I wouldn't keep beating this horse bloody if yours hadn't died HUNDREDS of years prior.

We're NOT talking about philosophy. This is NOT a perspective based on convictions alone. We are talking about TEST-ABLE SCI-ENCE...

This is the world (universe, perhaps multiverse) which engineers towards space discovery, sustainability of planetary bodies and their varied biology, geology, chemistry, and all of the sciences explainable through the holiest of holy languages -- MATHEMATICS -- based on innovation and implementation through repeatable testing.

Your beliefs do NOT contribute to that, though they do contribute elsewhere -- the realms of philosophy and mythology. I guess we call that religion. But not science.

In this life, we are concerned with temporal discovery and how to engineer with such discoveries. We're not concerned about the afterlife in THIS life. We are concerned with science, especially because it has a track record of proven results which we all benefit from.

It doesn't matter what you believe or once believed, there is a rigorous process for scientific knowledge; including a peer review process. All humans have emotional pain, but that shouldn't hold us back in the dark ages before reason.

That looks pretty sweet. And Brad Bird has a damn fine track record.

Understanding why so much anecdotal evidence exists is certainly worthwhile! The following link cites many studies on double blind tests for MSG sensitivity.

http://www.businessinsider.com/msg-allergy-doesnt-exist-2013-8

Glutamatic acid (which is what MSG turns into after solubilizing in water, along with a sodium ion) is one of the 20 amino acids that is the basis for all proteins and life, since the beginning of life on earth. It is in relatively high concentration in every cell of your body. Consuming MSG would be akin to consuming 'protein' in your diet, and is commonly labeled as protein in food labeling: http://www.truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html

Consuming too much protein in your diet can cause problems, but you need to be eating it to a relatively obvious excess (a gallon of milk per day). Weightlifters who protein supplement far too much quickly experience heart problems.

The business insider link suggests that there are some people who could potentially be sensitive to Glutamate, and be activating the vagus nerve in the stomach...though it seems to be speculative in that article.

The idea that another ingredient is causing the problem is far more likely. Americanized chinese restaurants all taste the same, because all of their food comes from the same place. A group in China has monopolized the american chinese restaurant market, and provides food and resources at unbeatably low prices. To remain competitive, almost all american chinese restaurants invariably purchase from this group. Given China's track record of putting all kinds of crazy stuff in their produce, it seems entirely likely that some ingredient other than MSG is a much more likely culprit.

I know a couple of people in particular who have reacted extremely badly to chinese restaurants in america, and even went to the emergency room for it. Given the details of their story (a mystery glob of black sauce that they ate from the black sauce egg tray), I could only imagine what kind of horrible things they could have ingested other than MSG. 'Chinese restaurant syndrome' may indeed be a relatively accurate term for what people are experiencing.

@Trancecoach Lets take a HUGE leap and say everything in that article is 100% true...

6 of 7 !!!!

http://fortune.com/global500/bp-6/?iid=G500_lp_toprr

How do you reconcile that with the fact that 6 of the worlds 7 most profitable companies are energy corps? TRILLIONS of revenue and hundreds of billions in profit, to say nothing of the track record for that particular industry, and yet THEY are the victims of some 'eco-friendly' conspiracy....

Just a few headlines from that 'source'

Group Claims 80% of U.S. Population Growth Is From Immigration

Globalists Push EU-style “Union” for Middle East

University Fires Scientist After Discovery Challenges Dinosaur Theory

That last one was my favorite... his 'theory' was thousands of years old... not millions.

So lets consider...
Any person (Male or Female) goes through a careful mental checklist (in their mind) on what they consider to be a good mate.

1). It would seem natural that a typical person would rule out crazy.
Crazy, as defined as someone who is in direct contrast to another's beliefs, views actions and reactions.

2). It would seem natural that a typical person would pick a mate that would be attractive to them. Attractive defined as healthy, a great attitude on life, dedication to the other member, and a decent outlook on raising children mentally and physically. I'll also add that "certain something" or "spark" that appeals and catches one's eye. (Attractiveness is NOT defined by the media's representation of men or women, it's a personal choice based on any persons likes and dislikes)

3). It would also seem natural that we all have a certain amount of self doubt. So we don't tend to choose too high above our station in life. We choose a mate based on being equals. We plan to grow with them at a certain calculated rate as we make our way though this life.

4). There are potential mate choices that we, at first, choose but realize quickly that the other person isn't quite what they seemed or we garner little respect for them due to getting to know them a little better.

