In the abstract: "Degree of private self-consciousness was unrelated to perspective taking.". Private self-consciousness = tendency towards introspection.

HOW DOES SEQUITUR?

No but really, excuse my flippancy because I'd love to know if there is actually any evidence for this or whether it was, you know, truth economics.

Look, I provided a link to a peer-reviewed journal publication showing that Golden Rice is an extremely good source of vitamin A, with one cup providing 50% of the recommended daily amount. I can also provide other citations supporting this claim if you'd like. So, if you have references to actual peer-reviewed scientific research (rather than unfounded claims by anti-GM activists) refuting the efficacy of Golden Rice, let's see them.

As for your claim that the initially free distribution will be rescinded, that seems unlikely. The licenses under which Golden Rice is being distributed explicitly allow farmers to freely save, replant and sell the seeds from their crop for as long as their annual income remains under $10,000. Also, most of the patents relevant to the production of Golden Rice are not internationally valid, so they cannot be used to sue people in third world countries. And all the patents that are internationally valid have been explicitly waived by the patent holders. Is there still some remote possibility that poor farmers will end up getting screwed? I guess. But it seems bizarre to me to just hold up potentially life-saving technology because its possible (though highly unlikely) that it will be used to exploit farmers. Also, I should note that Monstanto does not own Golden Rice. They merely own one of the patents for a process involved in the creation of Golden Rice.

On your third point, Rachel explicitly says "You know that GMO’s actually don’t have higher yields either." It's in the video, at 5:45. Watch it again. So she is claiming quite clearly that they do not produce higher yield, which is false. And it is simply not true that all the research showing higher yield comes from corporations. For instance, see this paper published in Science. The authors do not claim affiliation with any major GM corporation. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There has been volumes of independent research on GMOs.

On your last claim, about monocultures, you are again mistaken. Golden Rice is not a single variety. The International Rice Research Institute (a non-profit, not owned by any major corporation) has created "Golden" versions of hundreds of different rice varieties, so potentially Golden Rice can be as diverse as regular rice. Also, if rice plants are separated by a few feet, then cross-pollination becomes extremely unlikely. Rice is typically self-pollinating. So as long as a small separation is maintained, GM and non-GM crops can be grown in the same location without any significant gene flow between them.

Anyway, gene flow is only a danger if the GM plant has a clear adaptive advantage in its environment (if its pest resistant, e.g.), but that is not the case with Golden Rice, so even with gene flow Golden Rice won't end up dominating non-GM rice evolutionarily.

According to hermeneuticians, economics is apparently a matter of popular opinion. Ostriches. Like someone shot in the belly but continuing to work, ignoring the fact that he's bleeding out does not obviate the fact.

Collectivist anarchy cannot exist, unless what you mean by "anarchy" is chaos, for reasons already stated. But in the abstract, yes, you can advocate some sort of incoherence like anarcho-syndcalism and still call it anarchy. That's why some like to specify and call the (in my opinion) more coherent and desirable anarchism, libertarian anarchy or anarcho-capitalism, or free market anarchism, or voluntaryism. Any type of communalism or syndicate requires rulers to administer the "communal," which, unless unanimously selected, is in direct contrast with the purpose of anarchism (which means "without rulers"). And then you have the problem of coming up with and enforcing the "communal" rules without engaging in aggression.

Perhaps "we are getting snagged on definitions." I am not clear on your position so it could be the disagreements have to do with definitions. If you redefine socialism in a non-Marxist way, maybe you can make libertarian socialism coherent.

If you can come up with a social organization that involves zero initiation of violence against persons or their property, then whatever you want to call it, it agrees with libertarian anarchy.

Let me define the basic principle of the anarchism that I favor, to avoid semantic problems: non-aggression means never initiating violence against any individual or their property.
Property can only be a scarce resource. Non-scarce resources cannot be property or owned. You acquire property through homesteading, first appropriation, voluntary trade, or inheritance.
Legally, you can enforce contracts/voluntary agreements, and punish any violations of a person's "self" or property, meaning you can enforce non-aggression.
This view I call anarchy-capitalism, libertarian anarchy, or voluntaryism.
Or free market anarchy.

