"The whole point of cooking food is to make the proteins and starches more digestible and so our bodies can absorb its nutrients better."
To me, the whole point of cooking most of the food that I cook is simply to make it TASTE better.
It also seems to me that cooking has been more important as a sanitizer than as a digestive aid.
Also, it seems relevant to point out that germs and parasites, which are mostly killed by cooking, are VASTLY more deadly than carcinogens, both directly and through the poisons that they manufacture.
I will accept that many scientists struggle for recognition among their peers, but I still disagree with you on several points.
1- Many scientists prefer recognition among non-scientists to recognition among scientists (and often those are the ones that we hear about before they die). I suggest that most people (including scientists) know that it is easier to get money/power/fame by telling people what they want to hear than any other way. That kind of fame may not last, but it sure is easier to get.
2- I've seen (and been a part of, and read about) enough groups of scientists to know that approval among ones peers is often based on internal politics of whatever scientific discipline or university.
3- Just like in any large group of people, most scientists are mediocre. People will always feel safer by agreeing with what they think the consensus is.
You said, "Your suggestion that environmental catestrophe is our "desired conclusion" is equally puzzling" 4- I hope that you're just pretending not to understand how someone can sincerely not want a catastrophe, and still benefit if a catastrophe is predicted by their research, and be (conciously or unconciously) be swayed by that benefit. If you can't see that strong possibility for bias, you shouldn't be a scientist.
Notes:
In this post scientist means "the people that would be classified as a scientist by newspapers, television, internet, advertisements, etc."
These forums wouldn't usuall classify me as a scientist, but my education (BS and MS) was definitely hard science, and my job uses that education and the scientific method.
"You know, you do live in America and you ARE free to move south where it's warmer"
Yes, but you have to show your travel papers to fly.
True story:
My wife and I were flying a coupld of weeks ago and each had a boarding pass and Virginia driver license.
We each showed both our license and boarding pass to the first security person, our boarding pass to the person at the metal-detector gate, and our boarding pass to the person when we boarded the plane.
Inadvertently, my wife had the boarding pass that I should have had, and I had a boarding pass that I would need for a later flight from a different airport.
No one (including us) noticed until after my wife was half-way down the ramp to get on the plane and the computer rejected my pass.
In other words, after our passes were (ostensibly) checked THREE TIMES, they didn't notice that my wife's license didn't match her boarding pass, or that she was obviously female and her boarding pass had an obviously male name, or that my boarding pass wasn't even for that airport (I guess that the third check caught that one).
And the only reason that any scientist ever had to support phrenology was the same.
Scientists are just as human as any other human (including politicians), and are just as likely to be power/money-hungry. The fact that science is a field where one can make a lot of money and have a lot of influence doesn't keep corrupt people out of it.
Famous and historically revered scientists have been known be pressured into making false public statements. (Gallileo is a prime example.)
Even more common is the tendency of all humans to find reasons and data that support our desired conclusions NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY WANT TO BE NEUTRAL.
Of course, scientists are also just as likely to be honest and kind people as the next guy too.
I disagree with the tobacco lawsuits (for several reasons, one of which is the implied denial of personal responsibility).
I also think I'd have to be pretty stupid to not notice that tobacco companies (and porn companies) immorally exploit addiction to sell their products.
The fact that you are responsibile for your choices does not remove my responsibility for my choices.
#2 doesn't refer to the models, but the unwary consumers. If you didn't know that porn was addictive, a simple examination of the business model would convince you (assuming you honestly think for yourself).
I would expect that vaporizing the outer covering would (1) mean a lot of heat right next to the mirror, perhaps making the mirror less reflective before the laser gets through the covering (2) leave particles on the mirror making the mirror less effective than not having the covering in the first place
I wonder what the the experiments that I'm sure that the military has done have shown.
So, China has "In case you were wondering they have over a million infantry troops."
More than one source estimated the Iraqi army to be one million men or more (at least in 1991). That army didn't give much trouble to its attackers either time.
"The only reason I can think of that anyone would choose VHS over DVD is the fact that a vhs tape can take more external abuse than a DVD disc"
DVDs are much more expensive than VHS. (Not to manufacture, transport, store, etc, but there is more price-gouging in DVDs.)
"If DVDs were like 3.5 inch floppies this would be another story."
I had a PD disc once. It is a CD-like (same size, same capacity) optical disk in a plastic case with a shutter. A job where we had PD drives gave it to me. I think I gave it to my brother when he picked up a used computer with a PD drive.
"Makes one almost wish for the days when regular CD-roms could hold several times the magnitude than the hard drives of the computers they resided in. Or maybe wish to have that ratio back:)"
Trade me your very large hard drive for my 2.5 GB drive, backup on DVD, and there you have it.
(I have to warn you that my drive is 5.25" quarter-height.)
It also requires a small amount of personal accountability that posting anonymously on the internet doesn't.
(Note that posting while logged in, under your actual username, is still very anonymous. Unless I have told you face-to-face that I am QMO on/. you probably don't know who I am.)
