Not to mention the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.
Yeah, but the IRS forms have a blank for "Illegal Income" and that has somehow passed constitutional scrutiny. A conviction of the income producing crime is not required.
Criminalizing the failure to disclose criminal activity should be a clear violation of self incrimination protections. The courts let it through by insisting that the failure to incriminate yourself isn't the crime, failure to pay the taxes is. This ignores, of course, the fact that paying a tax on illegal income is by definition an admission of guilt.
This same sort of reasoning could somehow be applied to this law as well.
Not really. In the case of income tax on illegal gains there is no actual statement about how and why those gains were made. Say, I sell weed. I can declare on my taxes that I made $5,000 in illegal income, but I don't have to declare WHAT I did to make that income.
It's up to the police in this case to find out what what I made the money on. It's not actually an admission of guilt to report illegal income, because there is no specific information about what the crime was.
If the police come to your door and ask you what you did to collect the income that you reported, then you just say, "I don't have to answer your questions."
I certainly know that sending a SEGV signal to init is a bad idea in *nix, even if certain flavors will let you do it or not.
I've never used any flavor of Linux that ever pretended to know better than root, and that's just the way I like it.
Actually, you can't send SIGKILL to the init process in linux. To quote the manpage:
The only signals that can be sent task number one, the init process, are those for which init has explicitly installed signal handlers. This is done to assure the system is not brought down accidentally.
Process Explorer kicks the crap out of Task Manager simply for the fact that it doesn't give access denied error messages to admins trying to end protected system processes. Try ending the same processes with Process Explorer and it "just works" -- which goes to show that the Task Manager error message has nothing to do with actual account privileges. The first time I found this I realized it's no wonder Windows has such a problem with malware, the applications I run have more access to my system processes than I do!
There is an error message reported with Server 2003 when attempting to install the MUI pack onto Server 2003 x64 German, saying that the architecture is wrong, or something like that. The reason why it is reporting this message is because the installer grouped two return codes into the same function: it checked the architecture, and then it also checked the language. Even though the architecture matches, the language (MUI can only be installed on English versions) mismatches, and thus it reports the error.
The error used to say, "the architecture and/or language may be wrong", but when Server 2003 SP1 shipped, x64 only had English and Japanese, meaning that the "language" error was highly unlikely, so they dumped that part of the message.
Eventually, I had to come back with the answer, "it's wrong, it's a bug, and there's nothing we can do to fix it, because the bug is in the software that has already shipped, and short of patching it on-the-fly, there's no way we can maim SP2 to make the error message turn up correctly anymore."
There are a lot of reasons for error messages to be thrown up, and sometimes developers don't get picky and just throw up the most convenient one. Most likely, Task Manager knows that killing the appropriate process is a bad idea, and MSFT has taken the choice to not hand you enough rope to hang yourself. I certainly know that sending a SEGV signal to init is a bad idea in *nix, even if certain flavors will let you do it or not.
You're missing the key difference here. Microsoft is making money hand over fist, like mad, and were doing so before security was as important as it is now. It's not so important that they ensure security in their products as ensure that clients believe that security is taken seriously.
It's a spec, not an app, authored by a consortium of people with, in some cases, questionable commitment to interoperability.
HTML5 is not an apple product. All your talk of polish on apple products is accurate but irrelevant.
It doesn't have to be an Apple product. It's a spec that they're pushing, and someone was complaining that it didn't really do anything, just pushed a small incremental increase that is...
When religion puts a person on the moon, or when a priest receives schematics for a new invention via divine inspiration, or when a faith healer cures anything in a controlled environment then perhaps I'll start listening.
Science works; science delivers the goods. That's the difference.
Volapük is actually divinely inspired. God told the guy to design a world language that everyone could use.
The result was something that was so ungodly against so much of what we understand in linguistics as benefiting secondary aquisition that speakers from different countries had no chance of understanding each other.
