Chicken and cheese are two very salty foods.

Depending on the cheese it's 25-50% RDI of salt.

Chicken is often injected with saline solution to plump it up, and also as a cheap way to make it weigh more. When you cook it the water is boiled out, but the salt remains.

It's worth getting used to unsalted peanut butter too (the 100% peanuts is the one to go for). You can sweeten it to your liking later with jam or maple syrup.

If you can keep your salt intake down to 1500mg your blood pressure returns to that of a child! (you also have to eat plenty of greens to create nictric oxide which prevents things sticking to the arterial walls.)

Blood pressing increasing as you age doesn't need to happen at all.

Eat more whole foods, and less processed foods essentially, and you need never have hypertension or erectile dysfunction.

Displacement means that no matter how many people are swimming, it weighs the same....assuming it's normally kept full of water.
Besides, who wants to die alone? I say take that party with you.

Wasn't there, but I'm sympathetic to their cause.

I would say, like the people quoted in the article linked by Scud, these people aren't against "stepping out of their comfort zone" to learn. But there are certain norms and boundaries to ideas we hold in both every day discourse and academic discourse.

Some of that is how we don't entertain the idea of bringing back phrenology or that the earth is flat in serious discussion. But, unlike those antiquated ideas, other sorts of ideas lead to real and harmful consequences to marginalized groups. Ideas like entire classes of people either not being worth basic human rights or specifically targeting them for dehumanization/harassment.

I think people who shut down events like that or ones where Milo Yiounappolos specifically singled out trans individuals are weighing whether giving a larger audience to ideas like "these people aren't normal/don't deserve basic rights" is worth the real harm and harassment that follows. People see it as essentially saying, "Hey now, lets hear what these National Socialist fellows have to say about Jewish people without all the whining, ok?"

And these things aren't really as cut and dry "they don't want to hear differences of opinion" when every single trans person, person of color, gay person, etc has had these "differing opinions" yelled at them or forced into their life on a daily basis.

Shinyblury might be better at weighing on some of this now .

I agree, the entire old testament seems at odds with Jesus's teachings....unless you interpret murder of infidels as somehow loving them to death.
With how many different christian churchs there are in every single town having a slightly different view it's hard to give a singular answer. I'd hazard the most common explanation though is that the old school laws basically demonstrated one thing to humanity, every last one of you by rights deserves death. Everybody is, by God's standards, inadequate and the penalty is death.
That's why his statements about the laws still being in full effect don't jibe with his teachings of love and acceptance, and no where does he, or God, or any prophet say his death erases God's laws that I find
Continuing what I think is the most common explanation, Jesus message was that the 'spirit' of the old school laws was to encourage humanity to love god and fellow man without exceptions. Strictly following the letter of the laws was to miss the point entire. Also, the punishment for failing to live up to the standard of universal love for God and fellow man was death, fire, brimstone and all the nasty old testament sentences.

So taking those as axioms you have God's law for humanity was and always had been love for him and each other. God's punishment for failing that measure, even in the least, was and always had been death and eternal damnation.

Again, I can't say all Christians are universally agreed on what to do from that, but I would say that the majority again follow Jesus teachings that the punishment for those that fall short was to be left to God and not to humans. As in, no more going around killing each other for breaking the law in letter or in spirit. Evangelicals are probably also universally agreed that ALL of humanity fails to meet the morality bar and thus was doomed to death until Jesus was killed. Jesus having met the bar of perfection required by the law, was thus payment through his death for the rest of humanity. So Evangelicals for the most part then take the entirety of the Bible as a message telling them they should go out and love God and everyone and in the humility that they are but for the grace of God equally deserving of damnation.

I know re-reading that it reads more like a sermon than anything, but it's also the most concisely I could manage to fit in how I understand most evangelicals to read the bible.

I don't know why they didn't go thru the proper red tape to enter America legally. But then again, what does someone living on the streets and off the kindness of strangers in cities off the grid know about proper first world nation entry methodology?

I don't know what it feels like to struggle with illegal immigrantion, but I do know what my favorite cartoon illegal immigrant, Stitch, would say,

"Ohana means family, and family means never saying goodbye."

I consider Mexico part of our Ohana -- and some of those people are struggling to get here to meet their literal ohana. Maybe Amurica means fuck you, and fuck you means goodbye.