"Except that no-body holds the patent on cocaine so its illegal."
I can't believe that reasoning.
First: Asprin and Alcohol aren't patented, and aren't illegal.
Second: Lots of patented drugs are VERY illegal. (It takes a lot of money, time, red tape, and testing to get a new patented drug to the point where it is even legal to test on people.)
But then you say: "We don't need a pill to help us work harder, we just need to adjust our expectations."
I don't have any limits in mind at all. I was merely commenting on the human nature in regards to limits.
I'll admit that I'm surprised that you asked me for limit suggestions. Your comments suggest that you already had a certain limit in mind, at least for some people. I was basically responding to your expressed desire to wait before applying those limits to others.
You would have made more sense to me, had you espoused setting the same limits for each person now, or insisted on waiting the same for everyone.
I had (a version of) this typed out, then decided not to post, because I'm going to be mightily understood, probably even by people that actually know me. Then I changed my mind and typed (something like the original) again.
IMO, any secular argument about morals is wishful thinking and twisty logical acrobatics. For example: IMO, there is no valid secular argument against murder, at least as long as no one (else) finds out that it was murder.
The secular arguments about morality that hold any water at all are dependent on helping a society hold together (e.g. if people fear murder from each other they can't cooperate well). These arguments fall apart if the deeds are unnoticed.
I firmly believe there are right and wrong. I also believe that doing what's right will make the society function better, and the individual happier (in the short run, the long run and the eternal run), but I've never heard (or read) any good secular arguments for specific morals or morality in general.
I wish Philo Farnsworth had developed electronic television without tax funding. People would be able to have one in their own home. Maybe more than one!
Slashdot Mirror
"The whole point of cooking food is to make the proteins and starches more digestible and so our bodies can absorb its nutrients better."
To me, the whole point of cooking most of the food that I cook is simply to make it TASTE better.
It also seems to me that cooking has been more important as a sanitizer than as a digestive aid.
Also, it seems relevant to point out that germs and parasites, which are mostly killed by cooking, are VASTLY more deadly than carcinogens, both directly and through the poisons that they manufacture.
P.S. How many firkins in a vast?
If the lawyers did regulate themselves that way more than half of them would suddenly be out of work.
A well-written contract doesn't guarantee nearly the future lawyer work tnat a poorly-written contract does.
Certifications are just paper and don't guarantee any knowledge or skill.
College degrees are just paper and don't guarantee any knowledge or skill.
The trouble is that experience on a resume is just paper too, and doesn't guarantee any knowledge of skill either.
If you're hiring, how do you tell the difference between paper knowledge/skill and real knowledge/skill?
Until everyone's completely honest (and probably after too) hiring will always be a lot of guess-and-check.
I will accept that many scientists struggle for recognition among their peers, but I still disagree with you on several points.
1- Many scientists prefer recognition among non-scientists to recognition among scientists (and often those are the ones that we hear about before they die). I suggest that most people (including scientists) know that it is easier to get money/power/fame by telling people what they want to hear than any other way. That kind of fame may not last, but it sure is easier to get.
2- I've seen (and been a part of, and read about) enough groups of scientists to know that approval among ones peers is often based on internal politics of whatever scientific discipline or university.
3- Just like in any large group of people, most scientists are mediocre. People will always feel safer by agreeing with what they think the consensus is.
You said, "Your suggestion that environmental catestrophe is our "desired conclusion" is equally puzzling"
4- I hope that you're just pretending not to understand how someone can sincerely not want a catastrophe, and still benefit if a catastrophe is predicted by their research, and be (conciously or unconciously) be swayed by that benefit. If you can't see that strong possibility for bias, you shouldn't be a scientist.
Notes:
In this post scientist means "the people that would be classified as a scientist by newspapers, television, internet, advertisements, etc."
These forums wouldn't usuall classify me as a scientist, but my education (BS and MS) was definitely hard science, and my job uses that education and the scientific method.
I thought that was a curernt event funny.
I don't want MS to pay my ISP fees. That would raise MS prices, and make me more dependent on them.
I know, I know. I shouldn't reply to AC rants.
"You know, you do live in America and you ARE free to move south where it's warmer"
Yes, but you have to show your travel papers to fly.
True story:
My wife and I were flying a coupld of weeks ago and each had a boarding pass and Virginia driver license.
We each showed both our license and boarding pass to the first security person, our boarding pass to the person at the metal-detector gate, and our boarding pass to the person when we boarded the plane.
Inadvertently, my wife had the boarding pass that I should have had, and I had a boarding pass that I would need for a later flight from a different airport.
No one (including us) noticed until after my wife was half-way down the ramp to get on the plane and the computer rejected my pass.
In other words, after our passes were (ostensibly) checked THREE TIMES, they didn't notice that my wife's license didn't match her boarding pass, or that she was obviously female and her boarding pass had an obviously male name, or that my boarding pass wasn't even for that airport (I guess that the third check caught that one).
(sigh) My tax dollars at work.
And the only reason that any scientist ever had to support phrenology was the same.