The only good things that ever seem to come from direct divine inspiration seems to be non-practical fiction.
Yes! If by "future" you mean "marginal enhancements to a decade old spec, solving problems that have already been fixed, and still isn't done yet, let alone supported" then yes, future indeed. I'm thoroughly prepared to have my mind blown by it, on the five example pages w3c will eventually put out. Phenomenal.
Wait... you're complaining about Apple making a MARGINAL enhancement to a well-established format, that people have already fixed?
The areas where Apple has performed the best is taking tried-and-true technology, simplifying it, and making it polished.
While flash has solved a lot of issues on the web, it is also a first-gen solution. In many ways, it's inelegant, it's a pain, and it's annoying. Going back to the basics, and solving the problems again with a mind for what the real problem is, and what ideas work and don't, can provide you with a more robust solution than the hacks all thrown together.
Look at what Apple does to the "power apps" that come out for their products. They look at it, redesign it, refine it, and push it out to the customer as a new feature of the OS. Perhaps the best/worst thing one can do is make an app that people begin to view as "essential" or "required to be seriously considered". If your install base approaches 50% of the market, Apple takes notice, sucks your ideas in, and plops out a version of their own... and you're left in the dust as an obsolete "inferior" option...
The Civil Law system has the traditions that judges are not lawyers, but take a completely separate path of learning. As well, the judges must interpret the laws as written, and can't just make things up, or even depend upon what some other judge said about a situation that might be similar.
From my reading of laws and stuff, it turns out that lawyers do a good job of being specific about certain things, and vague about other things. Domestic violence laws, passed to reduce wife beating, are not limited in wording to "a husband hitting his wife". As simple as that law would seem to most, how do you know if the individuals are husband and wife? Well, they're married, right? Not always. And what if he doesn't hit her, he just pushes her down the stairs?
The art in crafting laws and contracts is that you want the law/contract to read as broadly as necessary, but no further. The problem with this, is that it introduces a hojillion instances where someone could find a boundary condition that the original crafting never considered.
I think the best way to explain why laws will never be perfect is to point out that computer code will never be perfect.
The problem with Tor is that there's no way to detect compromises -- every node on the network could be compromised and you'd never know. Authors of botnets have greater anonymity than we do -- ironically because it's run by a central authority. An illegal and immoral one, yes, but one that comes with a measure of anonymity. Few botnet authors are actually caught even with the most primitive security methods. They don't even use encryption and they often can't be found...
There's a lot to be said for hiding in a crowd though. While it is true that every node in the network could be compromised, and we'd never know, collecting all that data together to target you individually becomes more and more difficult the more people use the network... and we're not talking about big-O of n, we're talking at least big-O n squared or so.
As with all forms of security, there's nothing you can do to guarantee security, you simply raise the burden of breaching that security until the opportunity to breach you is not worth the cost to breach you.
Does any major software still need the 16-bit subsystem?
Amusingly, when I first installed Windows NT 3.51, back around 1996, the 16-bit subsystem was optional, like the OS/2 subsystem, and I had it turned off. Everything worked fine. In NT 4, they let the kode kiddies from the Windows 95 group put legacy code into NT, some of which still ran in 16-bit mode, and the 16-bit subsystem was always on.
I've used DOSBox to handle my 16-bit apps on a 64-bit machine.
I don't have any problems with rationalizing medical liability, but the savings aren't all that likely to amount to much (the article references a CBO study):
Now, find 20 ways to save 0.5% of medical costs and you are getting somewhere, but this single issue isn't going to solve the whole thing.
It can vary some based on the field the doctor is practicing. There are some surgeries, where malpractice is so crazy high, because the insurance companies are afraid to defend the people performing the surgery. (This sentence should be read: the insurance companies anticipate big losses by covering the surgeons.)
