Ten oz

FFS, now Trump's lawyer is arguing that collusion with Russia isn't even a crime.

I do not think you are wrong in saying that our conscious mind does not directly interpolate the light which enters our eyes. Our eyes have rods and each are responsive to different light and send signals to our visual cortex. Those signals are not the light itself but rather electrical pulses. The visual cortex syncs the signals with their corresponding colors as it (visual cortex) understands them to be. That composite/estimation is what our conscious mind then receives. Much is left out. The human eye doesn't send a signal to the visual cortex for all light received. For example ultraviolet light enters our eyes but we do not have rods responsive to it so ultraviolet is invisible to us. I think comparing how it works to channels of video confuses the matter. Video is a series of still imagines sped up to create the appearance of movement and is 2 dimensional. I think what you are trying to communicate is that our sight is a continuous wave combining 2 independent data sources, our right & left eyes. Having 2 eyes provides us with depth perception and helps us track movement. Geometry plays a big role in our 3 dimensional vision and having 2 eyes, 2 reference points, is plays a role. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3277856/ What our conscious mind believes it is seeing at any given moment is imperfect. There is a lot we miss. That is partly why we walk into furniture, guess colors wrong in dim light, struggle to track insects flying near us, and so on. What we consciously think we are seeing is an approximation made up of what lights waves our eyes are able to send corresponding signals for and our visual cortex can apply geometry to and communicate to our conscious within any given moment.

I believe you are saying part of the mind, which you are calling the subconscious, is receiving data from our eyes forming a narrative or approximation of reality for or consciousness to follow yet our consciousnesses itself never actually has access to the original data and in just project it own understand of it? Assuming that is what you are saying what about it are you interested in discussing?

The competing answers I am most familiar with are god, simulation theory, panspermia, and chemical reaction. With god and simulation theory there is some being(s) in the Universe who created our world and to some degree is observing and or interacting with us. However the origin and reason for them remain unknown. Panspermia states that life of Earth was seeded by extraterrestrial micro organisms that travel to Earth via meteoroids, asteroids, comets, and etc. The origin of the microbes isn't addressed. If we are here as the result of a chemical reaction which occurred without conscious influencing than why (purpose) falls away to how (means). Is "why are we here" really the question that bothers you and not "why am I here"?

I read the OP. I already quoted the OP and responded to it directly.

It isn't off topic to reference a middle ground between the status quo and veganism. The problem your having is that you misunderstood my position and haven't taken the time to consider the information thoroughly. When you previously posted that you remember the Vegetarian thread I started I should have pointed out to you then that you hadn't participated in it. I think you remembered some other unrelated discussion and it muddled context. Veganism outright isn't something I advocate. That said something has to give because our current diet is unsustainable. Human diets have changed a lot over the millennia. Change is a constant. It may not be Veganism next but a shift in diets will need to happen for the majority of humans on earth less billions are just to be left without. Likewise fossil fuels are unsustainable. One can criticize any individual alternative to fossil but it doesn't change the fact that eventually fossil fuels will be gone and alternatives will be what human use.

"Veganism, no" are the first 2 words I posted in this thread. I am not arguing that everyone should turn to veganism. Rather I am pointing out that humans currently eat far too much meat and it is not sustainable indefinitely or the best use of our resources. Our diets need to change in my opinion. This is inaccurate. I could link you examples of people using hydroponics to cheaply go large amounts of food by you don't read links. So feel free to google it yourself. Is there nothing between "fluff piece" and "word of god"?

I assume you are concerned with UV lamps and the electricity? One can grow via hydroponics outside. UV lights are not a requirement for hydroponics. There are places already using rooftop hydroponic tank to produce food. I have not linked any media created punditry in the discussion. I have only linked research papers with cited sources. What I linked is a 28 page source analyse of the environmental and economic impact. You didn't read it. You are under no obligation to read it but don't be dishonest and call it a "fluff piece" in an attempt to pretend you have read it. You didn't even review your own links.