"as an anarchist i believe all systems of authority and power to be illegitimate until proven otherwise."

I have a different take, in my preferred anarchism. The only one I see as functional, all voluntary hierarchies and authorities are perfectly legitimate. I am free to submit or not to any authority I choose to for my benefit and that is my legitimate right. Also private property owners have a legitimate authority over their property. I can do whatever I want with my property (without violating anyone else's self-ownership and property rights). And under the same conditions, I can legitimately enter into any agreements I want with anyone I want. That would be legitimate private property anarchy.

As of now, the government makes what is naturally legitimate, into something arbitrarily illegitimate, based on the whims of legislators and bureaucrats.

"the burden is on those who profess authority."

I understand what you are saying. And don't think the burden is on anyone. Do not initiate violence on anyone's person of property. Simple. That's it. There's nothing else to prove or not. If anything it is the "burden" to prove you own what you own, in cases of ownership disputes. For that, there is legal precedent on who has the burden of ownership proof etc.

"because even as an anarchist i have to recognize that there needs to be a system which keeps the hands on the scales that keeps the playing field even and the kids playing nice."

The only thing that can interfere and wreck a private property anarchy is aggression, i.e., the initiation of violence against anyone's person and/or property. To prevent that you have legal enforcement and arbitration services (courts). Just like now. Except that there wouldn't be a state monopoly over these. A private law society can work just as well or better than having a monopoly of law enforcement and courts. Monopolies are always inefficient and costly. Always. For any and all goods and services. No exceptions.

"these systems are for the people,by the people and run by the people."

There is not such thing as "the people," in any practical sense. Show me "the people" and I'll show you an abstraction. There are only individuals. "The people" cannot run anything. Even you and I disagree. How are we "the people?" (Furthermore, to have a truly non-violent society, individuals would have the choice as to whether or not to engage in agreements with other individuals. Unlike now, where people are forced into agreements by which "majorities" -- whether actual or rigged -- impose their will upon the minorities. That's what you call "democracy.")

"BUT..you stop there. are you implying that we have a free market now?"

No, we don't have a free market now. We have pockets in which free markets function, however.

"did you actually infer that america begot its wealth and power purely through free market exchanges?"

Yes, mostly it did.

"have you even been paying attention?"

What the fuck does that mean?

"corporate america has been exploiting third world countries for over a century!"

No, some corporations with the help of the US and/or foreign governments have been exploiting some people in third world countries, enriching those corporations and government officials in the US and mostly in third world countries. But this is what made these corporations and government officials wealthy, not what made America as a whole a wealthy nation. America is no longer a wealthy nation as a whole (particular companies are not "America"), but an indebted nation, because of things like these, which go hand in hand with military expenditures too. The average person profits nothing from these corporations and politicians exploiting third world (or any) countries. So no, this does not make America wealthy.

The free market, however (which this exploitation is not), did make America a wealthy nation with rapid economic improvement for the average person (with the regrettable exceptions of African and Native Americans).

"and our government has been the fist that punched the:exploitation,ruination and demise of those countries.hell thats the reason WHY they are third world!"

If you are arguing that the government has been responsible for all this evil, then you are preaching to the choir. Although I take issue with the idea that it is "our government." I don't own it, nor would I want to.

"its shameful and if thats your idea of a free market.
well..you can fucking keep it."

I don't think you have been paying attention, @enoch. No, I don't think we have a free market and you cannot have a free market if there is a government interfering with it. So I don't know what your, "you can fucking keep it," bullshit is about.

"you only seem to address one part of the equation.
or are you oblivious to the harm that corporate america has wrought for the past century?"

Corporate American is a corporatist system, kind of fascist if you want to get technical. It is a mix of private business with government-granted privilege. That is not a free market. Let me say it again, in case you missed it, a truly free market cannot exist while a government monopoly grants privilege to some businesses. That is crony-corporatism, fascism. A free market can only exist as market anarchy. Corporations exploit because of government privilege, be it granted by the US government/state or third world governments/states.

"who or what will keep that behemoth in check?"

Private law based on the rights to contracts and the right of freedom from aggression to person and/or property, enforced by a private legal enforcement system.

