Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 8 Jan 2007 09:37 In article <9a890$45a1abb9$cdd0848c$5296(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <b01ac$45a0f7f9$cdd08512$1347(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> [...] >> >>>>You have forgotten the most important part of education: access >>>>to the knowledge that's been written down. >>> >>>Nope, the most important part of education is eagerness >>>for knowledge followed closely by the ability to understand. >>> >>>Access to data is critical, while useless in the absence of >>>the two above. > >> I own a three legged stool. Is one leg more important than the others? > >I've sat on a one legged stool before. The fact yours has >three might be a cute argument but is of no consequence >to the discussion at hand. All three items are needed for learning to happen. If any one is in short supply, it becomes the limiting factor. If that is so, you can't all one more important than the other. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 8 Jan 2007 09:39 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >> But fat is becoming illegal....or haven't you noticed? > > > >No, transfats are becoming illegal. That and tobacco. > > There is already talk in my state to make possession of > tobacco illegal. You told this lie once before. > Fat won't be far behind. You should > realize that anything that might be harmful will be > taking this route. Legislatures rarely repeal their laws > so the list of foodstuffs will get longer and longer even > if a real application of science proves the old ones wrong. For heavens sake girl ! 'Normal' fat occurs naturally. Trans-fat soesn't. Did you know that the original idea of Crisco btw was to make candles. It only got sold as a 'food' as an afterthought. > >Don't > >you see the trend? It's things beginning with 't' that are > >under attack! > > After the t's are done, which letter will be next? S? Eh ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Jan 2007 10:00 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > T Wake wrote: > > > >> Well, last time I checked no one forced people to buy trans-fat products > >> in the shops. > > > > The point is that most ppl don't even know they're there. It's not as if > > you buy a jar of 'trans fat'. It's in there without you knowing unless you > > scrutinise every single label. > > People have the option to read labels. If they dont, that is (in effect) a > choice. Legislation to make labels more accurate and truthfull would be > (IMHO) better - and with out the patronising nonsense that most supermarkets > have gone to. Have you see the size of the small print they use for ingredients ? I doubt it's possible for say a prepared meal to list every single damn thing in it anyway. > >> I agree there may be no real reason for having them in products > >> as there are other substances which will taste as nice and have less > >> health related issues, but that is (surely) not grounds for making it > illegal? > > > > Because it's *uniquely* related to heart disease. It's far worse than most > > natural fats you see. > > It is a grey area to dictate that this is sufficient to legislate against > it's use. There are numerous compounds which are currently linked to various > diseases, and sometimes these links are subsequently found to be false. > > I dont massively disagree with what you are saying - people should know > enough to limit their intake of trans-fats - however I do think that > consumers should be given the choice to limit it. If tans-fats could be associated with some clear benefit that would be fine but all I'm aware of is its negatives. It was originally intended to make candles with btw. Being sold as 'food' was an afterthought. > >> If governments want to improve the uptake of "healthy food" then surely > >> the solution is to subsidse whatever is in vogue as "health food" rather > than > >> tax or bad the "bad things." > > > > If it were a totally natural product I'd probably agree but it's not. Most > > of it has to be manufactured. > > What do you mean by "totally natural product?" Something that once grew in a field maybe ? > I can be pedantic [*] and we could argue that eating supernatural food is an > odd concept, but I think I get your point here. > > I am not, personally, a beliver in the value of "natural" foods vs "man > made" foods and the vast majority of food viewed as natural is the products > of human interference anyway. > > > The government also has an interest in reducing NHS costs too for that > > matter ( on our behalf ) so reducing heart disease makes sense economically > too. > > This is something we sort of agree on as well but it creates a problem as to > where do we draw the line. > > At what point does "unhealthy" behaviour become illegal? > > A law forcing everyone to undergo 30 minutes physical training every day > would drastically improve the nations health and could probably be > implemented very cheaply (compared to the potential savings) - but would it > be a "good thing?" > > >> > In fact the pressure for the food industry to sell as as much fat in > >> > food as possible may be reduced by the discovery that fats can be used to > > >> > synthesise bio-diesel fuel. It's an area I expect to take off quite > >> >seriously. > >> > >> As it should, when customer choice makes it viable. When customers choose > >> to buy products which are lower fat (an odd choice as fat is an excellent > >> source of energy for the body) or "healthier fats," then the market > >> driven food industry will react and adjust it's products. Fat is indeed an excellent energy source but our lifetstyles today don't require as much of that. > > If you had a choice that would be fine but you don't, so it's best to get > > rid of the muck. > > People do have the choice. How much trans-fat food do you eat? It's hard to know for sure which was part of my point. I do however check for its inclusion in vegetable oil spreads for example though. And I eat relatively little cakes and like that simply won't have it listed anyway. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Jan 2007 09:56 In article <ens471$m0q$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <enqou0$8ss_011(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <enq1pe$cuv$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[....] >>>It has been spelled out on several news casts. Here's the text that >>>causes the most concern: >>> >>>******* Begin quote ******** >>>The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as >>>enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an >>>item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner >>>consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct >>>searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and >>>safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches >>>specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection. >>>******************* >>> >>>Note that it applies to all mail of any kind. The claim is one of quite >>>broad authority since the definition of "exigent circumstances" is quite >>>wide. >> >>How are you going to make it more specific? > >The definitions could be spelled out. > >> Should there be legal >>handcuffs on inspections even if new types of containers are dripping >>powder or tick or can't be x-rayed or zapped to kill bacteria? > >There should be the need to get a warrant in a situation that is not >truly an emergency. "A reasonable expectation of death or injury" could >be included in the wording. In non-emergency cases, there is time to get >the warrant. No judge will deny one if the case is anything like >reasonable. How do you know that Bush's administration isn't dealing with emergencies? Should they hold a public poll asking which ones? Or should we ask our enemies if envelop X has lethal substances? > >>ARe you really insisting that a law be passed for each and every >>new method people use to transport deadly materials? > >No, all that I or any others want is that nothing else be snuck into the >law under the mask of "national security". Until specifications can be identified from experience, there has to be an "other" category in the law. The methods used to make messes are no longer limited to local geographical areas. > > >> Congress >>can't pick which toilet paper to use within 12 months. >> >>You're being silly. > >No, you are going willingly to the slaughter. You have been tricked into >thinking there is a threat worthy of giving up your rights over and then >tricked into thinking that giving up your rights will make you safe. But I haven't given up my rights. I tell you what. I'll post my list of what I've read in the last few years. You read it so you can learn my basis. Then you can pick holes in facts rather than wishful thinking that no national threats exist. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 8 Jan 2007 10:10
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> In case you haven't noticed, all food is already taxed through > >> delivery costs. > > > >That's not a TAX ! > > > >Just how far are you prepared to drift away from reality ? > > Perhaps you should think about delivery trucks and the fuel > taxes they pay so you can travel to a store using a vehicle > that also uses fuel. How about the subsidised roads they run on ( in the USA certainly ) ? Did drivers pay for your interstates ? Graham |