I haven't deleted any posts. Feel free to quote where in this discussion I said that. The Conversation piece says that any diet could be environmentally friendly if produced in an environmentally friendly manner. Then lists various ways plant based diets aren't environmentally friendly as they could be. That isn't to say meat currently is, doesn't address the cost of making meat more sustainable, and doesn't discuss ways plant based diets could be made more sustainable. For example hydropnics can remove the air shipping and waste the article highlights. The CNN article is the same article, the Conversation's piece. Even lists it as its source. For this reason I wonder if you yourself bothered to read these or if this post is just gish gallop? There is no advantage to double linking the same article. I consider it rude for posters to just copy and paste a bunch of links to waste peoples time with. The links I have provided you contain specific information I have noted and addressed. The Independent article is just punditry which criticizes individual regional agricultural process. The Quartz article basically agrees with my position from the vegetarian thread I linked previously. It clearly states people should eat far less meat than we do and meat requires more land to produce. So again I am left wondering if you actually read it. You either did not read it or you significantly misunderstand my position. Your link:

This is a strawman. I never said the future would lead to fewer extremes.

The thread is referencing the future. What goes on in Siberia today doesn't speak to future needs globally. Food and the resources required to produce are global commodities. 1 in 3 people globally suffer from malnutrition. Things do need to change. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/one-in-three-people-worldwide-suffer-from-malnutrition Meat is less sustainable there are any number of studies out there. The Carbon foot print is greater, it is more expensive, and is less able to feed the worlds population long term. The study I linked outlines the environmental impact, health implications, govt subsidies, and ethics while drawing direct comparisons to alternatives.

This issue has been and is being studied. Correlation doesn't mean causation. Yes there are many vegetarians in India and there are also many anemic women in India. That doesn't automatically mean that vegetarianism is the reason or that non vegetarianism would be preferable. From the studies I have read the issue is one of access and education. Different people in India, both vegetarian and non vegetarian, have varying levels of health. The below link study details vitamin, protein, carbohydrate, and etc levels of people from across India. It is far lengthier than the portion near the conclusion I quoted so please at least scan through it. The second link reflects what the govt in India is looking at regarding the issue of anemia. India has 300 million people living below the global poverty limit and the median national income is 460 pounds or just over 600 U.S.dollars. India has many challenges in healthcare, education, infrastructure, worker conditions, public safety, and etc that impact the health of their citizens which are not directly relevant to this dietary discussion. Any insistence that being non vegetarian vs vegetarian in itself in India would resolve any specific issue is an over statement and not supported by any data I have seen.

Right, but at least a quarter of the non vegetarians are potentially anaemic too. So again, poverty is what I would argue is the bigger factor. Your stat doesn't speak to vegatarianiam directly. You cannot quantify the impact of vegetarianism on the number who are anaemic.

Do you have stats on the 500 million that are anemic as apposed to the 800 million who are not? I would argue that poverty and not vegertarian is the bigger factor.

We are talking about the future and not present day. Who is to say there will be a U.S. or India. You are claiming that it is more expensive to eat plant based foods than meat yet the chart I provided clearly shows that the more affluent the nation the more meat the eats and not vice versa. It is poor people who can't afford meat. People in the U.S. eat 30 times the amount of meat as people in India. Also people in the U.S. people eat 2 1/2 times more meat than they eat in Japan. Are Japanese people malnourished? People in Japan have a have a average life expectancy several years greater than people in the U.S. Your dismal of India doesn't address the issue that as the world's population continues to grow our dietary needs cannot be met (everyone on the planet) with our current habits. That is besides the point. I am not implying we should all eat a diet similar to what they eat in India. Rather Moontanman was claiming it was too expensive to eat a plant based diet.

There are 500 million vegetarians in India. The median income in India is 620 U.S. dollars. The cost of produce is relative to where one lives. Currently the worlds food industries are totally focused on profit and not sustainability. Humans grow what crops make them the most money. Throughout South America and Africa much of the nutrient rich soil is used for coffee rather than food crops for example. However growing methods like hydroponics enable people to grow virtually anywhere. As for meat in the U.S. and Australia the average person eat nearly 200 pounds of meat per year. In Canada and Europe its about 150 pounds per year. The total population of U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia is about equal to that of Africa (1.2 billion) and with the exception of South Africa (50 million) all nations are eating under 50 pounds of meet a year. India has even a greater population still (1.3 billion) and eats less that 10 pounds of meat per person per year. If everyone ate the way we do in U.S. Canada there simple wouldn't be enough to go around.

