You just buy milk. You will still get more nutrition than people in poor countries. It is a futile exercise.
97 posts • joined 12 Jul 2007
What a running joke
According to said research coffee in any form didn't exist for thousands upon thousands of years during all past climatic changes. It must have only come into existence a few hundred years ago, a bit like creationist belief, just suddenly appearing in all it's caffeinated glory for Hipsters to consume today.
Shooting cosmetics under natural light is an even more complicated experience.
The reason they are shot in studio is to get the hue of the make up in the photo to closely resemble the colour of the actual product. This is especially so when there are multiple colour choices of the same product. It's just colour matching, and it saves production time getting it right on set. The only thing they then have to fix in Photoshop is all the subsurface scattering and cracks that appear when make up is shot under those lights.
Colour matching in natural light is a much harder job to do. First you have to make sure lighting conditions are fine, that they don't change during the shoot, that the weather is clear, that there is sufficient sunlight, etc. Not an easy job already, especially in England. You would also have to shoot ridiculously fast as conditions are always changing, the sun is moving, shadows are falling differently all the time, and then you will find it difficult shooting a model on her back outdoors. Most make up shoots are shot from above with the model laying down, if you've ever noticed the way they like to fan out the model's hair.
I didn't say the 'image' became patchy. I said the shooting make up under studio lighting conditions is very difficult and requires retouching afterwards. I can demonstrate more than 5000 images I've retouched over the years for all the top names. It's an unavoidable consequence of shooting in a studio.
As for the image of Weisz, I consider the retoucher to be quite poor anyway because the image looks retouched (a good retoucher's work looks natural or at least attractive). Companies don't always strike gold when it comes to hiring the right talent.
Be educated, commenters
If you've never shot fashion or in a studio, then please refrain from hysteria dear commenters. Let a pro tell you the score.
The lights used for shooting in a studio are extremely bright. When the flash goes off the combined light penetrates the layers of make up on a model's face. This results in a patchy and rough look that does not represent the results the make up would give in normal lighting conditions.
Thus the purpose of retouching is not just to enhance the image but also to bring back the 'look' the make up is supposed to give. If you argue, oh why not use a better lighting set up? The answer is you can't if you want the whole model or scene evenly lit.
"These drugs are basically testosterone inhibitors. They are therefore good at stopping things that testosterone causes such as male pattern baldness and prostate enlargement. Testosterone is also responsible for things like libido which you might want to keep."
The drugs are not testosterone inhibitors. They block the action of "dihydrotestosterone" (DHT) at the hair follicle in genetically susceptible men. Big difference.
"The side effects of finasteride can't possibly have been unknown for all this time; hell, anyone with 5 minutes and an internet connection could work this out for themselves."
I took Propecia and the stronger Avodart for almost 4 years and never had a problem with them, except looking back I was wasting my time and money with them. Side effects of a sexual nature really boil down to a individual's genetic response. Regardless, hair transplantation is the best long term option. But baldness has been proven for hundreds of years to be stylish if done right.
Bodybuilders have known for years that pharmaceuticals should be taken in combination with others to offset side effects. That's why despite media hysteria over steroids (or anything manmade), every Mr Olympia since inception are still alive and they're healthy, happy family men.
In the case of pharmaceutical hair loss treatments like Propecia or Avodart, it would be advantageous to take a male fertility drug such as HCG or Clomid to maintain the sexual functions. The combination would raise sex hormone levels without the need for exogenous testosterone. I would also recommend adding an anti-aromatase (Tamoxifen, Femara or Arimadex - although the Clomid mentioned also works) to the stack to prevent excess testosterone converting to estrogen.
beliefs and facts
Dilmun is in fact Bahrain. In ancient times the Babylonians and Indians believed it to be a major gateway to a pleasant afterlife owing to the sweet freshwater surrounding the island. That's why we find over 200,000 tombs on the island of foreign origin.