The state has not and will not "keep that behemoth in check" as you call it. In fact, the state is the "behemoth." It is absurd to expect the state to police itself. It has not and it will not. That plan is a failure. But "good luck with that."

(btw, I you want to know the real reasons third world countries are third world, particularly Latin America, I suggest you read Alvaro Vargas Llosa's well researched book, "Liberty For Latin America," and see how 500 of state intervention/abuse has led to the current situation. If you want to lecture me about why Latin America is "third world," you'd better do some more research first and really know your stuff. I am quite familiar with the situation there.)

"what do you think will happen when you take regulation off the table?"

When you take government-granted privilege off the table, things get better and corporations and (more importantly) governments cannot abuse individuals, as some corporations and virtually all governments now do. And you replace those privileges (euphemistically called "regulations") with laws based on non-aggression and enforcement of rights to self-ownership and property.

All "exploitation" comes from aggression. All of it.

Aggression means initiating violence. Without government support, no one can initiate violence without becoming a criminal. And criminals shall be dealt with accordingly. But as long as governments/states grant aggression privileges, then you have legalized crime.

"do you understand what feudalism actually is?"

Perhaps you'd like to restate this in a non-condescending way. If you have something to say about feudalism, then say it. Explain whatever you want to explain...

"we are living in what is now being called a "neo-feudalism" state."

I don't care to have a state, so you can take this complaint to the statists. (Good luck with that.)

"you point to the government but not to the invisible hand that owns it.which is corporate america"

"Corporate America" could do little harm if any, if it weren't for some corporations' use of government. Government serves no purpose other than to allow those who control it take from those who don't. The only solution to this is to not have that tool/weapon available to whomever takes control of it. Corporations don't own it. They just use it as much as possible (just like unions do, just like all sorts of special interest groups do, just like voting blocks do, and mostly just like politicians and bureaucrats do, and even citizens who "game" the system in one way or another).

"then again.i am a pretty crappy capitalist."

That likely makes you a "pretty crappy anarchist" too.
No offense intended.
Libertarian socialist kind of contradicts itself, does it not?
Take what you want from this message or not.
Good luck.

Bravo and kudos.
I love to point out that (amongst other reasons) it also says to kill anyone that 'works' on the 'Sabbath', or has their servant work for them. (I'm fairly certain the Sabbath in question is the Jewish one, since these laws came from their traditions and bible). That would leave few 'christians' alive, almost all of them mow on Sunday (and/or Saturday) and that's specifically forbidden and a cause for stoning....at least as I read it.
So is wearing 'graven images' of anything on earth or in heaven, so anyone that wears a cross, with or without the little guy, or has a statue of anything that's not an abstract is doing it wrong and probably needs a stoning, lets send them all to Colorado.

I'd love to know how Intel/AMD design new architecture, and specifically what degree of abstraction they have, because its difficult to imagine how anybody can get their heads around all the intricacies of modern multicore chip.

Thank you for your gracious words. Merry Christmas to you too! Today is the day the Lord has made so I try not to dredge up the past too often, and I can tell you that I appreciate what you've said either way. I am growing in grace, and only in grace. As you said, it is a prayer for wisdom and grace alone which allows me to interpret scripture. Certainly, when I first started to pursue God, I had no earthly idea of where I would end up or what I would have to go through to get there.

What I am doing is essentially, submitting myself to God and allowing Him to remake me into the image of His Son. This is a process that is initiated, executed and completed by the Spirit of God. It is not my whim but the very real intervention of the Almighty in my life, whereupon the old me is extricated and the new me is molded by the Potters hands and seasoned with fire.

If there was anything I objected to in your words it was the implication that Christianity is like spiritual training wheels for those who can't hack it in the real world. This was simply my flesh, objecting; a spiritual pride that ironically came from my journal into the occult. I don't have that notion anymore; I have no trouble admitting that I am nothing and can do nothing without God, and that there is nothing in me which is of any value unless God put it there, and that for His glory.

