I'm wondering the same thing myself -- it seems that the only way you can get millions of beetle species is by counting minor differences between them as a different species. Yet as the history of dog breeding shows, two very very different looking organisms can be the same species, capable of mating and everything. I have no doubt that somewhere, two kinds of beetles have been called different species, though they differ as much as a poodle and a great dane, and have never been tested for interbreeding capability.
Heck, I've even heard about this problem for bigger animals, like when a species has subpopulations that geographically separate and then get called two species just because of the different geography: now we have the North Elbonian wumpus and South Elbonian wumpus. Can they interbreed? Who cares anymore, if we can stir up concern about an extinction?
Actually, guiness is my favorite beer, which just means, "least painful to drink". It still has some sting and bitterness, just not as bad as the others. What does your theory of carbonation aversion say about that?
Also, I don't see why you dismiss the tonic test. The horror doesn't come from the initial taste, when I would notice the carbonation; rather, it comes a moment later when I react to the aftertaste.
And remember, the carbonation in sodas only has a minor sting to me, outweighed by the general flavor. I think others are the same way, they just confuse the claims "the drink is *on net* bad" and "the drink's carbonation stings a bit".
Neither of your hypotheses works. I have about normal preference when it comes to solid food. Furthermore, I've tried beer from all ends of all spectra, including those selected by people with your same elitist attitude that only *bad* beers taste like piss... and they still hurt to drink (like soda, but a lot worse).
If I were to shut up about the Emporer's clothes, though, I bet I could lull myself into a state similar to your "rah rah, beer is tasty" stance... decent cover for getting high on stuff that's still legal. (Before your next brilliant reply, "high" here includes any psychoactive effect, including relaxation and loss of inhibitions.)
Why would anyone need to be "in the closet" about anything? This implies discrimination and penalties for the way you think. Scientists should be above such petty things.
No, scientists should be discriminating on exactly this basis, because science is defined by a particular way of thinking -- its reliance on naturalistic, testable hypotheses and empiricism. To the extent that people want to deviate from that while still calling it science, this kind of "discrimination" is justified.
Now, with that said, many people regard their religion as part of their cultural identity and do not endorse any of its purported claims about the universe. To the extent that many "religious" scientists are this way, or keep unscientific epistemology out of their scientific work, they shouldn't be ostracized.
Uh-huh. And the non-alcoholic beers just "happen" to not taste *exactly* right to you, *forcing* you to take the *inconvenient* step of drinking a beer that gets you high, or maybe helps you relax a li'l...
The first time I tasted a beer I drank a Budweiser at a friends house. Honestly, I didn't see the appeal to the drink (and most people can understand why I am sure). I mean, the flavors were smooth enough that I wouldn't describe it as stingy or anything like that, but it just tasted like liquefied bread and my response was something in terms of, "WTF is all the fuss about?"
Hm, interesting. I've considered the possibility that I'm just a supertaster, a kind of person who is sensitive to chemicals in certain foods and when most aren't. (Outside of drinks, it doesn't have much impact on my life.) I never remember any beer tasting like liquid bread -- it's always attached to a stingy, bitter, painful taste. If people get "liquid bread" as the baseline, I can understand why they might actually be able to detect good subtastes within it.
Also, I did the "acid test" for being a supertaster, which is to drink tonic water, which has quinine. If you don't like it, you can taste the quinine and are probably a supertaster. Well, let me tell you, drinking that stuff is like a traumatic event. It's fine at first, then the aftertaste comes in and takes over, telling me, "don't do this shit... ever."
(Still, it's kind of strange that someone who would pay $100 for a bottle of wine still thinks milkshakes taste better, if it's "all about the taste" and all...)
"High" is sort of an umbrella term. Yeah, big guy, I "get" that you can safely drive after one pint and won't be doing crappy solo routines. Point taken. I'm referring to the mental effects in general. I'm sure a pint helps you to "relax". I'm sure the single-pint-nights you do also serve a great cover for those times when you do just want to get high.
I do drink coffee -- for the psychoactive effects. Or versions with enough sugar to hide the taste, and which are effectively milkshakes.
I do eat chocolate -- and liked it since before it had a chance to affect my mind.
See my response to the "acquired (aka imagined) taste" bullshit argument here. (Btw, what if I told you excrement was an "acquired taste" that you're just too philistine to accept?)
