You can complain as much as you like, but flavour is a secondary option to the majority of the world when it comes to food.
Mongolians dine on joints of meat thats been boiled for about 5 minutes. Give them the same 'meal' prepared with US meat and their reaction is 'this is tasteless!'.
-1 disagree. every single person on earth will tell you that flavor is important and that things that taste gross are bad. name one who doesn't.
Also 'The first bite is with the eye and the second with the nose.'
I can only think of specific applications when this might be worthwhile, like where one has to remain mobile for some time and carry one's supplies in an area with very little water available, but that's a pretty unusual set of circumstances. You almost have to be a refugee or a forward-deployed soldier to involuntarily enter those conditions, and only militaries would have the supply capability to afford to intermittently replenish stock at that price.
If this gunk also hydrates you, maybe. Otherwise carrying liquid food around is a fair bit of bulk. MREs can be eaten dry and would weigh a fraction of what this stuff would weigh.
The only reason to take offense that vegans exist is that you're an insecure twat.
And that's coming from a carnivore.
Absolutely. I hear vegans are delicious.
And they also frequently struggle with malnutrition. Because a vegan diet that is actually complete is unquestionably harder and more expensive than a non-vegan one. It is something you can only really reliably do in a first world country, where it is therefore an infuriatingly hypocritical exercise of privilege.
Try being vegan in Mongolia. Almost all of those fruit and vegetables have to be shipped from China. Not only are they heavily loaded with pesticides and herbicides they also cost quite a lot of energy to ship. And in winter... good luck with that.
First world people typically have zero idea of whats really involved in feeding most of the world.
I'm not vegan, but you don't have to be eating smoothies to be vegan. In fact, for a long time I made curries for my lunch which were vegan; they were very cheap to make in a big batch once a week. Some brown rice, various beans & lentils, onions etc, and spices. Tasty, nutritious, and cheap.
A lot of the poorest people in the world are de facto vegan, because it's the cheapest (because most efficient) way to eat.
What you are describing isn't 'curry' its dhal.
I recall a proverb, something like
"It takes twice as much intelligence to debug code as it took to write it.
So if you code to the best of your ability you are, by definition,
not qualified to debug it."
They have to first change that big fat default header image that comes with every page for me to even remotely consider using it
And hangouts has to accept that I don't want notifications and lot lay it on me with that big gigantic red bar saying "NOTIFICATIONS ARE OFF!!!!!"
I would not expect computers and/or computer science to improve the performance of students in SAT Mathematics, AP Calculus, and AP Statistics.
We use computers so we dont have to remember all that crap. The computer does the math.
I would expect it to improve reading, reading comprehension, written language skills, and logical thinking. That is what the student is learning!
Computing teaches any problem domain that you are asked to code solutions for.
The problem with initiatives like code.org is that they generally try to engage kids by making things move on the screen. Most of that means doing very basic arithmetic in an esoteric firmat surrounded by Byzantine library calls.
If you want kids to do better in statistics, you shouldn't start with the paradigm of interactive entertainment, but with the far less abstract view of a computer as something that computes stuff. Kids might not like their schoolwork, but it's certainly relevant to them. Part of the problem teaching complex maths is that the mechanics of carrying out the underlying computations diverts attention from the "big picture" view. Procedural computing was designed specifically to address the problem of "can't see the wood for the trees" by separating the general algorithm from the specifics of implementation.
I think they are conflating programming and computer science. I think theres a lot of this confusion surrounding the discussion of this article, and indeed in teaching computer science at this level.
Computer science is only tangentially related to programming.
Most of computer science involves things like logic and discrete maths; state machines, turing machines, computation theory, set theory, algebra of functions, big-O notation and efficiency of algorithms. I majored in computer science and did very little actual programming. In fact I hated programming, still do. I can't comprehend people who program 'for fun'. But I did enjoy delving into the math that lurks beneath computing, discovering the limitations of algorithms (and hence of any methodical approach to a problem ie there are some problems that no computational process can solve, not because they are NP hard, its worse than that). Computer science introduced me to things like Chaitins algorithmic information theory and the first known uncomputable number (the halting probability), Goedels incompleteness theorem etc.
51st staters that think they are sovereign are cute.
Prey we don't alter the deal further.
This will become a reality
The US rail network is not properly maintained. Many parts of the track have a top speed of 35 mph. Making the system run at 120 mph would significantly reduce time to market, and therefore reduce total cost. It would also make a great path for refugees, as the Chunnel has shown.
Refugees? You mean people escaping the USA, right?
One can't drive from London to (continental) Europe that I know off. Ferry or train. through the chunnel, can bring a car over, but by that definition one can already "drive" from London to NYC.
"In 2004 Richard Branson, owner of the Virgin Group, used a Gibbs Aquada to set a new record for crossing the English Channel in an amphibious vehicle. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes, you can!
The vast majority of places we are... we are there with the consent of those governments.
But not necessarily with the consent of the people of those countries or locations. Like Okinawa for example. They kinda get sick of their kids being raped by your Marines. But their governments don't mind so go ahead, help yourselves to the Japanese schoolgirls.
Whatever point you were trying to make there, especially that Russians need to stop being assholes, doesn't work when everything you've based it on involves the US being even bigger assholes.
Actually, that's not true. International relations works by allowing everyone to be assholes while pretending that they're awesome.
This is because everyone in political power, in every country in the world, but ESPECIALLY the USA and Russia, are narcissistic personalities. Something that Karmashock was referring to when he said:
Look Russia... If you want to do business with the US, you need to make people like me happy. I know... you don't like that... but that's reality.
to make people like him (or Putin or Obama or any other person who could POSSIBLY become president of either country) happy you have to give them lots of ego-puffing, always give them what they want immediately and never ever criticize them.
I had the same question, honestly. But it might have some benefits...
A cargo ship has a top speed of under 25MPH (20 knots). A Class 5 freight train can hit 80 MPH and there's no *technical* reason why they couldn't go even faster. Even with the increase in distance by taking the long way around, you can maybe reduce transit time. Such trains could also load and unload deep inland, closer to where the cargo is needed, eliminating multiple handling steps.
I still don't think it's a *good* idea, but it's slightly less crazy than it might initially sound.
=Smidge=
How well maintained is the rail network in the USA? Can it actually handle this kind of traffic?
Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.
