As Sagan so eloquently put it "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
If I'm trying to support a claim that is 80% extraordinary, does my evidence have to be 80% extraordinary too, or can I get by with two pieces of 40% extraordinary evidence? I mean, Sagan's statement is a nice sentiment and makes a great sound bite, and all, but the moment you start judging the ordinariness or extraordinariness of claims and evidence you start to stumble off the path of science. Science is simple: Either the evidence supports the claim or it doesn't. That's all that should matter.
The basic idea behind science is pretty simple: prove it or it isn't real.
Nonsense. That's not how science works. The basic idea behind science is that if an observation contradicts a conjecture, then the conjecture is false. That's it. If the observations do not contradict the conjecture, science makes no claim.
Their sky god has them blow stuff up by running our sky carriages into our sky scrapers. Our sky god has us forgive them, and even love them. No doubt in my mind which one needs to be destroyed first.
You're missing the point. The constitution is defended with the ballot box, not the ammo box. By the time you're defending the constitution with guns, you've already lost. At that point, it's time to revert to the Declaration of Independence "...whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Any reason you can't seal the build chamber, flood it with the welding gas (about a couple of cubic feet should do) and use a simple wire feed welder? The reason the gas welder takes so much gas is that the gas escapes into the surrounding air.
He's talking about the American Revolution. His coy act is obnoxious, but your deliberate obtuseness is annoying, too.
I am not an American, so if there is some American cultural reference linking "one single event" and the American Revolution, you'll have to forgive me for not picking up on the hint. Besides, the American revolution is not an example of the US government changing its policies because the US population is armed because there was no US, or US government, or US population (armed or otherwise) at the time.
Right now I am imagining a bug that causes a self-printing printer to go out of control, so that the printers keeps printing printers that keep printing printers that keep...
So, he admits he can't remember any event, and instead of supplying him with a list of events, or even one single event, you just reiterate his admission. How about you stop being the armchair quarterback, put your shoulder to the wheel, and cite something.
... or is it that you can't remember one event either?
What was "baked into the cake" was more than just a DNA pattern. It was an actual program. As such, guided evolution to favour species like the seeders. In other words, evolution wasn't random. It was directed.
You read all that data, and you can't find any evidence that a diet rich in raw vegetables, fruits, nuts, etc trumps a diet rich in refined sugars, processed grains, saturated fats, etc in terms of health?
With what a lot of WoW players write, I'm amazed the NSA doesn't sue them for pain and suffering when some poor slob has to look through the stored Barrens chat logs.
On the bright side, it's a promotion for the guy who used to read Slashdot posts for the NSA.
Ridiculous. All one pharmaco has to do is say "We've got the cure!" and everyone will come to them, cash in hand. Perpetual treatments require two things that companies are not good at:
- giving up short term gains for long term gains.
- cooperating.
Lots of references in Dr Joel Fuhrman's book, Eat to Live. In particular, one study stands out: the China Study. People in China tend to live their entire lives in one region. The diet is specific to the region, and the occurrence of particular diseases is also very regional.
100 million North Americans are trying diets, and trying to lose weight. They are not trying to eat healthy. Weight loss (or gain, as the case may be) should merely be a side effect of eating a healthy diet, and not the purpose of the diet.
Humans must eat at least some animal products to be healthy.
Not true. You can get all the nutrients you need to be healthy entirely from plants. However, it is a lot easier to get some nutrients from animal sources.
About the only way to remove fat permanently, without serious exercise and diet, is surgery.
I'm NOT willing to go that route.
Your thinking is wrong, as is most people's. It's what I like to call big D and little d diet. You think of a diet as a short term thing that you do - a temporary change in what you eat. If you want to lose weight, you go on a diet. That's the big D definiton (as in Atkins Diet, South Beach Diet, Paleo-Diet, Grapefruit Diet, etc.) and it is wrong.
A temporary change in what you eat is only going to give you temporary results. If you want a permanent change in weight, you must make a permanent change in what you eat. You must change your diet (little d, as in "The diet of the Koala consists mostly of eucalyptus leaves.").
This! At the restuarants around my workplace, a caesar salad costs $3-$4 more than a burger/fries/softdrink combo.
Perhaps what should happen is a 1 cent per calorie tax on fast food. That would hike the price of a Big Mac combo by $13+ dollars. Make the calories "visible".
Slashdot Mirror
As Sagan so eloquently put it "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
If I'm trying to support a claim that is 80% extraordinary, does my evidence have to be 80% extraordinary too, or can I get by with two pieces of 40% extraordinary evidence? I mean, Sagan's statement is a nice sentiment and makes a great sound bite, and all, but the moment you start judging the ordinariness or extraordinariness of claims and evidence you start to stumble off the path of science. Science is simple: Either the evidence supports the claim or it doesn't. That's all that should matter.
The basic idea behind science is pretty simple: prove it or it isn't real.
Nonsense. That's not how science works. The basic idea behind science is that if an observation contradicts a conjecture, then the conjecture is false. That's it. If the observations do not contradict the conjecture, science makes no claim.