If it were really as simple as: People. Drink. Beer. To. Get. High. then everyone would drink inexpensive beer with high alcohol content
You forgot about the need to make it appear socially acceptable (i.e. not low class), which keeps my position from implying this.
Not very good at following analogies, are we? I like milkshakes, but I always did. I did not deliberately seek them out, *while not liking them* and then waste all that time, money, and effort to get myself to like them. People *do*, however, do that for alcohol. It's the cool thing to do.
I'm just saying, if I'm gonna rook myself into liking something that I don't automatically like, why not make it spinach or something, instead of alcohol?
Who said "addiction"? (Though I'm sure that's true for some.) Getting high is fun. People want to have fun. Government bans stuff that can get you high unless it has a powerful lobby. People are able to cook up rationalizations for alcohol, but not crack.
I doth agree with thine alternate strategie! And I doth hold in the same regard, these so-called "birth-control" devices! Why, marital intercourse needn't be made less-procreative! Rather, one simply must be less lustful!
Except that I didn't turn down the huge variety of beers I tried and never came to like.
Here's a theory: if you eat/drink something enough times, you will eventually *have to* start liking it, simply by force of habit/nostalgia. In this trivial sense, maybe people do like beer, but they don't like it in the sense that they like other foods/drinks that you don't have to trick yourself into liking.
I'd rather not waste effort tricking myself into liking unhealthy stuff that I have to pay a premium for, TYVM.
How about you accept that tastes are different? Sweet crap like sodas and milkshakes trigger my gag reflex. Bitterness is an acquired taste, that much is sure, and I have damn well acquired it. Just because you don't like beer, which I completely accept, doesn't mean that there isn't a whole universe of different, interesting tastes in various kinds of beer.
Well, I did consider this possibility, and the way I ruled out the possibility was this: I went to the wine connosieurs who were totally perplexed by my position, and started them asking more *specific* questions about their liking of alcoholic drinks, and it turned out, they have the *same answers* as I do. Even the wine connosieur, who spends lots of his money on buying *just the right* wine agreed that milkshakes taste better.
According to your hypothesis, people like that simply shouldn't exist. Your belief would claim that either they really prefer the taste of the wine, or they admit it doesn't taste good. But here we have someone who *doesn't* prefer the taste of wine, yet says it's good.
Want to try a more complex hypothesis and see if it works?
Hey, I've got some non-alcoholic beer that's indistinguishable in blind taste tests from your favorite regular beer and costs half as much. Wanna buy some? Didn't think so.
(And I think it's ultra-cheap milkshakes that get your gag reflex, not normal ones. FWIW, sodas do sting going down for me too, but I've come to tolerate it for the other tastes... I make no pretense that I have a "taste" for stingyness though.)
Could have been more diplomatic there, but you're absolutely correct.
Still, though, isn't there debate whether fat *per se* (as opposed to total calories, or total calories from carbohydrates or processed foods) is the determinant of how fat you are?
Just because we call fat people fat, and also call lipids fat, doesn't mean lipids cause obesity.
I hate to be the kid in The Emporer's New Clothes, but beer *does* taste like shit. Or, more accurately, really sting-y, bitter piss that hurts going down, and could NEVER hold a candle, in terms of taste, to a milkshake.
People. Drink. Beer. To. Get. High.
The taste? A cover to make it socially acceptable. "Ah, yeah, man, this beer is made by this ultra-special microbrew, man, it's got that really subtle, *refined* taste, that's why it's okay to take a psychoactive substance that would otherwise get banned."
I've tasted many, many kinds of beer, and have never enjoyed the process of drinking a single one.
The effects on my mind are a different, and more pleasant story.
I've wondered about this for a while now - couldn't universities ban together and commit some resources (a small contribution from a large number of schools) to create a K-12 series of texts on major subjects, that is designed by the best available experts and freely available for all districts to use?
Yes, if universities were primarily interested in education vs. squeezing every last penny out of their assets.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm wondering the same thing myself -- it seems that the only way you can get millions of beetle species is by counting minor differences between them as a different species. Yet as the history of dog breeding shows, two very very different looking organisms can be the same species, capable of mating and everything. I have no doubt that somewhere, two kinds of beetles have been called different species, though they differ as much as a poodle and a great dane, and have never been tested for interbreeding capability.
Heck, I've even heard about this problem for bigger animals, like when a species has subpopulations that geographically separate and then get called two species just because of the different geography: now we have the North Elbonian wumpus and South Elbonian wumpus. Can they interbreed? Who cares anymore, if we can stir up concern about an extinction?
