll have to listen to a litany of people moaning about what a smart guy Johnny was and how this shouldn't be allowed to happen to anyone else's child.
I personally don't care if Johnny or Susie dies because they thought it would cool to take a powerful medication without a doctor's advice. Darwinian evolution at its best. I just don't want to hear the whining that goes with finding the body sprawled out on the bed with their face buried in their own puke. If they were as smart as people claim they were, they wouldn't have been taking medication which requires a prescription without first consulting a doctor.
Except for the fact that in the case of one plane, the one that went down in PA, some people on the plane were able to call out and notify authorities of their hijackings and provide some information as to the number of hijackers, weapons, etc. In the case of the hostesses, they used on board phones, not cell phones, but some passengers did call their family and/or authorities.
I realize you mean the other way, someone calling you, for why cell phones shouldn't be used on planes due to the panic issue, but I'm still against them being used. Not that I have any inclination to fly anytime soon but if I did, I get enough of someone else's yammering walking around stores. I don't need to be confined for a few hours with no way to get away from, "Yeah, I be tellin her dat she ain't gonna be good wif him. Uh huh."
Ding! Nail on the head and all that. You get the gold star.
Which is exactly what I said. The Fed is doing everything in its power to prevent people from saving because if people save money, they're not buying junk. If they're not buying junk, the economy won't recover because the banks/mortgage brokers/hedge funds/et al refuse to do what is necessary and write off their bad loans. Instead, the Fed and Wall Street are trying to draw out money from people through artificially low interest rates in the hopes people will buy something because the interest rate they are charged is low.
Why should I help banks make money in return for a pittance when my money can be put to work more effectively elsewhere?
And just where do you think banks get the money to loan to people like you when you buy a house/boat/goat? They use your money to make those loans. In return, you get interest on the money they use. Sure, the banks make more off the loaned money than you get in interest but someone has to pay the bank employees for doing the paperwork, pay for the electric bill to run the bank, pay for new equipment, etc. That's the way capitalistic markets work.
Besides, I didn't say people should put all their money into savings or money market accounts. I merely pointed out that since people should have some money set aside for emergencies or large purchases, with interest rates as low as they are and inflation as high as it is, there is no incentive to save for rainy days. Or are you suggesting that people should continually tap their IRAs or 401s when they need money?
Well, if things were operating as they should in a capitalistic/free market, the bad loans would be written off, the banks/loan originators/brokers/hedge funds would take their lumps and we would move on.
However, as the Fed has resorted to socialist policies to thwart the free market, the loans will stay on the books as more tax dollars are used to prop up Wall Street firms and banks, we will stay mired in this zero to negative growth situation and people will not be able to save because of the Fed's efforts to prevent saving from occurring.
After all, debt doesn't matter. Spending every paycheck, borrowing against the value of your house and maxing out your credit cards is the only solution, according to the Fed, that we can get out of this Fed-induced quagmire.
It's Pennsylvania. We name everything. We just don't mark things clearly like the other 49 states.