"Tort reform" covers only one part of the hysterical increase in malpractice insurance. That insurance companies see it as a non-lucrative business to be in, means that they demand higher premiums to ensure that they meet their desired profit margins. If these insurance companies were run as co-ops where the premiums were collectively held as a non-profit to pay out for doctors without generating a profit for shareholders, then the malpractice premiums would not exceed what is actually paid out.
If you think medical insurance for the consumer sucks, the malpractice insurance does the same exact stuff. Insurance companies want to shaft everyone in the equation. If they mark a particular surgery as "experimental" then not only does the medical insurance for the patient not have to pay, but the malpractice insurance doesn't have to cover it... or the malpractice premium for it goes up, and the doctor has to replace the cost by putting the cost onto the consumer, thus raising the price.
I think any insurance company running for-profit is a generally bad idea... they will always be driven to deny claims, raise rates, and add no real to the benefit of the consumer (beyond what a non-profit insurance company would provide) except an extra middle-man, or two, or three.
What determines the price of a scale is not just its equipment or accuracy.. but also the insurance the manufacturer has to carry in case something goes wrong. That's why medical devices are more expensive... you're also paying for the liability of somebody being misdiagnosed by a technical malfunction. Highly unlikely, but the money that has to be paid when that happens and gets proven is huge.
There's a lot of stuff that goes into a device to "certify it for blah blah use". Like you said, liability insurance. There's also a lot more stuff. Like the fact that doctors can expect to recoup greater amounts of the price of the unit than a gamer is likely to.
Take the same device, everything the exact same. Sell it to people who are paying out of pocket, and sell it to people who have insurance to cover it, and the people who are paying out of pocket are going to spend a lot more time assessing the value of the device, and if they need it. Thus, the economic model for them requires pushing affordability to ensure that the out-of-pocket person will actually pay.
This is equally visible in the medical fields actually. Cosmetic breast augmentation costs about $8,000 in my area, while just an x-ray and CT-scan at an ER is about $5,000. Compare that. Full general anesthesia, operating room, surgical expertise, and recovery costs as much as two tests with medical equipment, and comparatively little expertise. Why such a little price difference between the two, considering the vast gap in service? The cosmetic surgeon has to get patients to pay out-of-pocket... thus, the cost has to be something someone can generally afford, or they would never get business.
The important thing to remember here is that the people building these medical devices, by free market factors are charging as much as they can get away with charging. If medical facilities pay $18,000 for these items, then that is what they're going to charge, regardless of the costs put into it.
Can I sue you for putting a curse on me? I am firmly convinced that you are a witch.
Even if that is not actually the case, I mentally suffered while thinking so.
You would have to prove a few things, first would be either: a) that the person knowingly put a curse on you intending to do harm b) that the person was aware that curses can do harm, and cast it upon you regardless of its ability to do harm
This just proves intent or negligence. There are other things that you would have to prove though, such as proximal cause: a) that if that person had not put that curse upon you that you would not have incurred the harm
This is just the first few things that I would attempt to attack as opposing council to such a suit.
I read an interesting piece that suggested that primitive man started off by popping the teosinte kernels like popcorn, although I think something like how hominy is treated and cooked is a little more likely... but then hominy is usually just boiled popcorn anyways, so...
I think you are missing his subtle implication that Bourbon and Jack would have GMO corn, because they are US based, but Scotch is from England, so would not... He probably doesn't realize that Monsanto sells GMO corn seed globally, and it is the defacto standard everywhere... Doesn't matter where your whiskey is from, it's probably derived from GMO corn.
Not to mention his subtle jab at the irony of drinking whiskey to begin with being bad for your liver... Overall, a pretty amusing fast first quip to snag the top comment slot.
Scotch can't come from England, it has to come from Scotland (according to what has been stated above). Of course, most people don't understand that England is not the UK and Holland is not the Netherlands... so, we'll just gloss over that.
The best info I got from this was that Scotch is made from barley, and not corn.