Anyway, I'm just an average American citizen that's doing alright in life, not perfect, but I certainly don't blame Mexicans for my problems... Idiots do though. Similar to how idiots take a few bible verses against homosexuality and weigh that sin as greater than all others, these other idiots similarly equate Mexican immigration as a higher, more serious issue than it actually is.

In psychology that's called "compensation", where you pretty much ignore your incompetence and inadequacies, and redirect your efforts into improving something else to put your mind at ease. This wall is compensation for America's actual problems.

Umm. By far the biggest reason for the shift is the specialization factor, mainly spurred by NOT playing both sides of the ball (offense and defense). Which to be fair, the video did point out.

The video didn't come right out and directly say that was a bad thing, but heavily implied it. I disagree, and think that it is one of the coolest things about American Football. Different positions require (or at least reward) different skillsets and physical attributes. So at the highest level of play, yes, O linemen are going to be huge and stable on their feet. D linemen are going to be slightly less huge, but faster and more aggressive. D backs and receivers are going to be tall and fast. Running backs can excel by being smallish, elusive, and quick, OR large and resilient. And so on.

That specialization makes the game fascinating -- seeing how teams with different balances of specialists can compete with each other and be more or less effective in different situations or against different teams.

Are NFL linemen going to be more at-risk for conditions like heart disease? Of course -- any sample group made up of people that weigh as much as NFL linemen is going to have greater occurrence of heart disease. But that isn't something unique to football players / the NFL. In fact, if you compared rates of heart disease in current / former NFL linemen to a sample group with the same average weight who were NOT football players, they'd probably have a lower rate, because like the video said, those linemen generally still had to be in very good physical shape -- just heavy.

I guess what I'm saying is that it seems weird to insinuate that it is a bad thing for the NFL / football in general to "encourage" health issues directly or indirectly because they select for large / huge players. If you want to point out unique risks of playing in the NFL, there are way more pressing and direct issues -- like RBs having LOTS of mobility problems after they retire due to all the bone / joint damage from getting tackled all the time, or increased risk of chemical dependency in football players in general due to all of the pain and other meds that teams pump into players to keep them going.

The Baltimore Sun lets Bill Binney and Ray McGovern weigh in on the topic of hacking: Emails were leaked, not hacked

I don't fancy the lack of specificity in the use of "emails". There are no "emails" in this regard. There are the DNC emails, the Podesta emails, the Clinton server emails (incl Clinton SecState, Clinton GI, Clinton personal) -- did I miss any?

Clinton server emails were made public through FOIA requests directed at the FBI and later mirrored by WikiLeaks, Podesta emails were acquired through Podesta being a dumbass and falling for a rookie spear fishing scheme.

Only the DNC emails could even qualify as a potential "hack", with Assange on the record as it being a leak.

Yeah I'm not sure if RFID alone would cut it. For instance, would the return signal from 15x RFIDs of the same item be distinguishable enough from 16x? I assume they would weigh items as well, just like the self checkouts. Waiting for the technical information.

This only applies to the metric system. For the empirical system, it gets even more confusing. Here's a simple quote from NASA's Pre-Jesus era website:

The effective acceleration of gravity at the poles is 980.665 cm/sec/sec while at the equator it is 3.39 cm/sec/sec less due to the centrifugal force. If you weighed 100 pounds at the north pole on a spring scale, at the equator you would weigh 99.65 pounds, or 5.5 ounces less.

Whenever we talk about weight in pounds, we need to define where with respect to the center of our little bluey.

Thinking further, the use of chemicals and fertilizers in orchards is more different than I'd first thought too.

If you take an apple orchard, every plant is priceless compared to a grain crop. Killing off insects, keeping exactly the right fertilizer amounts and irrigation are all absolutely required. In grain farming, pests like weeds or insects are measured and the cost/benefit is weighed to see if it's worth the cost of spraying. I'd imagine with a fruit crop, the benefit is almost always keeping your plants as healthy as humanly possible. With grains though guys will often estimate a 5% loss from whatever best is there and decide to leave well enough alone.