Scientists are just as human as any other human (including politicians), and are just as likely to be power/money-hungry. The fact that science is a field where one can make a lot of money and have a lot of influence doesn't keep corrupt people out of it.
Famous and historically revered scientists have been known be pressured into making false public statements. (Gallileo is a prime example.)
Even more common is the tendency of all humans to find reasons and data that support our desired conclusions NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY WANT TO BE NEUTRAL.
Of course, scientists are also just as likely to be honest and kind people as the next guy too.
I disagree with the tobacco lawsuits (for several reasons, one of which is the implied denial of personal responsibility).
I also think I'd have to be pretty stupid to not notice that tobacco companies (and porn companies) immorally exploit addiction to sell their products.
The fact that you are responsibile for your choices does not remove my responsibility for my choices.
Look again.
#2 doesn't refer to the models, but the unwary consumers.
If you didn't know that porn was addictive, a simple examination of the business model would convince you (assuming you honestly think for yourself).
I would expect that vaporizing the outer covering would
(1) mean a lot of heat right next to the mirror, perhaps making the mirror less reflective before the laser gets through the covering
(2) leave particles on the mirror making the mirror less effective than not having the covering in the first place
I wonder what the the experiments that I'm sure that the military has done have shown.
So, China has "In case you were wondering they have over a million infantry troops."
More than one source estimated the Iraqi army to be one million men or more (at least in 1991). That army didn't give much trouble to its attackers either time.
I've been middle class my entire life, and never felt like $1500 was an affordable price for a television.
(Note: Just because it's bigger doesn't mean it's more affordable.)
"The only reason I can think of that anyone would choose VHS over DVD is the fact that a vhs tape can take more external abuse than a DVD disc"
DVDs are much more expensive than VHS.
(Not to manufacture, transport, store, etc, but there is more price-gouging in DVDs.)
"If DVDs were like 3.5 inch floppies this would be another story."
I had a PD disc once. It is a CD-like (same size, same capacity) optical disk in a plastic case with a shutter. A job where we had PD drives gave it to me. I think I gave it to my brother when he picked up a used computer with a PD drive.
"maybe we'll see movie collections on one disc instead of two or three."
That will only happen when the movies are old/unpopular. Making milti-disc packages helps people feel justified in paying more.
"Makes one almost wish for the days when regular CD-roms could hold several times the magnitude than the hard drives of the computers they resided in. Or maybe wish to have that ratio back:)"
Trade me your very large hard drive for my 2.5 GB drive, backup on DVD, and there you have it.
(I have to warn you that my drive is 5.25" quarter-height.)
It also requires a small amount of personal accountability that posting anonymously on the internet doesn't.
/. you probably don't know who I am.)
(Note that posting while logged in, under your actual username, is still very anonymous. Unless I have told you face-to-face that I am QMO on
"Except that no-body holds the patent on cocaine so its illegal."
I can't believe that reasoning.
First: Asprin and Alcohol aren't patented, and aren't illegal.
Second: Lots of patented drugs are VERY illegal. (It takes a lot of money, time, red tape, and testing to get a new patented drug to the point where it is even legal to test on people.)
But then you say:
"We don't need a pill to help us work harder, we just need to adjust our expectations."
Which I totally agree with.
I don't have any limits in mind at all.
I was merely commenting on the human nature in regards to limits.
I'll admit that I'm surprised that you asked me for limit suggestions. Your comments suggest that you already had a certain limit in mind, at least for some people. I was basically responding to your expressed desire to wait before applying those limits to others.
You would have made more sense to me, had you espoused setting the same limits for each person now, or insisted on waiting the same for everyone.
Gil the ARM
I had (a version of) this typed out, then decided not to post, because I'm going to be mightily understood, probably even by people that actually know me. Then I changed my mind and typed (something like the original) again.
IMO, any secular argument about morals is wishful thinking and twisty logical acrobatics.
For example: IMO, there is no valid secular argument against murder, at least as long as no one (else) finds out that it was murder.
The secular arguments about morality that hold any water at all are dependent on helping a society hold together (e.g. if people fear murder from each other they can't cooperate well). These arguments fall apart if the deeds are unnoticed.
I firmly believe there are right and wrong. I also believe that doing what's right will make the society function better, and the individual happier (in the short run, the long run and the eternal run), but I've never heard (or read) any good secular arguments for specific morals or morality in general.
If you find any, let me know.
So,
Knocking people out is bad, but killing someone in a coma is OK?
I wish Philo Farnsworth had developed electronic television without tax funding. People would be able to have one in their own home. Maybe more than one!
(I guess I'm feeling sarcastic today.)
"should be based on objective criteria, not on one man's personal religious beliefs."
My profession constantly faces opposition from religion-based laws.
(Note: It's not what you think. I'm a hitman.)
(Further note: I am not actually a hitman and, sadly, if I didn't add this part, someone out there would totally miss the point.)
"It didn't make sense to try to set limits for China they are still to far away from reaching."
Setting limits BEFORE you reach them is the BEST way.