As for the Garden of Eden, cmon, are we talking history or fiction? This is strictly a Bible story that relates to very wide region from Euphrates to the Ganges according to Josephus.
count me out
I won't buy anything with an eco rating. It's bad enough I'm forced to put up with CO2 footprint numbers on a milk bottle. Keep giving these people the power to do it and they'll stick a rating on you and make you live on rations in order to keep the poor poor and the rich in perpetual power.
"The planet may be continuing to produce oil, it may not, but what happens if the rate it's being used is greater than the rate it's being produced? Answer: It runs out"
Pointless question and answer as nobody knows at what rate or in what quantities Gaia produces oil for us. But if you want to get close to an answer, take all the living organisms that died today, calculate the total amount of mass which would sink through the layers of Earth to form oil, multiply it by 365 for the days of the year, then multiply it by the number of years ever since organic life first appeared on the planet, then subtract the amount of oil used by humanity, then realise that ther rate of oil production should be increasing over time as we have more living and dying species today (in total numbers, not in diversity) than ever before due to industrialisation, domestication and farming.
I await a scientific answer without activist diatribe and vitriol.
"I by no means agree with the greens on carbon, but I wonder if I'm even the same species as people like you. You use the word need in such a bizarre way it puzzles me. Why on earth does anybody "NEED to carry an mp3 player" or whatever. Nobody NEEDS an mp3 player. You don't NEED any of those things, you just want them."
You are correct, there's no chance we could be the same species. Your specie is clearly blind as I had written, "you MIGHT also need to carry an mp3 player, video player, newspaper, laptop, photos in your wallet, etc"
And some people do NEED these things. Ask a few musicians or fans who feel their lives are enhanced by the presence of music. Clearly you feel they don't NEED these things and should shut up and pray five times a day or something equally useless, backwards and green.
So my tip. Next time you want to spit at someone try not to aim to high. It only lands back in your face and we see what kind of person you are.
Fixing more trollop
"I enjoy my internet access and a warm comfortable home but I don't believe in any way that they are rights."
If they weren't a right we could demand then you're saying it is OK to take them away from people.
"Were humans miserable before the industrial revolution?"
Yes, they were pretty ill, died easily and they committed genocide quite often for very minor things that today are in abundance and available to many.
"Why is it necessary for a TV or phone to be outdated only 6 months after you bought it?"
If you want to use a Nokia 3310 you can still do so. Just don't cry about how you might also need to carry an mp3 player, video player, newspaper, laptop, photos in your wallet, etc
The more powerful a device becomes the less you need to carry around, and that is not only efficiency at work but also good for the environment.
"Even if oil were an unlimited resource it is still a dirty one."
Dirty only if not processed to the best standards, which we have not achieved yet in the meager time we have used oil for fuel.
And technically speaking oil is unlimited as the planet continues to produce it under our feet all the time. We can't live without it as nearly all products are developed using petro-chemicals.
"Why do I still breathe petrol fumes whenever I walk down the road?"
The so-called harmful chemicals in petrol fumes are measured in the billionths parts of air and in real world terms would only harm your health if you were extremely weak or stuck your mouth on an exhaust pipe. Some are beneficial - CO2 feeds plants and Nitric Oxide is a vasodilator which improves your blood circulation. It is used by athletes in higher amounts to improves sports performance.
"It is not some sort of written rule that humans are greedy, they simply choose to be greedy. Equally they can choose not to be greedy"
If you have no self-interest then you're not interested in survival, by your own hard work at least. A person who gives up on their self-interest is a person who has given up their rights, even their life, to the authority of either a make-believe being, a megalomaniac political ideology, or the state.
It was only a few generations ago that naysayers complained about a lack of resources and knew nothing about oil or nuclear. In the future when we're getting energy out of wormholes or fusion or smashing particles together or even from other dimension, our successors will be laughing at us....if they aren't in a green hell that has forced them to live without being able to think or invent anymore.
