I hate what they did with Australis, I nearly changed to Seamonkey, but classic-theme-restorer has put Firefox back the way I like it, I just hope it doesn't stop working.
I'm lazy, I like ready meals, what bugs me is the lack of healthy ready meals, they all lack enough veg, they typically use wheat or rice with the nutrients removed, they are low in fibre etc.
Watching what you eat is different to different people, I'm over 40, my doctor has recommended I keep the saturated fats down and eat lots of fibre. I have a sweet tooth but limit it by simply not buying too much junk, that way when I get a craving there's not much I can do about it. but I suspect some peoples cravings are much more than mine, I very rarely binge, I just don't feel like it. I also place fruit strategically so that it's 'centre stage' it helps me eat healthily.
Yes I oversimplified, diet is of course important. The food industry has a lot to answer for, so much food is made with adulterated flour and rice, pizzas really don't need to be made with white flour, brown rice tastes fine to me, whole grain pasta is almost identical to the bleached stuff. Bleaching food and removing the nutrients may not have seemed like a bad idea in the 19th century but we really should know better now.
I think eating a lot of fruit helps, another easy thing I do is use brown pasta, brown rice and mostly brown bread when I cook.
One food to steer clear of is chocolate ice creams and chocolate, so high in fat and sugar. Whilst cake is not good, some cake is much lower in fat. When I gave up smoking I gained 3 stone and decided to diet, but I was lazy so I just counted sat-fats intake - and it worked!
I'm thinking of replacing sugar in tea with sweeteners but am put off by potential side effects.
That lifestyle will catch up with you, you are likely aging you heart and increasing your risk of cancer. (pot kettle black here). IMO to be healthy just excercise (get a bike) and eat plenty of fruit+veg+fibre and when buying foods pick the ones with lower sat-fats.
It's not becoming more socialist, the Lisbon treaty demands our gov'ts sell all govt property, everything is supposed to be run by corp's - that's EU law!.
As an end-user I'm glad it was shouted about because it gave me the chance to check that any software that could affect me financially was updated or invulnerable.
I didn't say all cancers are radiation caused, I said we don't how many of them are. Stop putting words in to my mouth.
Stick to what I actually said.
You seem to have reading difficulty, I said twice that we should be investing in storage technologies, you seem to want to ignore that.
And you can keep lying to yourself about renewables
Do you ever do any research, are you aware that nuclear has to be subsidised, or that we have hardly put any effort in to energy mass storage tech and that storage tech can be over 90% efficient.
Why on earth would you want to use dirty nuclear power when cheap ever lasting renewables are within our reach. If US DOE says one small area of land can power the USA then obviously the rest of the planet can be run on renewables. The way things are going, solar will be as cheap as coal power.
Why do you think I said we should be investing in storage technologies?
"your side's fabricated dire predictions"
I didn't fabricate anything.
You say nuclear waste can be recycled, but right now, that is a fantasy, this is the reality:
Around the world, nuclear power plants are churning out high-level radioactive waste at a rate of knots. It's estimated that about 250,000 tonnes of the material is currently in interim storage, submerged in huge tanks of water in facilities that keep it safe -- temporarily.
But there's very little agreement on what to do with the stuff long-term, as it will remain a danger for around 100,000 years
No I meant the awareness aspect of consciousness, it is unprovable. The only persons consciousness I can be sure of is my own. For all we know trees or machines could have consciousness, it is the magic of life and we will never know.
From my point of view you have to be pretty 'fundamentalist ' to support nuclear. Every country that has nuclear has accidents.
Why is it that pro-nuclear people always like to ignore the fact that nuclear is the most expensive option and that there is no good place to store the waste. You could sell it to the Italian mafia though, they have disposed of it in the past.
And the dangers are never sufficiently dealt with, luckily terrorists have never attempted to fly plans in to nuclear power stations with the accuracy of the plane that hit the pentagon.
Terrorists, storage, cost, earthquakes, profit motive, tsunamis, large solar flares, disgruntled nut job employees, rogue govt hackers, organised crime, I can't be bothered to go in to all of these in detail but I'm sure there are more reasons why nuclear is a bad idea.
When was the last time a coal fired power station exploded leaving land uninhabitable and the ocean unfishable and with astronomical clean-up costs?
If we put a fraction of what we spend on nuclear in to large scale energy storage R+D and implement it then we could use wind, solar, tidal etc a lot more. UK could be powered from wind alone.
Until you start giving coal power the treatment it DESERVES by killing about 200,000 people/year worldwide and 13,000 people/year in the USA alone, you have ZERO moral authority to try to destroy nuclear power for its most remote risks.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Your argument is that we should castigate Dave for killing people because John kills more people!!!!
7 Billion people on earth, 30+% of them will die of cancer, the simple fact is we don't know how many of those 2 billion people died because of radiation but what we do know is that high powered photons can damage DNA and that can lead to cancer.
How many Fukishimas, windscales, three-mile-islands and chernobyls do we have to have before we say enough is enough. We CAN power this planet on renewables.
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that the solar energy resource in a 100-square-mile (259-square-kilometer) area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity. We're talking 800 gigawatts of power, and that's using modestly efficient commercial PV modules.
Slashdot Mirror
Where-abouts? out of curiosity.
