DrmDoc

Today I learned why Americans refrigerate eggs and Europeans don't. To combat salmonella, American egg producers wash their eggs in a solution that removes a protective "cuticle" coating. The loss of that coating renders those eggs vulnerable to additional contaminants that refrigeration prevents. Europeans prefer to vaccinate their chickens against salmonella rather than remove their eggs protective coating; therefore, refrigeration isn't required.

Please, post links to your sources for those of us who have further interest. Thanks.

What a fascinating article! It certainly adds to their reputation as wolves of the sea.

Interesting. For those of us who might want to pursuit further insight on this subject, post a link to your source.

As I understand the article, which I'm still digesting, geometric dimensions refer to the shape formed by the various connections within "cliques" or groups of neurons. The linked article I've provided contains examples for some of those shapes referenced.

According to this article in the journal Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, ​researchers have discovered that our brain forms "cliques" of neuron into as many as 11 geometric dimensions. Although I'm still digesting this discovery and it's implication, I've provided this post and link as it does indeed appear to be on the frontier of neuroscience. Enjoy!

You're quite right and, perhaps, that was the way our Founders intended.

Indeed, the words are there and they do specifically provide the reason for those other words you appear to hold most sacred. It was not my intent to enter into a debate that would change your mindset because, as I understood from the outset, you were dead set against any form of reasoning if it meant you'd have to give an inch of deference fearing I might demand a mile. As for the Supreme Court, your comment acknowledges the historically political nature of their rulings that, increasingly, have very little to do with the true spirit of the Constitution and our nation, IMO. However, admittedly, I can't denied that people like James Hodgkinson would not have been able to take action with armed resistance against his perception of "a government gone sour" this past week without the favor of past Supreme Court rulings.

You crafted that wording into a broad statement when you excluded or omitted that bit about "A well regulated Militia." ​It's right there for all to see no matter if one choses to ignore it. Definitively, the amendment was not broadly worded.

Although I understand your point, the inverse could be suggested in that if the right to bear arms was meant to be broadly defined, the framers of the Constitutions would have included some broad wording to that effect, which they did not. I don't think the ninth amendments applies to activities claimed as rights but not officially designated as rights by a then recognized governing body. Non-excludible rights, except by specific wording, infers rights already established by a governing body rather than by some traditionally accepted use or practice, Prior to the Constitution, there were no rights established with respect to arms possession by ordinary citizens; therefore, the ninth amendment would not apply. "...the right of the people" for the purpose of "A well regulated Militia". There's no wording for any other reason.

Obviously, you've interpreted my comment "in the way that suits your politics as opposed to the way it is written." If our Constitution provides no other reason legitimizing the right to keep and bear arms other than a well trained state militia, then my comments are indeed according to the Constitution. If you can cite other reasons specifically written into the Constitution, I invite you to post them here. Proper definition of semicolon is as follows: The punctuation mark ( ; ) is used to indicate a major division in a sentence where a more distinct separation is felt between clauses or items on a list than is indicated by a comma, as between the two clauses of a compound sentence. ​I believe my use was proper. It's impossible to know the mind of our Founders except for what is written and what is written in the Constitution likely express that mind. If there is more, it was well within their purview to amend the Constitution.

I think the distinction between our views is that you interpret this reference in our Constitution as a reason for the right; whereas, I interpret it as the only reason because it is in fact the only reason the Constitution provides. Even If we accept the militia reference as just a reason, the only inference we may take is that our Constitution's framers did not perceive there to be any other legitimate reason for the protection of that right. Therefore, those who cite the Constitution to legitimize their gun possess should adhere to the only reason for that legitimacy the Constitution provides.

If we followed the letter of the constitution, you wouldn't be allowed to own a gun unless you had standing in a state militia...but that's not our nation's reality or policies. So what would be fair and reasonable to me would be to not make adversarial assumptions about the other side for fear I might be asked to give up more than I'm willing. Just get to the table and talk, which is what I'd say to those clutching their violent and dangerous play things as though giving inch will actually makes them less safe and secure, which I believe it will not. Giving an inch doesn't amount to a denial of ownership. All of the legislative efforts I've seen have not and does not amount to such a denial. The efforts I've seen seem to suggest that gun owners can keep their guns, just keep them safely out of the hands of lunatics, babies, criminals, and those who might use them illicitly.

There are few things that our citizens love more than their guns and, unfortunately, it's very unlikely they will ever permit any changes, however defined and reasonable, to our current gun laws.

Although I was very well versed on the nature of our enteric nervous system, I wasn't as much on the contribution of microbes to that system and their potential mental health effects. Indeed, it's quite interesting.

Although bastardized by contemporary politics, our constitution only granted the right to keep and bear arms to individuals in a well trained malitia in defense and under control of our government. The framers of our constitutions wanted to assure its citizenry of the right and ability to defend our newfound nation and government against its enemies both foreign and domestic. I don't think our founding fathers intended that article as a right of the people to keep and bear arms against our own government. The intent of that article was obviously not to arm potential enemies of our government and that would have included a citizenry who might one day take up arms against it. Regardless of how we may currently interpret the constitution, it's my opinion that no one has a constitutional right to bear arms unless they are part of a militia charged with defending our nation--which excludes reasons for personal defense, personal security, hunting, and collecting.

Yeah, I think it's very well known that we are becoming a sterilized society where our lack of exposure to healthful microbes as children could adversely affect our immune system later on. I joyful played in the good ole Alabama dirt, worked in the fields, and tended a host of farm animals in my youth. Although I'm far removed from the Alabama clay and microbial exposure, I think the health benefits I derived were immense.

Perhaps; however, the video discusses the microbiome relationship between our gut and brain, which may have significant cognitive implications as observed through mice study. I invite your posts here regarding the significance of those human microbiome relationships elsewhere in the body.

Today I learned about how our microbiome could potentially influence our brain health. It seems that the microbes in our gut can influence our brain chemistry thus affecting our mood and cognition. Much of the research has involved mice, which doesn't necessarily translate to human potentials but is interesting all the same.

I've enjoyed that odd bit of British humor from the moment it first aired on PBS here in the states.

It's only an excuse if you find such behavior acceptable, which I do not. The point I was trying to make was that I think violence is inexcusable for either side regardless of their political statement or who appears to advocate it more.

There are idiots on both sides and none are "bigger idiots" than the other--especially, when individuals from either side advocate or use violence to make a political statement.

Today I learned about the various colors of urine and their potential medical implications. further, I learned about a condition called alkaptonuria, which is a disease that can render urine black when urine is exposed to air.

Today I learned about Ching Shih Yi, the most successful female pirate in maritime history. She was a brilliant strategist who managed to retire at age 35 as royalty and whose pirate ships remained undefeated by imperial fleets from China, Portugal, and Great Britain. What a remarkable lady for her era. Also, today I learned about May Annning, a 19th century fossil hunter responsible from several significant finds and how we understand fossils as evidence of extinct species of animals who lived several million years ago. She was another remarkable lady whom I'm now discovering.

Our mid-term elections can't come soon enough. In the meantime, we need to see more passion, dare I say, sustained anger from the democrats in Congress until then.