5). The unicorn factor - no one is perfect. NO ONE.

So what's left? we want a mate that isn't crazy, somewhat attractive, someone not out of our reach, and someone who has a proven track record and that person may have flaws but noting we can't over look - because everything else outweighs those small flaws.

So basically his observations are fairly close to how we choose our mates.
BUT - as Lann says, him making this graph and presenting it the way he does is generally offensive. Offensive to either male or female outlooks because he misses something - something very crucial: People are unpredictable and independent thinkers. We make decisions that don't make sense to any one but ourselves. We are chaotic, we have emotion, love and passion. We see things that are below the surface and we all judge people differently.

Personally I found his observations crass and ill-informed but I don't think he even realizes it. It's a thought in his head that's gone unchallenged and seems like it's a huge joke for him.

Yes, probably not a good behavior to reward..considering this breed's track record.

Oh its perfectly OK to die for your personal beliefs, just not ideology or religion.

A revolution by definition leads to a change of government, just not by vote, so the guys who want to be the new government should be expected to promise you something if you help them. Do they ever deliver?

If you take part in a revolution for your own personal reasons, no ideology involved at all (like Russell :-) and no trust in any promises promised, than that is OK too. Im pretty sure fighting for freedom is OK, so if a side-effect of a revolution is more freedom for individuals, fine.

Which revolutions have had positive outcomes? Which new government installed by a revolution has had a better long termish (more than just opening the safe and handing out the money) track record than the one overthrown?

Actually I can easily think of some revolutions that have had positive outcomes overall, but they were really counter-revolutions, reinstating some form of democracy where a revolution or coup had previously "succeeded".

Dont worry, hardly anyone cares what I think :-)

Another misguided attempt. There is no "democracy" possible as long as there is a state. Lessig might as well set up a fund to buy beach-front property in Arizona. He has a track record of failure, though. Whatever happened to his copyright reforms?

Well, that's a better stance to take than most right wing people take, I'll applaud that. I would suggest that cutting assistance for all people would leave many in desperate situations, and desperate people have a tendency to ignore the law and societal norms, raising crime rates (and so costing more money). Desperate corporations have less of a track record getting away with that (although some still do).
I thought most right wing people blamed the poor for 'taking advantage' of the system, but corporations are seen as being smart to accept funding. I feel it's misinformation that makes them believe that most people availing themselves of the assistance are 'taking advantage of the system', and most corporations are simply properly following the law/rules to get any advantage possible, as they should. I can't understand the disconnect.
I blame anyone/anything 'taking advantage of the system', which does not mean anyone making use of it, only those gaming the system for advantage. My opinion is that more corporations fall into that category than individuals, or at least they get more out of the system.
Why labor in the fields instead of being a leach that requires illegal help? I think you answer your own question (perhaps you forgot the sarcasm button?). If field labor was paid appropriately they would need no government cheese or illegals to get it done. That would solve 2 issues for the right, I can't understand the resistance.
I think we actually agree that the system is set up to incentivize immoral behavior in an effort to create a safety net. (Perhaps we only disagree with the levels of immorality between people and corporations on this topic.) I think rational people could easily fix that problem without erasing the safety net with just a few reasonable requirements to qualify for assistance...too bad reasonable people are so few and far between.

right. and what tries to stop corporations...or anything for that matter from encroaching on our civil liberties too much? Gov't.

What stops gov't from doing the same? People. People have a pretty good track record of stopping gov't that goes too far armed or not. Are people generally slow to react? sure...but they do eventually react to injustices. If gov't really did not rule by the consent of the governed, there would be heaps more unrest, There would be actual revolts happening on a semi frequent basis instead of just people threatening to revolt/secede for the sake of drama.

The problem is, we have a non-insignificant number of people who seem to honestly think corps should run everything, or at the very least, there should be little to no regulation. Like I said, right now, it's chaotic because we have far too many people who all want different things. Over time, we're going to see what works and what doesn't and things will generally settle down. bad ideas do eventually get thrown out and good ideas get implemented instead. Part of the problem is that we are in the middle of big technological changes that radically change how we live compared to even just 100 years ago. Again...chaos ensues when new things come up and it just takes time for people to figure it out, adapt, and accept change.

