Our ancient ancestors spent most of their time worried about starving to death at any time, so the genetically ingrained eating habits make sense.
Of course, while our ancient ancestors have given us many important lessons through our DNA, some of those lessons must be tempered by moderation while living in civilization. We're not going to starve in the near future, so we need to act as if we'll eat tomorrow.
Of course, while our ancient ancestors have given us many important lessons through our DNA, some of those lessons must be tempered by moderation while living in civilization. We're not going to starve in the near future, so we need to act as if we'll eat tomorrow.
You gotta admit, one of the reasons Americans are overweight is that there's an abundance of really good food.
My dad told me about having to eat the same meat and potatoes all winter because that's all that was available. I'd be skinny if all I had to eat was meat and potatoes for months at a time too.
My dad told me about having to eat the same meat and potatoes all winter because that's all that was available. I'd be skinny if all I had to eat was meat and potatoes for months at a time too.
One thing we've slowly recognised is that a lot of things we take for granted, such as having an internal monologue or being able to visualize things, isn't universal among human beings. I wouldn't be surprised that feeling for another person isn't universal either, so some people just go through the motions they see other people going through.
Honestly, that would explain way too much.
Honestly, that would explain way too much.
I'm glad I keep on hearing about things that don't sound like they're predicting a massive recession at all.
I apparently got the dates wrong, it wasn't until after the passing of the DMCA that someone tried to use copyright to establish a property right over something they'd already sold, and even my memory of that was a bit flawed because the talk of property rights in the decision appears to be different than I remember it.
Getting old sucks!
Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc. (2004) https://web.archive.org/web/20090618100237/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/381/381.F3d.1178.04-1118.html#
Getting old sucks!
Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc. (2004) https://web.archive.org/web/20090618100237/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/381/381.F3d.1178.04-1118.html#
What's interesting is that it was established long before the DMCA that copyright is NOT supposed to establish new property rights on devices after sale. There was a court case I think in the 1980s with garage door openers, and the supreme court made it pretty clear as I recall that you don't get to use copyright to give yourself property rights to a device you've already sold.
The story I heard, and I don't know how true it is, but it's that Walt Disney the man grew up in the south around many blacks, and that's where he got the ideas that he put in there. Rather than being some hateful attack on blacks, it's a representation of a culture that existed at the time.
Something's been bothering me for a while: when something is represented basically accurately, it's called racist. The only "not racist" thing is to have every person from another culture act like they've been living in Southern California for the past 4 generations.
It seems to me that for all the talk of "white supremacy" in every other facet of all societies around the world, when it comes to mass media centered around Southern California, people of every race, creed, and color are only allowed to act exactly like white Californians or face erasure. Even "ethnic representation" seems to just end up being white people dipped in different strengths of tea. You have to talk like they do, act like they do, think like they do, agree with all their political opinions, and then and only then are you allowed to be "representation" in media.
But hey, I'm just a redneck from northern Canada, so what do I know?
Something's been bothering me for a while: when something is represented basically accurately, it's called racist. The only "not racist" thing is to have every person from another culture act like they've been living in Southern California for the past 4 generations.
It seems to me that for all the talk of "white supremacy" in every other facet of all societies around the world, when it comes to mass media centered around Southern California, people of every race, creed, and color are only allowed to act exactly like white Californians or face erasure. Even "ethnic representation" seems to just end up being white people dipped in different strengths of tea. You have to talk like they do, act like they do, think like they do, agree with all their political opinions, and then and only then are you allowed to be "representation" in media.
But hey, I'm just a redneck from northern Canada, so what do I know?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3On097nE78
When I listen to songs like this, it's hard to escape a conclusion that a lot of american rock and roll is copy pasted right from african music.
The only problem is that this was recorded in the 1960, so was it modified for contemporary mainstream audiences who wanted american rock and roll? If that was the case, then you can't really draw any conclusions.
When I listen to songs like this, it's hard to escape a conclusion that a lot of american rock and roll is copy pasted right from african music.
The only problem is that this was recorded in the 1960, so was it modified for contemporary mainstream audiences who wanted american rock and roll? If that was the case, then you can't really draw any conclusions.
So let's change it around a bit. Instead of "the public", let's say "the other property owners whose enjoyment of a property is harmed by the actions of the one person".
I think of that one property development in New Jersey that ended up being the former location of a company's secret toxic waste dump. Besides the homeowners being harmed by brutal toxic waste, their property is entirely useless after it was discovered. Best of all, the company that dumped the waste had long since gone out of business so it just sucks to be them. I think it was the federal government who picked up the tab ultimately for that, which is no better -- great, people who didn't have anything to do with New Jersey ended up helping pay for a new house for someone because someone else dumped toxic waste in a spot.
I think of that one property development in New Jersey that ended up being the former location of a company's secret toxic waste dump. Besides the homeowners being harmed by brutal toxic waste, their property is entirely useless after it was discovered. Best of all, the company that dumped the waste had long since gone out of business so it just sucks to be them. I think it was the federal government who picked up the tab ultimately for that, which is no better -- great, people who didn't have anything to do with New Jersey ended up helping pay for a new house for someone because someone else dumped toxic waste in a spot.
I want to push back against that a little.
I agree that some elements of the current environmental movement seems more interested in micromanaging your life than doing anything meaningful for the environment, but there's a lot of elements of it which are totally reasonable and good.