I hate what they did with Australis, I nearly changed to Seamonkey, but classic-theme-restorer has put Firefox back the way I like it, I just hope it doesn't stop working.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
Is it just me or is Firefox going much slower with Version 29.0? (no-script + ghostery installed)
I'm lazy, I like ready meals, what bugs me is the lack of healthy ready meals, they all lack enough veg, they typically use wheat or rice with the nutrients removed, they are low in fibre etc.
Watching what you eat is different to different people, I'm over 40, my doctor has recommended I keep the saturated fats down and eat lots of fibre. I have a sweet tooth but limit it by simply not buying too much junk, that way when I get a craving there's not much I can do about it. but I suspect some peoples cravings are much more than mine, I very rarely binge, I just don't feel like it. I also place fruit strategically so that it's 'centre stage' it helps me eat healthily.
I only ever took antibiotics briefly in my teens for whooping cough so it could indeed be a factor. Genetics seems to be a big factor with me.
Yes I oversimplified, diet is of course important. The food industry has a lot to answer for, so much food is made with adulterated flour and rice, pizzas really don't need to be made with white flour, brown rice tastes fine to me, whole grain pasta is almost identical to the bleached stuff. Bleaching food and removing the nutrients may not have seemed like a bad idea in the 19th century but we really should know better now.
I think eating a lot of fruit helps, another easy thing I do is use brown pasta, brown rice and mostly brown bread when I cook.
One food to steer clear of is chocolate ice creams and chocolate, so high in fat and sugar. Whilst cake is not good, some cake is much lower in fat. When I gave up smoking I gained 3 stone and decided to diet, but I was lazy so I just counted sat-fats intake - and it worked!
I'm thinking of replacing sugar in tea with sweeteners but am put off by potential side effects.
"Our bodies are so well attuned to processing wheat, that bread causes a faster sugar high than Coca Cola"...
Does that apply to brown wheat or just white flour products?
That lifestyle will catch up with you, you are likely aging you heart and increasing your risk of cancer. (pot kettle black here). IMO to be healthy just excercise (get a bike) and eat plenty of fruit+veg+fibre and when buying foods pick the ones with lower sat-fats.
Or heart disease, cars cause obesity, lack of exercise. Bicycles are the cure.
It's not becoming more socialist, the Lisbon treaty demands our gov'ts sell all govt property, everything is supposed to be run by corp's - that's EU law!.
Me, 2+ sugars in tea 4 times a day, biscuits, ice cream cake sweets.
I'm 5'11 and 142pounds / 64kg
It's not just sugar. I cycle. How many overweight people do you know that cycle regularly?
Normally I'm against people being sent to Guantanamo, but in this case I'll make an exception.
- London cyclist and air breather.
Campaign or income, either way it's a benefit and it's still bribery.
"volunteer their own hard-earned wealth"
That's called bribery when the money they are 'volunteering' goes to a politician.
Of course it doesn't, that page compared 357grams of broccoli with 34grams of beef.
Worked out from the figures on that page:
100g broccoli = 3.1g protein
100g beef = 23.5g protein
As an end-user I'm glad it was shouted about because it gave me the chance to check that any software that could affect me financially was updated or invulnerable.
So, can you tell me why I shouldn't be notified?
Well that's just mean, why would you taunt them like that, you must know that lifeless bodies are worth less.
Shit in a hole, cover it over, what do you think the rest of nature does?
City living would not be feasible post-apocalypse.
I didn't say all cancers are radiation caused, I said we don't how many of them are. Stop putting words in to my mouth.
Stick to what I actually said.
You seem to have reading difficulty, I said twice that we should be investing in storage technologies, you seem to want to ignore that.
"The electrical grid has ZERO energy storage"
Why do you think I said we should be investing in storage technologies?
"your side's fabricated dire predictions"
I didn't fabricate anything.
You say nuclear waste can be recycled, but right now, that is a fantasy, this is the reality:
from:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...
No I meant the awareness aspect of consciousness, it is unprovable. The only persons consciousness I can be sure of is my own. For all we know trees or machines could have consciousness, it is the magic of life and we will never know.
Conscious is were magic begins and science ends.
From my point of view you have to be pretty 'fundamentalist ' to support nuclear. Every country that has nuclear has accidents.
Why is it that pro-nuclear people always like to ignore the fact that nuclear is the most expensive option and that there is no good place to store the waste. You could sell it to the Italian mafia though, they have disposed of it in the past.
And the dangers are never sufficiently dealt with, luckily terrorists have never attempted to fly plans in to nuclear power stations with the accuracy of the plane that hit the pentagon.
Terrorists, storage, cost, earthquakes, profit motive, tsunamis, large solar flares, disgruntled nut job employees, rogue govt hackers, organised crime, I can't be bothered to go in to all of these in detail but I'm sure there are more reasons why nuclear is a bad idea.
When was the last time a coal fired power station exploded leaving land uninhabitable and the ocean unfishable and with astronomical clean-up costs?
If we put a fraction of what we spend on nuclear in to large scale energy storage R+D and implement it then we could use wind, solar, tidal etc a lot more. UK could be powered from wind alone.
What we need is a 3-strikes and you're out system - submit 3 false DMCA take-downs and any more take-downs become invalid.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Your argument is that we should castigate Dave for killing people because John kills more people!!!!
7 Billion people on earth, 30+% of them will die of cancer, the simple fact is we don't know how many of those 2 billion people died because of radiation but what we do know is that high powered photons can damage DNA and that can lead to cancer.
How many Fukishimas, windscales, three-mile-islands and chernobyls do we have to have before we say enough is enough. We CAN power this planet on renewables.