Honestly though, no one has yet to successfully explain how society without gov't...or amoral corporations works. who distinguishes between the amoral corps and the good ones? are there good corps in a non-statist view? if there are...then don't there have to be good gov'ts out there too? Or are we back to the viewpoint of all gov'ts are bad...but some corps are good...I don't see how you can objectively make that distinction. How do you prevent stuff from just devolving into "might makes right" no one seems to be able to answer that one. I think the human race as a whole has collectively decided that rule by force is not preferred. There are just too many people that would take advantage of and screw over other people. or are you honestly advocating a kill or be killed situation here? Again, I think people have decided as a whole that they don't want that.

There's just too much subjective viewpoints instead of objective ones.

I'm sorry, but you've got one heck of an uphill battle trying to convince people that gov't is inherently bad. Sure you've got a lot of loudmouths making a lot of noise about how they think gov't is corrupt, but that's a far cry from actually abandoning gov't. Lots of people bitch about gov't, but don't actually see a lot of people escaping it. We see it every election cycle "if so and so wins, I'm leaving the country" yet they never do.

regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on, for all the bluster and rhetoric most people would rather have gov't run by the party they don't like than have no gov't at all.

Actually, the proof that something did not end up in the hands of the Chinese, the Russians, or myself for that matter, is quite difficult, given that evidence of absence is impossible to obtain. However, the absence of evidence to the claim that they have gained access to information through Snowden himself is reason enough for me.

You want proof that nothing was transfered to them? Might as well try to prove the non-existance of the famous tea pot in orbit.

So the basic argument boils down to motivation as well as credibility of claims.

His motivation to keep access to his material restricted to the selected group of journalists is apparent from his own interviews. They are supposed to be the check on the government, they lack the information to fullfil the role, they need access to correct (what he perceived to be) a wrong, namely a grave breach of your consitution on a previously unheard of scale.
Providing access to Russia or China would instantly negate all hope of ever not drawing the short straw in this mess, as the US is the only country on the planet who can provide him with amnesty and therefore safety.

So why would he do it? For a shot at asylum? You know as well as I do that (permanent) asylum in China/Russia is worthless if the US is after you. Europe could guarantee one's safety, but given the lack of sovereignty vis-a-vis the US, it would not be an option.

That leaves credibility of claims. And that's where my first reason comes into play, the one you put down as "naive". His opponents, those in positions of power, be it inside government or the press, have a track record of being... let's not mince words here, lying sacks of shit. James Clapper's act of perjury on front of Congress is just the most prominent manifestation of it. The entire bunch lied their asses off during the preparation of the invasion of Iraq, they lied their asses off during the revelations triggered by Chelsea Manning and they lied their asses off about the total und unrelenting surveillance of American citizens in violation of their constitutional rights.

If you think supervision of the NSA by the Select Committee on Intelligence is actually working, I suggest you take a look at statements by Senator Wyden. The NSA even plays them for fools. Hell, Bruce Schneier was recently approached by members of Congress to explain to them what the NSA was doing, because the NSA refused to. Great oversight, works like a charm. By the way, it's the same fucking deal with GCHQ and the BND.

So yes, the fella who "stole" data is actually a trustworthy figure, because a) his claims were true and b) his actions pulled off the veil that covered the fact that 320 million Americans had their private data stolen and were sold out by agencies of their own government in conjunction with private intelligence contractors.

What else...

Ah, yeah. "Sloppy" and "stupid". Again, if he was sloppy and stupid, what does that say about the internal control structure of the intelligence industry? They didn't notice shit, they still claim to be unaware of what precisely he took with him. Great security, fellas.

"He could have allowed the press to do it's job without disclosing a much of what has been released."

He disclosed nothing. He is not an experienced journalist and therefore, by his own admission, not qualified to make the call what to publish and how. That's why he handed it over to Barton Gellman at the WaPo, Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian and Laura Poitras, who worked closely with Der Spiegel.

If Spiegel, WaPo and Guardian are not reputable institutions of journalism, none are. So he did precisely what you claim he should have done: he allowed the press to do its bloody job and released fuck all himself.

As for the cheap shot at not being an American: seventy years ago, your folks liberated us from the plague of fascism, brought us freedom. Am I supposed to just sit here and watch my brothers and sisters in the US become the subjects of total surveillance, the kind my country suffered from during two dictatorships in the last century?

Ironically, that would be un-American, at least the way I understand it.

And there's nothing gleeful about my concerns. I am deeply furious about this shit and even more so about the apathy of people all around the world. You think I want Americans to suffer from the same shit we went through as a petty form of payback?