And of course, as mentioned above, pet food. Make sure it has no corn, since cats and dogs are also mildly allergic to corn and it(and most grains) have zero nutrition for cats anyways. Yes, this means virtually no canned foods and nothing from the grocery store's pet isle, but the difference is immediately noticeable. note - or just make your own food if you have a dog. It's pretty easy, in fact.
It's not that it has zero nutritional value, but rather that cats just aren't evolved to get the nutritional value from it from it, but rather from a secondary source (the animals that do eat them).
There's a lot of diabetes type II in cats, and it's most likely caused primarily by people feeding cats too much grain... it's essentially like feeding us a high-carb, high-sugar diet.
There are a lot of people who have corrected the type II diabetes in their cats by feeding them raw meat.
That's right, cooking for your cat is as easy as buying a steak and setting it out for them to nom.
I said most alcohols, not necessarily scotch itself.
I found: https://www.jeftech.net/Alcohol___B_Vitamins.html which talks about how alcoholics tend to get Pellagra from lack of Vitamin B, and that the US instituted a program in WW2 to start fortifying grains and cereals in order to ensure that vitamin deficiencies were kept down, even if people's diet consisted mostly of alcohol (this likely wasn't the REASON, but it was an effect).
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.
Yeah, but the IRS forms have a blank for "Illegal Income" and that has somehow passed constitutional scrutiny. A conviction of the income producing crime is not required.
Criminalizing the failure to disclose criminal activity should be a clear violation of self incrimination protections. The courts let it through by insisting that the failure to incriminate yourself isn't the crime, failure to pay the taxes is. This ignores, of course, the fact that paying a tax on illegal income is by definition an admission of guilt.
This same sort of reasoning could somehow be applied to this law as well.
Not really. In the case of income tax on illegal gains there is no actual statement about how and why those gains were made. Say, I sell weed. I can declare on my taxes that I made $5,000 in illegal income, but I don't have to declare WHAT I did to make that income.
It's up to the police in this case to find out what what I made the money on. It's not actually an admission of guilt to report illegal income, because there is no specific information about what the crime was.
If the police come to your door and ask you what you did to collect the income that you reported, then you just say, "I don't have to answer your questions."
I certainly know that sending a SEGV signal to init is a bad idea in *nix, even if certain flavors will let you do it or not.
I've never used any flavor of Linux that ever pretended to know better than root, and that's just the way I like it.
Actually, you can't send SIGKILL to the init process in linux. To quote the manpage:
The only signals that can be sent task number one, the init process, are those for which init has explicitly installed signal handlers. This is done to assure the system is not brought down accidentally.
Process Explorer kicks the crap out of Task Manager simply for the fact that it doesn't give access denied error messages to admins trying to end protected system processes. Try ending the same processes with Process Explorer and it "just works" -- which goes to show that the Task Manager error message has nothing to do with actual account privileges. The first time I found this I realized it's no wonder Windows has such a problem with malware, the applications I run have more access to my system processes than I do!
There is an error message reported with Server 2003 when attempting to install the MUI pack onto Server 2003 x64 German, saying that the architecture is wrong, or something like that. The reason why it is reporting this message is because the installer grouped two return codes into the same function: it checked the architecture, and then it also checked the language. Even though the architecture matches, the language (MUI can only be installed on English versions) mismatches, and thus it reports the error.
The error used to say, "the architecture and/or language may be wrong", but when Server 2003 SP1 shipped, x64 only had English and Japanese, meaning that the "language" error was highly unlikely, so they dumped that part of the message.
Eventually, I had to come back with the answer, "it's wrong, it's a bug, and there's nothing we can do to fix it, because the bug is in the software that has already shipped, and short of patching it on-the-fly, there's no way we can maim SP2 to make the error message turn up correctly anymore."
There are a lot of reasons for error messages to be thrown up, and sometimes developers don't get picky and just throw up the most convenient one. Most likely, Task Manager knows that killing the appropriate process is a bad idea, and MSFT has taken the choice to not hand you enough rope to hang yourself. I certainly know that sending a SEGV signal to init is a bad idea in *nix, even if certain flavors will let you do it or not.