I have volumes of things I wrote on esoteric spirituality, abstract thoughts, poetry, philosophy, life the universe and everything. I churned this stuff out as if my mind was a computer spitting out lines of code, I excelled at it, Enoch; as it seemed to me I was ascending the very heights of being, a kind of godhood, tapping into the very beating heart of it all. But God brought me crashing back down to the ground and He offered me a choice:

either crawl back into your darkness and reconstitute your construct or give up everything and follow My Son into the Light.

I didn't want to do it. I preferred my reality. Yet, to go back would mean to purposefully delude myself and that was what I absolutely refused to do. I was interested not in what I preferred but the truth. That's why I am a Christian.

Either way, I see that you are pursuing God, and I respect that. There is a difference in personal revelation, and we both have our opinions of that. That's fine and I think the truth can and will speak for itself. Even Buddha said, there are three things which cannot be long hidden; the sun, the moon and truth. Yet, there is something he missed which is that we can supress the truth. I could have rejected Gods revelation and reconstructed my reality, but thankfully I chose not to do that. Not everyone makes that choice. I have spoken to an atheist on this very website who denies he has a soul even though he has had an out of body experience. Sometimes people will take that rejection to their grave, which is why Christians are so urgent about letting people know about Jesus Christ. I don't know what your view is on the afterlife, but, the bible says we only have one shot and then the judgment. This is why I preach the gospel here, and everywhere. Not for myself, but because God loves these people and He wants them to know it before it is too late to do anything about it.

Thanks again for everything and I am praying you have a wonderful day tomorrow with your friends and family. I pray the Lord will give you a deeper revelation of His love. God bless you and yours.

I can definitely write similarly, but in cases such as those in this video, I get the sense that there's something significantly different about the mind in people who can do this. Maybe it's just me, but I used to try to talk backwards for fun when I was younger, and it would basically take me an hour to memorize how one sentence sounded. I'd still screw it up on repeating it.
I don't feel like this is a trained skill though. To me it's entirely unlike the kid in the Jimmy Kimmel video who can rattle off any nation or capital in the world instantly. I don't know if it's as simple as the difference between those who are naturally good at abstract concepts such as mathematics and those who are entirely, visually and artistically inclined, or something else (call Prof. X! Here there be mutants!)
I, for one, guess I feel the need to welcome our new backwards-talking overlords.

I never argued that one side was "good" but then again, I despise moral abstracts such as good and evil because they simply are not accurate, quantifiable descriptions, and are often used to manipulate emotions.

One side is harmful...the other side is less harmful.

If you can come up with a better system, more power to you, but when you have a situation like this, you don't throw out the whole system, you get rid of the part of it that is causing the most harm and re-evaluate

Even though I think parties should be abolished, you can't stop people from peaceably assembling and picking people that they support. All you can do is stop officially recognizing them and disband any organization like the DNC/RNC or any lobbying group as lobbying needs to be abolished as well. with the advent of the internet and email, ANYONE can communicate with their congressperson easily and get their point across. Lobbying is obsolete as well as corrupt.

We've got to get rid of the private money in our political system

@lucky760

I don't think it's a good idea to only think of animals as food. I've always thought it was really tacky when someone is like "dur hur hur bacon" when they see a live pig. They have thoughts and feelings and are relatively intelligent animals. It was often that we would have to bring piglets into the house for various reason and they were like puppies. Affectionate little puppies that followed you around.

I learned to help butcher animals at a relatively young age and there was always a separation of what the animal was when it was living and the meat. There is some abstract difference between meat and the living animal. Maybe being exposed at an early age helped me understand that.

Not saying you should shelter a child as to where their food comes from but teach them to also respect animals while they are alive. Teach them that they are not an object quite yet and to care about how they are being treated until their death.

um
As mentioned, diabetes mellitus type 1 is genetic, you need regular insulin injections because, without it your blood sugar levels will be sky high, and sugar in the blood leads to glycation. Glycation is where sugars attach to proteins (such as the ones in your red blood cells) and then become useless/damaging. The amount of glycation is measured by a test called the HbA1C, something diabetics will be familiar with. Glycation cannot be avoided by faith...