Veganism, no. I started a thread a few years back outlining reasons I thought people will be vegetarians in the future. It takes far more energy, land, water (resources) to produce the same amount of calories from meat as it does from other forms of agriculture. As the population grows and if we are ever to achieve an equitable global standard of living our diets will have to change. Diets heavy in meats are simply not sustainable. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83542-a-vegetarian-future/ I suspect that bugs and shell fish were humans first regular source of b12, iron, protein, etc. Humans do not have the teeth or digestive systems to process raw animal meat for the most part. Fire was discovered between 300 & 400 thousand years ago so prior to that and probably for a long time after the diets of human related species probably include lots of insects and shoreline seafood.

Money value does decrease overtime, inflation. A single U.S. dollar in 1960 would be worth over $8 today. This link calculates inflation by year. http://www.in2013dollars.com/1960-dollars-in-2016?amount=1

Perhaps. The OP asks for ways it could be useful. I may have misread "useful". I am looking at it comparatively.

True, but if we are talking micro watts one could use a thermocouple and spare themselves to trouble of climbing a tall cliff. Also tall cliffs aren't anymore widely available than is sunlight and wind. Solar panels and wind turbines produce far more power. If we are talking versatility in all climates and locations a simple hand crank generator would also be far superior. There are many alternatives which either produce more power or are easier to construct and maintain.

Volts x Amps = Watts As the video points out micro-amps are being produced. That means you'd need 10 million volts just to generate a single watt. For perspective the average retail drone motor operates on around 30 watts. The average drone has 4 motors. There simple isn't enough power being produced to be worthwhile.

I have ran the numbers, crunched the data, thought about from outside the box, thought about from inside the box, jogged passed my peers, and it turns out that beneath a woman's appearance is an actual human with full cognitive abilities able to make choices independent of what men think of their looks. Hot, beautiful, athletic, feminine, voluptuous, trendy, nerdy, average, or whatever relative description for a woman's appearance one can come up with is not determinate of whether any individual woman is interested in any specific other person or the duration they may or may not be interested for. A better thread might ask why men are so preoccupied with female appearance. From slut shaming women confident enough to wearing certain clothes to forcing women to cover their faces in public men all around the world seem to have an obsession with female appearance.

The drone being used to hold up the wire is using far more power than is being generated.The remote control for the drone is as well. There is no actually net gain shown in the video. More power is being used than generated. The concept itself potentially could generate power if the wire could be held up without using more power than it generated. Even then however the amount generated is so small there would simply be better alternatives.

I was recently regarding about diets and came across some information which related to this thread. Lighter skin developed much more recently than previously assumed. The theory that lighter skin developed due to lower UV levels in northern latitudes is being reconsidered. Humans lived in Europe for ten of thousands of years prior to the emergence of lighter skin. Dietary changes and not UV levels may have been the cause. Also it appears that the lighting in skin between European and Asians are driven by different genes and developed at different periods independently from each other for different reasons. It is a bit of a read but the NCBI overview linked below explains it in greater detail. So it is is true that diet and not UV levels is the driver of lighter pigmentation than assumptions in the OP about "natural environments" are inaccurate. As has been predominately the case throughout human history people would go to where ever the food is and not where ever they is the most sun light and adapt accordingly.

Trump has continuously claimed that he believes the Intelligence Communities findings on Russian meddling while also undermining the Intelligence Communities findings. Like Trump Putin says different things at times. The facts that you don't understand why he would say what he plainly said doesn't change the fact that he said it. Also it isn't normal that both the White House and Kremlin atlered it in the official transcript. If I am looking at the question and answer word for word with nothing added or removed and you are saying that you don't understand the reason why Putin responded as he did and therefore he must have meant something else, Which of us are reading into it? I am not speculating on Putin's motivates. I am commenting on what I saw and heard, what we all saw and heard.