If we let some people get their way, the entire continent would look more polluted than Beijing. There was an image posted a while back of a slaughterhouse that turned the river it was next to into a nightmare of fat and entrails and rejected animal carcasses, and it wasn't until someone with the power stepped in to do so and forced them to stop it that the river was recovered for the public's use. That sort of abuse is a liberty issue as well. If companies can just destroy our shared environment and at the end of it just go out of business that's a problem.
This is one of those cases where a balance needs to be found between the rights of the people as a whole to the enjoyment of the waterway in a pristine form and the rights of the individual trying to enjoy their own property by running a factory of some sort. I don't think the question should be "environmentalism: yes or no?", but a more nuanced "where is the line that best balances the rights of the people and the rights of individual property owners?"
And on a completely different tangent, the fact that they lock down our factories but allow products built in factories that are more than happy to destroy the global ecosystem is a problem as well. You just end up with impoverished locals, enriched foreigners, and a country "somewhere else" that slowly dies by being the painting of Dorian Gray for our own environmental sins.
I agree that some elements of the current environmental movement seems more interested in micromanaging your life than doing anything meaningful for the environment, but there's a lot of elements of it which are totally reasonable and good.
If we let some people get their way, the entire continent would look more polluted than Beijing. There was an image posted a while back of a slaughterhouse that turned the river it was next to into a nightmare of fat and entrails and rejected animal carcasses, and it wasn't until someone with the power stepped in to do so and forced them to stop it that the river was recovered for the public's use. That sort of abuse is a liberty issue as well. If companies can just destroy our shared environment and at the end of it just go out of business that's a problem.
This is one of those cases where a balance needs to be found between the rights of the people as a whole to the enjoyment of the waterway in a pristine form and the rights of the individual trying to enjoy their own property by running a factory of some sort. I don't think the question should be "environmentalism: yes or no?", but a more nuanced "where is the line that best balances the rights of the people and the rights of individual property owners?"
And on a completely different tangent, the fact that they lock down our factories but allow products built in factories that are more than happy to destroy the global ecosystem is a problem as well. You just end up with impoverished locals, enriched foreigners, and a country "somewhere else" that slowly dies by being the painting of Dorian Gray for our own environmental sins.
Probably nearly 100% efficient, but not necessarily cost effective, assuming those radiators are being heated with natural gas. Burning a thing to make water hot is pretty hard to improve upon by throwing a generator and a bunch of power lines in between the fire and the thing we want to make hot.
I think there's a place for non-competes, but it's the sort of thing where a heavy consideration needs to be in place. As in, it's the sort of thing you'd do for senior management, and in exchange for being out of the market that senior management gets a considerable amount of money at the time of termination commensurate with what's being asked of them. I believe that jurisprudence on the topic in Canada is similar to that.
We've seen that if there isn't a heavy cost for asking an employee to take such a heavy burden, you very quickly start to see absurdity like fast food employees having to sign non-competes.
On the whole, I perceive that specific regulation or deregulation is irrelevant when all the other regulation becomes all-encompassing enough. Putting one small factor or another on the table or taking it off isn't that important when facing a system specifically designed to ensure overwhelmingly large organizations get a lion's share of everything.
That being said, I think we've been living in the current paradigm so long that I don't know what an alternative that puts more power in the hands of individual workers and less in the hands of employers who are selected from the pool as companies that are large enough to deal with the bureaucracy of hiring someone looks like.
We've seen that if there isn't a heavy cost for asking an employee to take such a heavy burden, you very quickly start to see absurdity like fast food employees having to sign non-competes.
On the whole, I perceive that specific regulation or deregulation is irrelevant when all the other regulation becomes all-encompassing enough. Putting one small factor or another on the table or taking it off isn't that important when facing a system specifically designed to ensure overwhelmingly large organizations get a lion's share of everything.
That being said, I think we've been living in the current paradigm so long that I don't know what an alternative that puts more power in the hands of individual workers and less in the hands of employers who are selected from the pool as companies that are large enough to deal with the bureaucracy of hiring someone looks like.
I never made any threats to you or anyone.
All that happened was I slightly challenged a point when you disagreed with me when I was mostly agreeing with you.
Then you started throwing around threats. I still haven't threatened you or anyone, and I don't intend to. I just think you're a jerk.
All that happened was I slightly challenged a point when you disagreed with me when I was mostly agreeing with you.
Then you started throwing around threats. I still haven't threatened you or anyone, and I don't intend to. I just think you're a jerk.
Ah, you're one of *those* people.
Nevermind, I'll just go over with the people who don't start with threats when faced with mild agreement.
Nevermind, I'll just go over with the people who don't start with threats when faced with mild agreement.
Oh, so Walmart doesn't pay people less because they can encourage people to go on welfare? That didn't happen? Was it disinformation?
What you subsidize, you get more of. Subsidize being homeless and you'll get more homeless because it's a viable option.
Not to mention, eventually the programs that are intended for the bottom of society climb up. Instead of moving away from Southern ontario, one of the most expensive places to live in the world, we will have a bunch of people working for Walmart and collecting government homeless assistance. Since we know that Walmart does stuff like this.
Not to mention, eventually the programs that are intended for the bottom of society climb up. Instead of moving away from Southern ontario, one of the most expensive places to live in the world, we will have a bunch of people working for Walmart and collecting government homeless assistance. Since we know that Walmart does stuff like this.
Thanks for the suggestion. You're right, it's on another level compared to the other modern classical music I was recommended.