Their sky god has them blow stuff up by running our sky carriages into our sky scrapers. Our sky god has us forgive them, and even love them. No doubt in my mind which one needs to be destroyed first.
You're missing the point. The constitution is defended with the ballot box, not the ammo box. By the time you're defending the constitution with guns, you've already lost. At that point, it's time to revert to the Declaration of Independence "...whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Any reason you can't seal the build chamber, flood it with the welding gas (about a couple of cubic feet should do) and use a simple wire feed welder? The reason the gas welder takes so much gas is that the gas escapes into the surrounding air.
He's talking about the American Revolution. His coy act is obnoxious, but your deliberate obtuseness is annoying, too.
I am not an American, so if there is some American cultural reference linking "one single event" and the American Revolution, you'll have to forgive me for not picking up on the hint. Besides, the American revolution is not an example of the US government changing its policies because the US population is armed because there was no US, or US government, or US population (armed or otherwise) at the time.
Ah! I see now. What you're saying is that it has never happened. Well, why didn't you say so plainly, instead of being coy about it?
Right now I am imagining a bug that causes a self-printing printer to go out of control, so that the printers keeps printing printers that keep printing printers that keep ...
It's called the Sorcerer's Apprentice.
So, he admits he can't remember any event, and instead of supplying him with a list of events, or even one single event, you just reiterate his admission. How about you stop being the armchair quarterback, put your shoulder to the wheel, and cite something.
... or is it that you can't remember one event either?
Now what the hell am I supposed to do with these bear arms?
I'm thinking maybe I should have just put on the wife-beater shirt instead...education wasn't so good back then, maybe they misspelled a word...
This! It's so obvious that the founding fathers were enshrining the right to wear short sleeved shirts: the right to bare arms.
What was "baked into the cake" was more than just a DNA pattern. It was an actual program. As such, guided evolution to favour species like the seeders. In other words, evolution wasn't random. It was directed.
Panspermia gets support because the longer life has been around, the greater the chance it could have happened.
I've been around a long, long, time but I don't see the odds of me getting lucky getting any better.
You read all that data, and you can't find any evidence that a diet rich in raw vegetables, fruits, nuts, etc trumps a diet rich in refined sugars, processed grains, saturated fats, etc in terms of health?
I didn't claim that he did any research. All I said is that there are a lot of references in his book.
...human readable by business managers...
Ah!!! That explains a lot.
Um... except why anything needed by business managers needed to be HUMAN readable.
With what a lot of WoW players write, I'm amazed the NSA doesn't sue them for pain and suffering when some poor slob has to look through the stored Barrens chat logs.
On the bright side, it's a promotion for the guy who used to read Slashdot posts for the NSA.
Ridiculous. All one pharmaco has to do is say "We've got the cure!" and everyone will come to them, cash in hand. Perpetual treatments require two things that companies are not good at:
- giving up short term gains for long term gains.
- cooperating.
"Don't try this at home" isn't fun. It's merely entertainment.
I thought it was an entreaty to go behind the neighbour's shed to try it.
Lots of references in Dr Joel Fuhrman's book, Eat to Live. In particular, one study stands out: the China Study. People in China tend to live their entire lives in one region. The diet is specific to the region, and the occurrence of particular diseases is also very regional.
100 million North Americans are trying diets, and trying to lose weight. They are not trying to eat healthy. Weight loss (or gain, as the case may be) should merely be a side effect of eating a healthy diet, and not the purpose of the diet.
You can get all the nutrients you need to be healthy entirely from plants.
Well... physically healthy, anyway. I'm not making any claims about the emotional or mental health of people who refuse to eat bacon.
Humans must eat at least some animal products to be healthy.
Not true. You can get all the nutrients you need to be healthy entirely from plants. However, it is a lot easier to get some nutrients from animal sources.
About the only way to remove fat permanently, without serious exercise and diet, is surgery.
I'm NOT willing to go that route.
Your thinking is wrong, as is most people's. It's what I like to call big D and little d diet. You think of a diet as a short term thing that you do - a temporary change in what you eat. If you want to lose weight, you go on a diet. That's the big D definiton (as in Atkins Diet, South Beach Diet, Paleo-Diet, Grapefruit Diet, etc.) and it is wrong.
A temporary change in what you eat is only going to give you temporary results. If you want a permanent change in weight, you must make a permanent change in what you eat. You must change your diet (little d, as in "The diet of the Koala consists mostly of eucalyptus leaves.").
Which is why obesity is a 'disease of poverty.'
This! At the restuarants around my workplace, a caesar salad costs $3-$4 more than a burger/fries/softdrink combo.
Perhaps what should happen is a 1 cent per calorie tax on fast food. That would hike the price of a Big Mac combo by $13+ dollars. Make the calories "visible".
100 million who eat healthy, and yet are not healthy? I don't buy it. 100 million who eat a North American diet and are not healthy... that I can buy.