What they did not reveal
To generate the wealth needed to feed its progressive citizens, Britons would be paid carbon credits along with their wages with the credits being stored on an identity card which would double as a carbon rations card. Each citizen would be alloted a fixed number of carbon credits monthly which would be reduced every time a purchase is made (or any form of consumption occurs including travel, eating, etc). No form of consumption will be possible without using the ration card.
Once a person runs out of carbon credits they will be required to either work more to earn more or purchase them. To put it simply, the more productive you are and the more you share what little wealth you have with the rest of society, the more you will be punished and have to pay for it.
That's what the report didn't want to say. But there's more. Without much of an economy to pay its citizens wages in the first place, where will income come from? To this end, every nation will be required to take part in carbon trading. Nations which do not take part will have sanctions and penalties imposed on them.
As a result of carbon trading, Britain's low carbon and low production economy will be selling credits to the tune of billions of pounds worth to emerging economies who will need to purchase credits if they want their economies to grow. Britain and other powerful nations would thus be stealing from the poorer off who want a chance to grow, but can only do so with the use of cheap carbon intensive methods.
This revenue stream will effectively pay for a vast welfare system in Britain turning our once productive people into lay-abouts living on bare minimum incomes. To the Greens, Neo-Marxists and their new alliances with Islamist clerics and activists (see the Respect Part for more) this would mean shunning consumerism and returning to a simpler life involving local farming, cleaning streets, animal care, praying, and generally following a shariah-like religious system introduced slowly and subtly via the backdoor.
Once that happens, everything else falls into place quickly in just a couple of generations to turn a democracy into a theocracy.
Elitism and imperialism today
This is what happens when couch potato do-gooders in the West stick their noses where they don't belong. People lose jobs and die. But who cares, right? They're just Asians.
Imagine where Britain would be if we were told in the 19th century that we could not have workhouses or factories with any form of cheap labour. Britons would have been poorer off and cutting each other's throats.
"Funny thing about chronic toxicity and exposure to carcinogens... just because you don't drop down dead on the spot, doesn't mean that the chemicals were harmless or that you were unaffected."
NO ONE was affected or has been to date. NO ONE was affected when DDT was used to eliminate malaria in the US and Russia decades ago either. The amount of DDT required to cause human harm is much higher than needed to beat airborne vectors.
Learn something about toxicity levels and how long they have to be maintained for before talking eco-crap.
DDT in India
DDT may be officially banned but India uses it anyway and has seen a large reduction in malaria and dengue in recent years. I lived in Mumbai for two years and they would spray the entire apartment block with so much DDT that you could not see your hand in front of your face. I inhaled it on all occasions as did all neighbours and there were no bad health effects.
Here's comes the tidal wave of disinformers of the yet again failed Left whose Big Brother policies have yet again been rejected by a nation.
1. They say that the majority voted against the Conservatives. Well, there we see how they fail to understand the democratic vote and how it is supposed to protect society from the rule of the mob.
2. They say Thatcher's "Laissez Faire" policies wrought destruction. I think not. Successive failed post-war Labour governments and our debts from the days of empire and the war is what caused Britain trouble. We have never had a "laissez faire" economy either. You have to be delusional and living in a basement for a very long time to think so. If only we had one.
Exactly as predicted
Though my previous post has not turned up, it went something like this "The media and Met Office are still doing the dirty work of the anti-flight arm of the green lobby. We haven’t seen a sign of this ash cloud over us. We’ve had three days of absolutely clear, blue, cloudless skies over northern Europe and no sign of any ash or dust. Yet the hysteria over something that could not effect airplanes continues and behind it all are the same organisations as ever."
Now we have this:
I figured out how bad the flawed science was myself using a bit of logic. How come the Met Office and the media with their millions of pounds can't figure it out.
Test flights show no problems...the threat has been exaggerated by the Met Office, computer models, regulators and the media
Another anti-scientific hysteria
So we've got sunny, clear, cloudless skies and not a trace of this magically dangerous ash cloud anywhere to be seen and yet we've caused billions of pounds worth of damage to the economies relying on flights to and from London, including our own bankrupt economy!