But isn't the preview button still pretty much just a thoery?
Actually, guiness is my favorite beer, which just means, "least painful to drink". It still has some sting and bitterness, just not as bad as the others. What does your theory of carbonation aversion say about that?
Also, I don't see why you dismiss the tonic test. The horror doesn't come from the initial taste, when I would notice the carbonation; rather, it comes a moment later when I react to the aftertaste.
And remember, the carbonation in sodas only has a minor sting to me, outweighed by the general flavor. I think others are the same way, they just confuse the claims "the drink is *on net* bad" and "the drink's carbonation stings a bit".
Thanks, AC. It's posts like these that help me keep my sanity.
What BS are you referring to? I don't drink to get any kind of high. Instead I drink alcohol because I actually like the taste of it.
What BS are you referring to? I don't sniff powder to get any kind of high. Instead I sniff cocaine because I actually like the smell of it.
There is, however, the issue of getting really fucked in the head, so I only do one line or so, just enough to help me hammer out a report.
I only meant that the carbonation stings a bit. I still prefer it with carbonation.
Try again.
Neither of your hypotheses works. I have about normal preference when it comes to solid food. Furthermore, I've tried beer from all ends of all spectra, including those selected by people with your same elitist attitude that only *bad* beers taste like piss ... and they still hurt to drink (like soda, but a lot worse).
If I were to shut up about the Emporer's clothes, though, I bet I could lull myself into a state similar to your "rah rah, beer is tasty" stance ... decent cover for getting high on stuff that's still legal. (Before your next brilliant reply, "high" here includes any psychoactive effect, including relaxation and loss of inhibitions.)
Why would anyone need to be "in the closet" about anything? This implies discrimination and penalties for the way you think. Scientists should be above such petty things.
No, scientists should be discriminating on exactly this basis, because science is defined by a particular way of thinking -- its reliance on naturalistic, testable hypotheses and empiricism. To the extent that people want to deviate from that while still calling it science, this kind of "discrimination" is justified.
Now, with that said, many people regard their religion as part of their cultural identity and do not endorse any of its purported claims about the universe. To the extent that many "religious" scientists are this way, or keep unscientific epistemology out of their scientific work, they shouldn't be ostracized.
You think that's bad? Wait till you compare $2.2 billion to what some companies spend on advertising.
Advertising Age estimated global measured advertising expenditure of $2.7bn in 2008, making Coca-Cola the world's #6 advertiser.
Source.
Uh-huh. And the non-alcoholic beers just "happen" to not taste *exactly* right to you, *forcing* you to take the *inconvenient* step of drinking a beer that gets you high, or maybe helps you relax a li'l...
Bullshit.
The first time I tasted a beer I drank a Budweiser at a friends house. Honestly, I didn't see the appeal to the drink (and most people can understand why I am sure). I mean, the flavors were smooth enough that I wouldn't describe it as stingy or anything like that, but it just tasted like liquefied bread and my response was something in terms of, "WTF is all the fuss about?"
Hm, interesting. I've considered the possibility that I'm just a supertaster, a kind of person who is sensitive to chemicals in certain foods and when most aren't. (Outside of drinks, it doesn't have much impact on my life.) I never remember any beer tasting like liquid bread -- it's always attached to a stingy, bitter, painful taste. If people get "liquid bread" as the baseline, I can understand why they might actually be able to detect good subtastes within it.
Also, I did the "acid test" for being a supertaster, which is to drink tonic water, which has quinine. If you don't like it, you can taste the quinine and are probably a supertaster. Well, let me tell you, drinking that stuff is like a traumatic event. It's fine at first, then the aftertaste comes in and takes over, telling me, "don't do this shit ... ever."
(Still, it's kind of strange that someone who would pay $100 for a bottle of wine still thinks milkshakes taste better, if it's "all about the taste" and all...)
"High" is sort of an umbrella term. Yeah, big guy, I "get" that you can safely drive after one pint and won't be doing crappy solo routines. Point taken. I'm referring to the mental effects in general. I'm sure a pint helps you to "relax". I'm sure the single-pint-nights you do also serve a great cover for those times when you do just want to get high.
I do drink coffee -- for the psychoactive effects. Or versions with enough sugar to hide the taste, and which are effectively milkshakes.
I do eat chocolate -- and liked it since before it had a chance to affect my mind.
Next, hot-shot?