The comment @Sniper007 made about curing diabetes is almost true however, as it has been demonstrated time and time again (in studies for over 20 years) that calorie restricted diets (and to a lesser extent weight loss) can basically cure diabetes (type 2). It is thought that one of the main reasons for this is that it helps to reduce adipose tissue (fat) that has been laid down in places like the pancreas and liver. A small reduction in the adipose tissue in the pancreas helps it regain much of its lost function. This calorie restriction doesn't appear to work in all type 2 diabetics, but it does work in many.

Info about the adipose tissue deposition/pancreas issue.
dvr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/10/1479164112455817.full.pdf+html
http://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0015/ea0015s39.htm

Oh FFS, one question in and it's retarded. Governments don't exist? Really??

Well, if "government" doesn't exist, than neither does liberty. Both are abstract concepts.

You keep avoiding answering the question. What are you so afraid of

You still keep making the leap of gun control = less freedom, yet you still have yet to demonstrate how anyone is less free because of periodic safety/competency testing for firearms when we already accept these sorts of requirements for other freedoms and rights.

We already accept that you have to have a permit to buy a weapon and there are minimum age restrictions to purchasing a weapon. Is this less freedom too? I have asked you to explain this but you appear to be unwilling.

That's some interesting math you have there. You keep using the words Freedom and rights interchangeably and I'm not sure that you can. Even if I were to accept that, Making the leap from "freedom goes hand and hand with responsibility" to making them equal to each other, thus lowering one lowers the other doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny. Just because you can demonstrate a relationship between freedom and responsibility doesn't make them equal. That is some pretty big false equivalencies there.

Equating registration to merely existing?...yeah...you're going to have to show your work on the math there too.

Gun control is actually a requirement to owning a gun currently. As I already said. We already accept SOME gun control in the form of permits and age restrictions so that seems to destroy that argument too.

And again, you're making the same gun control = less freedom claim without actually backing it up and ignoring that we already accept certain requirements for other freedoms and rights and you have yet to demonstrate why firearms are exempt from this precedent.

Once again, this notion more rules = less freedom is rather fallacious. If that were the case, we should be living in an anarchy. Sorry, but that's kindof the basic price you pay for living in a civilized nation. We all agree not to kill each other or take each other's stuff We all agree to pay taxes so that we can have infrastructure and other services. Just because some people ignore those rules doesn't mean we throw out the rulebook. You can wrap your ideas in the flag of freedom all you want, but by living in ANY nation, you do accept certain rules and consequences in order to enjoy the perks. So in the end, it just really boils down to the argument that freedom is an abstract, not an absolute and you're using it to evoke emotion in a manipulative fashion.

If you're just going to make the same claims over and over without backing them up and dodging my questions, then I think it's safe to say this conversation is at an end.

Hi.
I didn't actually think your "snuff" video was out of place, but I wanted to ask: you're not actually banned, are you? I only saw the comment, and ... you know what I mean.
I once had a coworker paste a video around the (3000+ person) company mailing list that was a video of a grainy black-blotch (guy) being mowed down by what was said to be the mini-gun of an Apache helicopter in the gulf war. Granted that the coworkers commentary was celebratory and offensive, but even that nearly-abstract video insulted me more than what you posted, and your tone clearly had no such intent.
I hope you stick around. Please don't take offense, and I'll be writing to those who flagged you later to hopefully calm them the fuck down too. This is the best community I've been a part of online in more than a decade, and I am sad to lose anyone who's a contributor.
I didn't think the video was snuff, and I don't think the majority of the community would think so either.

My understanding is that he's a bit off on at least some of his biology. When it comes to the ear, I believe he's referring to otoacoustic emissions.. However, if you note from the abstract I linked, it doesn't quite work that way. Yes, homosexual or bisexual females tend to have patterns of otoacoustic emissions with more masculine characteristics, however the same is not true for homosexual or bisexual males. While the results are insignificant, I'm told that the trend is in the opposite direction (that is, homosexual males have slightly "hyper masculinized" cochlea). These changes are often sloppily attributed to "genetic" differences. However, many theories suggest that it may have something to do with testosterone exposure in utero or during early development (though genetic mechanisms are possible in many circumstances).

With regard to the voice box, I dunno. I stick to sensory systems.