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
I can't believe how cute that is!
You're missing the key difference here. Microsoft is making money hand over fist, like mad, and were doing so before security was as important as it is now. It's not so important that they ensure security in their products as ensure that clients believe that security is taken seriously.
http://xkcd.com/538/
You realise we're discussing HTML5, right?
It's a spec, not an app, authored by a consortium of people with, in some cases, questionable commitment to interoperability.
HTML5 is not an apple product. All your talk of polish on apple products is accurate but irrelevant.
It doesn't have to be an Apple product. It's a spec that they're pushing, and someone was complaining that it didn't really do anything, just pushed a small incremental increase that is...
I was showing an analogy...
When religion puts a person on the moon, or when a priest receives schematics for a new invention via divine inspiration, or when a faith healer cures anything in a controlled environment then perhaps I'll start listening.
Science works; science delivers the goods. That's the difference.
Volapük is actually divinely inspired. God told the guy to design a world language that everyone could use.
The result was something that was so ungodly against so much of what we understand in linguistics as benefiting secondary aquisition that speakers from different countries had no chance of understanding each other.
The only good things that ever seem to come from direct divine inspiration seems to be non-practical fiction.
Yes! If by "future" you mean "marginal enhancements to a decade old spec, solving problems that have already been fixed, and still isn't done yet, let alone supported" then yes, future indeed. I'm thoroughly prepared to have my mind blown by it, on the five example pages w3c will eventually put out. Phenomenal.
Wait... you're complaining about Apple making a MARGINAL enhancement to a well-established format, that people have already fixed?
The areas where Apple has performed the best is taking tried-and-true technology, simplifying it, and making it polished.
While flash has solved a lot of issues on the web, it is also a first-gen solution. In many ways, it's inelegant, it's a pain, and it's annoying. Going back to the basics, and solving the problems again with a mind for what the real problem is, and what ideas work and don't, can provide you with a more robust solution than the hacks all thrown together.
Look at what Apple does to the "power apps" that come out for their products. They look at it, redesign it, refine it, and push it out to the customer as a new feature of the OS. Perhaps the best/worst thing one can do is make an app that people begin to view as "essential" or "required to be seriously considered". If your install base approaches 50% of the market, Apple takes notice, sucks your ideas in, and plops out a version of their own... and you're left in the dust as an obsolete "inferior" option...
I was going to post the chinese characters for this, but then I realized that Slashdot is going to mangle my non-ASCII7 input...
So, instead, I write here in pinyin:
wo shi yi ge yu chun di mei guo ren.
The Civil Law system has the traditions that judges are not lawyers, but take a completely separate path of learning. As well, the judges must interpret the laws as written, and can't just make things up, or even depend upon what some other judge said about a situation that might be similar.
From my reading of laws and stuff, it turns out that lawyers do a good job of being specific about certain things, and vague about other things. Domestic violence laws, passed to reduce wife beating, are not limited in wording to "a husband hitting his wife". As simple as that law would seem to most, how do you know if the individuals are husband and wife? Well, they're married, right? Not always. And what if he doesn't hit her, he just pushes her down the stairs?
The art in crafting laws and contracts is that you want the law/contract to read as broadly as necessary, but no further. The problem with this, is that it introduces a hojillion instances where someone could find a boundary condition that the original crafting never considered.
I think the best way to explain why laws will never be perfect is to point out that computer code will never be perfect.
The problem with Tor is that there's no way to detect compromises -- every node on the network could be compromised and you'd never know. Authors of botnets have greater anonymity than we do -- ironically because it's run by a central authority. An illegal and immoral one, yes, but one that comes with a measure of anonymity. Few botnet authors are actually caught even with the most primitive security methods. They don't even use encryption and they often can't be found...