The state of science and the media these days is so bad it wants and sometimes causes everything to get shut down over baseless fears.
Everything that could be hypothesised here about ash turning to glass inside turbines is nonsense. There simply isn't enough ash up there, the amount if not dense enough, it's not at the right altitude for most flights, and flights would only be affected for a fraction of their journey time. And I mean a very small fraction!
The state of British politics
It's not a coincidence that our current prime minister is unelected and we've seen a contemporary rise in neo-Marxist centralised power, government bloat and waste, and high taxes all at the same time.
What Brits have to ask is just how did they allow themselves on to this dangerous path. When they ask that then they'll understand that their politeness, tolerance, political correctness and apathy is more harmful to their freedom and prosperity than anything else.
At least behind a paywall all the commenter trolls with their weird conspiracy theories about the extreme evil of Murdoch (basically anti-Semitism aimed at an Aussie Scot because they think he has a Jewy sounding name) and all their global warming hysteria crap can be left on the Guardian's site.
Yet again the EU wants us to stop producing energy and become even more dependent on countries like Russia and OPEC for their gas and oil while frittering away billions for windmills made in China. How much evidence do we need to prove that they simply want Britain to become a beggar state so that the world can finally do away with our stupid ideas like the abolition of slavery, democracy, liberty, etc
Without all these conditions and human rights that we demand, authoritarianism around the world would be so much better off and there would be world peace, right?
And who the hell is Herman van Rompuy??
Still looks like an ugly cousin of Windows 95. If the Linux crowd want to be taken seriously they need interface designers who see where interfaces are heading and get there before MS or Apple. And then they need a great SDK and profit incentive for developers. Otherwise this is a waste of time and Linux should stick to servers.
Michael Mann's tree ring derived hockey stick with hidden decline only goes back 1000 years and ignores such things as the Roman Warm Period (deleted from Wikipedia), the Holocene Climate Optimum or anything earlier as mentioned by this article. Therefore this new world religion we are being made to believe in cannot accept the possibility of a planet older than a thousand years. Heathens all who believe otherwise! Hail to the modern Cyruses of the EU and UN! Death to Spartaaaaaa!
British politics at its finest elitist shit. Been that way since the days of the slave trade and forcing Indians to buy clothes made in Liverpool. Now they want to tell the poorest people to stay poor and live on carbon credits and welfare handouts while the wealthiest get to keep all the energy resources for themselves in the name of saving the effing planet. It's called elitism and imperialism. It has nothing to do with a trace gas.
All scenarios considered
I used to believe in all this overpopulation and global warming malarky when I was a young attention craving lefty who wanted to impress girls and myself with how much I cared.
It's embarrassing to look back upon such moral posturing. It's like I was a politician or religious nut.
The truth is everything is getting better because humans are hard wired for forward movement, even when they believe in such fanciful nonsense and hysterics. There's no problem that our natural desire and progress isn't solving anyway. It's just that activists always see what's happening anyway, jump on it, and then claim they were the ones who solved the problems!
Native "Palestinians" don't exist. The Romans called the Jews "Palestinians" to insult them as the real "Palestinians" were a bunch of unruly pirates from somewhere near Greece who frequently raided Judea.
If you really want to talk about natives of that little strip of land then it should be native Judeans...or Jews as we say in English.
Global warming my arse. They've reduced the number of temperature monitoring stations by two thirds in the last 20 years and have homogenised the data between them to such low resolutions that the models are reporting warming where there isn't any. To make it worse the quality of data recorded at the surviving temperature monitoring stations is poorly contaminated by urban side effects.
They should end this hysterical nonsense and put proper context to the issue of energy security. If they are desperately manipulating data to pass regulation on carbon emissions then let there be a carbon trade between the very richest and the very poorest. Let the very wealthiest buy carbon credits from the very poorest so that everyone else in between no longer has to subsidise the welfare system.