Fuck that. It's the intelligence industry that I'm gunning for. Your nationality doesn't mean squat, some intelligence agency has its crosshairs on you wherever you live. It just happens to be an American citizen who had the balls to provide us with the info to finally try and protect citizens in all countries from the overreaching abuse by the intelligence industry.

In fact, I'd rather worry about our own massive problems within Europe (rise of fascism in Greece, 60% youth unemployment, unelected governments, etc). So can we please just dismantle all these spy agencies and get on with our lives?

Sorry if this is incoherent, but it's late and I'm even more pissed off than usual.

@Sotto_The issue is the power and influence one corporation has over the world's food supply and those who would use their influence in the Department of Agriculture and the Supreme court to implement sweeping legislation or hinder the free will of the small, medium, large or other farmers who would have nothing to do with Monsanto's seeds or who wish only to use sumbunall of their products, not whether a farmer is given their rice for free in an ethical fashion to grow some proprietary rice (ever try to grow rice? S'pretty dependent on climate and seasons, rainfall and other environmental conditions, not to mention the hectares it requires to cultivate) as opposed to say leafy greens of all kinds, sweet potatoes, squash, all of which are much more easily cultivated AND, have shorter seed to fruit times as well as requiring much less space AND, are chock-full of Vitamin A.
We don't even mention here Paprika, Red Pepper, Cayenne, Chili Powder, which are WAY higher in Vitamin A and pretty much grow like weeds when cultivated by morons.

Shaky and hollow point your study cited as well, to support what is obviously a fishy prospect providing this option to poorer countries when you consider the back-door dealing that a corporation like M practices and their track-record of driving small farmers out of business with endless litigation and an army of lah-yahs, investigators, all petty thugs and criminals on their payroll.

A no-brainer? Yeah, if you spout the party-line and din't use your brain but instead cited an "official' study from a 'recognized', 'expert's' journal.

Again, loaded language in your closing with the assumption that most opponents and vocal activists of GMO crops are science deniers. Broad, brush-strokes my friend.
Labels.

I for one want these motherfucker's labs under extreme scrutiny and their science tested and re-tested by those not on their payrolls or whose interests do not include stocks in their concerns. I also want heirloom seeds, regardless of yields, whose fruits produce fertile seeds.

MOST GMO crop's fruited seeds are as sterile as your argument, the genetic markers tweaked similarly to insure that the market on common-sense and centuries-honored methods be cornered and rendered inadequate.

Kevin O'Leary needs to be punched in the face. I know, violence is wrong, but when an uber wealthy fellow openly declares the world's poorest are a just a hard days work away from his status, he needs to punched in the face for it. Every time he says it someone has to inflict enough physical pain on him until he learns to stop doing it. He probably won't learn why, but at least he'll learn to stop.

I say that as someone largely pro-capitalist. Human beings are easily corrupted, and terrible people are drawn to wealth and power and work harder to achieve it. Capitalism at least pits them against each other in trying to get or make more stuff. The one thing that capitalism has a strong historically track record for is growth. It leaves more stuff for everyone to share, though it does nothing for distributing it better. Wealth redistribution schemes though invariably lead to less and less left to be redistributed. In short, capitalism rewards hard work(albeit not even-handedly) while socialism does not. Hard work means more stuff, less work means less.

Of course if you take either to extreme they are both awful, you've got to have a middle ground. Ideally you want that middle ground to be reached and agreed upon democratically. America is imperfect, terribly so, but it's IMHO a far, far cry closer to the ideal than most anywhere else in this regard.

The Wachowskis have a pretty mixed track record. Since this gives barely a hint of a plot I might wait for reviews.

Got burnt by Prometheus, so I'm not trusting any more movies based purely by specky sci-fi and an intriguing concept.

Sebelius was a pretty popular Democrat governor in Kansas, which is a bit of an oxymoron considering how solidly Red-State KS is. It is all just political grandstanding, but being from KS originally it makes me happy to see her do the very (IMHO) Kansas-type thing and refuse to pass the buck for the website snafus in her opening statement.

Especially when it becomes very clear that all the Republican questions were expecting her to fit their stereotype of what they think of as an "East-Coast Liberal" and spin, pass the buck, and shift blame at every opportunity.

Kansas has a track record with a lot of political epic fails (evolution in schools comes to mind), but one thing your average Kansan is usually pretty proud of is personal integrity and owning up to one's mistakes. Seems like Sebelius is a good representative of that quality that most Kansans would claim to hold dear.