There's a lot to be said for hiding in a crowd though. While it is true that every node in the network could be compromised, and we'd never know, collecting all that data together to target you individually becomes more and more difficult the more people use the network... and we're not talking about big-O of n, we're talking at least big-O n squared or so.
As with all forms of security, there's nothing you can do to guarantee security, you simply raise the burden of breaching that security until the opportunity to breach you is not worth the cost to breach you.
Does any major software still need the 16-bit subsystem?
Amusingly, when I first installed Windows NT 3.51, back around 1996, the 16-bit subsystem was optional, like the OS/2 subsystem, and I had it turned off. Everything worked fine. In NT 4, they let the kode kiddies from the Windows 95 group put legacy code into NT, some of which still ran in 16-bit mode, and the 16-bit subsystem was always on.
I've used DOSBox to handle my 16-bit apps on a 64-bit machine.
I don't have any problems with rationalizing medical liability, but the savings aren't all that likely to amount to much (the article references a CBO study):
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/
Now, find 20 ways to save 0.5% of medical costs and you are getting somewhere, but this single issue isn't going to solve the whole thing.
It can vary some based on the field the doctor is practicing. There are some surgeries, where malpractice is so crazy high, because the insurance companies are afraid to defend the people performing the surgery. (This sentence should be read: the insurance companies anticipate big losses by covering the surgeons.)
"Tort reform" covers only one part of the hysterical increase in malpractice insurance. That insurance companies see it as a non-lucrative business to be in, means that they demand higher premiums to ensure that they meet their desired profit margins. If these insurance companies were run as co-ops where the premiums were collectively held as a non-profit to pay out for doctors without generating a profit for shareholders, then the malpractice premiums would not exceed what is actually paid out.
If you think medical insurance for the consumer sucks, the malpractice insurance does the same exact stuff. Insurance companies want to shaft everyone in the equation. If they mark a particular surgery as "experimental" then not only does the medical insurance for the patient not have to pay, but the malpractice insurance doesn't have to cover it... or the malpractice premium for it goes up, and the doctor has to replace the cost by putting the cost onto the consumer, thus raising the price.
I think any insurance company running for-profit is a generally bad idea... they will always be driven to deny claims, raise rates, and add no real to the benefit of the consumer (beyond what a non-profit insurance company would provide) except an extra middle-man, or two, or three.
What determines the price of a scale is not just its equipment or accuracy.. but also the insurance the manufacturer has to carry in case something goes wrong. That's why medical devices are more expensive... you're also paying for the liability of somebody being misdiagnosed by a technical malfunction. Highly unlikely, but the money that has to be paid when that happens and gets proven is huge.
There's a lot of stuff that goes into a device to "certify it for blah blah use". Like you said, liability insurance. There's also a lot more stuff. Like the fact that doctors can expect to recoup greater amounts of the price of the unit than a gamer is likely to.
Take the same device, everything the exact same. Sell it to people who are paying out of pocket, and sell it to people who have insurance to cover it, and the people who are paying out of pocket are going to spend a lot more time assessing the value of the device, and if they need it. Thus, the economic model for them requires pushing affordability to ensure that the out-of-pocket person will actually pay.
This is equally visible in the medical fields actually. Cosmetic breast augmentation costs about $8,000 in my area, while just an x-ray and CT-scan at an ER is about $5,000. Compare that. Full general anesthesia, operating room, surgical expertise, and recovery costs as much as two tests with medical equipment, and comparatively little expertise. Why such a little price difference between the two, considering the vast gap in service? The cosmetic surgeon has to get patients to pay out-of-pocket... thus, the cost has to be something someone can generally afford, or they would never get business.
The important thing to remember here is that the people building these medical devices, by free market factors are charging as much as they can get away with charging. If medical facilities pay $18,000 for these items, then that is what they're going to charge, regardless of the costs put into it.
Can I sue you for putting a curse on me? I am firmly convinced that you are a witch.