See my response to the "acquired (aka imagined) taste" bullshit argument here. (Btw, what if I told you excrement was an "acquired taste" that you're just too philistine to accept?)
If it were really as simple as: People. Drink. Beer. To. Get. High. then everyone would drink inexpensive beer with high alcohol content
You forgot about the need to make it appear socially acceptable (i.e. not low class), which keeps my position from implying this.
Not very good at following analogies, are we? I like milkshakes, but I always did. I did not deliberately seek them out, *while not liking them* and then waste all that time, money, and effort to get myself to like them. People *do*, however, do that for alcohol. It's the cool thing to do.
I'm just saying, if I'm gonna rook myself into liking something that I don't automatically like, why not make it spinach or something, instead of alcohol?
Oh, I know! Because alcohol *makes you high*!
Who said "addiction"? (Though I'm sure that's true for some.) Getting high is fun. People want to have fun. Government bans stuff that can get you high unless it has a powerful lobby. People are able to cook up rationalizations for alcohol, but not crack.
What's so controversial?
I doth agree with thine alternate strategie! And I doth hold in the same regard, these so-called "birth-control" devices! Why, marital intercourse needn't be made less-procreative! Rather, one simply must be less lustful!
Except that I didn't turn down the huge variety of beers I tried and never came to like.
Here's a theory: if you eat/drink something enough times, you will eventually *have to* start liking it, simply by force of habit/nostalgia. In this trivial sense, maybe people do like beer, but they don't like it in the sense that they like other foods/drinks that you don't have to trick yourself into liking.
I'd rather not waste effort tricking myself into liking unhealthy stuff that I have to pay a premium for, TYVM.
How about you accept that tastes are different? Sweet crap like sodas and milkshakes trigger my gag reflex. Bitterness is an acquired taste, that much is sure, and I have damn well acquired it. Just because you don't like beer, which I completely accept, doesn't mean that there isn't a whole universe of different, interesting tastes in various kinds of beer.
Well, I did consider this possibility, and the way I ruled out the possibility was this: I went to the wine connosieurs who were totally perplexed by my position, and started them asking more *specific* questions about their liking of alcoholic drinks, and it turned out, they have the *same answers* as I do. Even the wine connosieur, who spends lots of his money on buying *just the right* wine agreed that milkshakes taste better.
According to your hypothesis, people like that simply shouldn't exist. Your belief would claim that either they really prefer the taste of the wine, or they admit it doesn't taste good. But here we have someone who *doesn't* prefer the taste of wine, yet says it's good.
Want to try a more complex hypothesis and see if it works?
Hey, I've got some non-alcoholic beer that's indistinguishable in blind taste tests from your favorite regular beer and costs half as much. Wanna buy some? Didn't think so.
(And I think it's ultra-cheap milkshakes that get your gag reflex, not normal ones. FWIW, sodas do sting going down for me too, but I've come to tolerate it for the other tastes ... I make no pretense that I have a "taste" for stingyness though.)
Could have been more diplomatic there, but you're absolutely correct.
Still, though, isn't there debate whether fat *per se* (as opposed to total calories, or total calories from carbohydrates or processed foods) is the determinant of how fat you are?
Just because we call fat people fat, and also call lipids fat, doesn't mean lipids cause obesity.
I hate to be the kid in The Emporer's New Clothes, but beer *does* taste like shit. Or, more accurately, really sting-y, bitter piss that hurts going down, and could NEVER hold a candle, in terms of taste, to a milkshake.
People. Drink. Beer. To. Get. High.
The taste? A cover to make it socially acceptable. "Ah, yeah, man, this beer is made by this ultra-special microbrew, man, it's got that really subtle, *refined* taste, that's why it's okay to take a psychoactive substance that would otherwise get banned."
I've tasted many, many kinds of beer, and have never enjoyed the process of drinking a single one.
The effects on my mind are a different, and more pleasant story.
But cut the bullshit, folks.
I'm still trying to figure out what an oil drilling nuclear power plant is ... I guess that must be for when you need *serious* drilling.
...I have now lost the ability to be surprised at the shit companies will pull :-(
What would be really funny is if someone bought the novel 1984 on Kindle and then Amazon came and forced an update that deleted it!
Could they still jerk off?
I've wondered about this for a while now - couldn't universities ban together and commit some resources (a small contribution from a large number of schools) to create a K-12 series of texts on major subjects, that is designed by the best available experts and freely available for all districts to use?
Yes, if universities were primarily interested in education vs. squeezing every last penny out of their assets.