A bit of a side note, but the kinds of chemicals guys on the grain side use has changed a lot too. Plenty of chemicals used for killing insects when I was a kid where being replaced then. Farmers here universally remember a laundry list of different pesticides they remember as just nasty and downright scary stuff. The ones available today are far more selective, and for weeds round-up ready has allowed guys to abandon pretty much all other weed killers, and most of those were much more expensive and lingering than round-up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/opinion/campaign-stops/a-week-for-all-time.html?emc=edit_th_20160617&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=40977923

Golden quote:
"In this week of trial and tragedy, Trump showed us how he would govern — by fear, by intimidation, by lies, by turning American against American, by exhibiting all the empathy of a sociopath. Seal this week. Put it in a time capsule. Teach it. History will remember. But come November, will we?"

By the way, I've stayed out of this extremely boring back and forth. There was nothing to be gained by weighing in. It finally has come to a blessed end, just as this op-ed was published in the New York Times.

So I'll say it again, since this video is my contribution to the Sift and I am claiming final word. I may not be accorded it, but I am claiming it.

It is a stone hard fact that eligible does not equal fit. A brain-damaged accident victim with the right birth certificate, with the right age, is eligible to be president. That person is not fit to be president. This is logic. It just is. You can ignore the crystalline beauty of the fact of this analogy and have a fine time talking around it. Doesn't change the fact that Ken Burns is right, Timothy Egan is right, Mitt Romney, both Bushes, Meg Whitman, and the Republican strategist who is quoted in this op-ed are all right.

Trump is unfit for the Presidency.

Stephen Colbert - Bill O'Reilly Weighs In On Orlando has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine on that post.

There's definitely evidence that she weighs the same as a duck.

Where to start……
The forced laughter when someone’s buddy is filmed wiping out - AH hahaha AH hahaha

99.9% of “selfies”, I despise that word. I don’t want to see your pasty bloated pimply mug so close-up like we’re jammed in a fuckin elevator and I can count your nose hairs. Wearing either the blank dumb look people have when looking at their computer screen or camera phone, or the overly gleeful shit-eating ventriloquist dummy look, All it takes is a camera lens to make people go ape-shit, like a baby making faces in a mirror. When did that shit become normal?

Any kind of rambling monologue with the subject weighing in on the stupid shit of the day, like they are some wise head of state being interviewed on some crisis. Or filming themselves narrating at the scene of some non-event, like they are Edward Murrow reporting on the London Blitz.

The vast majority of trend videos, like “Things New Yorkers Say”, etc. They generally have high production values but ZERO talent on the actual writing. The “punchlines” are usually weak or non-existent, apparently there’s no such thing as out-takes anymore. It’s usually weak material followed by long pauses, which I guess if you drag it out long enough it somehow becomes funny. “Modern Family” and “The Office” have beat that non-punchline pause to death. “Spinal Tap” was the only mock-umentary that ever worked, everything else is just weak.

Idiots who edit videos and who don’t have the basic sense to accommodate people who haven’t seen the material. I’m watching a video on YouTube of vacation snaps from someone’s trip to the mountains of Chile, and they leave each photo onscreen for about 1.2 seconds, with the editor’s goal to use every single transition available in the editing palette to move on to the next picture. It’s amateurish.

Someone else mentioned videos with overly long intros\titles and I agree. It's not "Gone With the Wind", it's a video of your dog pissing in your living room, just get to it.

Back in a few, going to pour my second cup of the day. :-)

I'm glad we didn't make the same mistake the kind countries of Europe did, and instead we have a vetting process to help ensure that only genuine refugees are coming in. I'm not saying the approach is necessarily the best one, but what can you do when so many economic migrants are clogging the system (on purpose) for people in genuine need of help. (I'm a refugee myself btw).

If it was up to me I'd add some additional tests to ensure that these people are fit for a modern society too, you know, to make sure my daughter/wife/mother/sister etc can go outside on their own, unlike some cities in Europe now.

But then again if it was up to me, neither of the 3 major political parties would be in charge since they're all useless. Liberals are just a mouth piece for big business (literally, that's why they were formed). And they all also look like the bad guys from any 80s and 90s kids cartoon. The Labour party is well meaning, but ultimately as lame, pathetic and gut-less as their "leader", they simply don't stand for anything and all of their policies boil down the lowest common denominator. The Greens driven by emotion not facts, and now they don't even seem to care about the environment very much.

There needs to be some kind of progressive party that is capable of driving humanity forward into the future, instead of weighing it down with traditions of the past. The whole system needs a huge reform.