Even if that is not actually the case, I mentally suffered while thinking so.
You would have to prove a few things, first would be either:
a) that the person knowingly put a curse on you intending to do harm
b) that the person was aware that curses can do harm, and cast it upon you regardless of its ability to do harm
This just proves intent or negligence. There are other things that you would have to prove though, such as proximal cause:
a) that if that person had not put that curse upon you that you would not have incurred the harm
This is just the first few things that I would attempt to attack as opposing council to such a suit.
> I am the poster you responded to.
Ooooops. We pedantic mathematicians are not well-known for our social skills, sorry.
I'm sorry if I flamed you a bit badly, there. I guess I was having a hard day....
Anyway, thanks for the pointer to interesting info. "Nixtamalization" has such a nice woody sound!
Meh, us lawyer-type pendants are used to people flaming us. :)
I am the poster you responded to.
I'm pedantic, but I'm not a biologist. I knew it was a Vitamin B, I was just wrong in the assumption it were Vitamin B12... I just guessed.
I used the word "protein" because it was my assumption... I don't know biology or much organic chem at all.
There weren't any plants on day one. That's when God divided the light and the dark. Plants didn't show up until day three.
Where is the +1, Humorous asshole mod points?
From what I've read, teosinte is still around.
I read an interesting piece that suggested that primitive man started off by popping the teosinte kernels like popcorn, although I think something like how hominy is treated and cooked is a little more likely... but then hominy is usually just boiled popcorn anyways, so...
I think you are missing his subtle implication that Bourbon and Jack would have GMO corn, because they are US based, but Scotch is from England, so would not... He probably doesn't realize that Monsanto sells GMO corn seed globally, and it is the defacto standard everywhere... Doesn't matter where your whiskey is from, it's probably derived from GMO corn.
Not to mention his subtle jab at the irony of drinking whiskey to begin with being bad for your liver... Overall, a pretty amusing fast first quip to snag the top comment slot.
Scotch can't come from England, it has to come from Scotland (according to what has been stated above). Of course, most people don't understand that England is not the UK and Holland is not the Netherlands... so, we'll just gloss over that.
The best info I got from this was that Scotch is made from barley, and not corn.
And of course, as mentioned above, pet food. Make sure it has no corn, since cats and dogs are also mildly allergic to corn and it(and most grains) have zero nutrition for cats anyways. Yes, this means virtually no canned foods and nothing from the grocery store's pet isle, but the difference is immediately noticeable. note - or just make your own food if you have a dog. It's pretty easy, in fact.
It's not that it has zero nutritional value, but rather that cats just aren't evolved to get the nutritional value from it from it, but rather from a secondary source (the animals that do eat them).
There's a lot of diabetes type II in cats, and it's most likely caused primarily by people feeding cats too much grain... it's essentially like feeding us a high-carb, high-sugar diet.
There are a lot of people who have corrected the type II diabetes in their cats by feeding them raw meat.
That's right, cooking for your cat is as easy as buying a steak and setting it out for them to nom.
> lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12.
Only bacteria have the biochemical apparatus to produce B12. I call bullshit.
It's not even anything which would be produced by the reaction of a base with protein. You'd just get amino acids...
It's not B12, it's B3 as stated by others. And if you looked up "Hominy" you'd see that it's true.
lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12
Did you mean vitamin B3 (niacin)? B12 doesn't have too many vegetable sources (although it does have microbial sources).
Someone pointed that out earlier, but yes, you're correct. :)
I said most alcohols, not necessarily scotch itself.
I found: https://www.jeftech.net/Alcohol___B_Vitamins.html which talks about how alcoholics tend to get Pellagra from lack of Vitamin B, and that the US instituted a program in WW2 to start fortifying grains and cereals in order to ensure that vitamin deficiencies were kept down, even if people's diet consisted mostly of alcohol (this likely wasn't the REASON, but it was an effect).