geordief

That is what I was wondering and asking. I first(well only then and now also on the link I posted) heard it claimed on CNN in some kind of a health foods section and it seemed plausible as you could get the (extremely nice)taste without the need for roasting and browning.. But I am not clear how much of a problem there is in the first place . If one does a lot of barbecuing then the smoke could well be an issue but dietary intake is different.

That is so passe.As if history repeats itself.

https://www.tariqhalalmeats.com/blog/post/the-health-benefits-of-marinating-meat"When we grill meat or cook it at high temperatures, it can lead to the formation of heterocyclic amines (HCAs). These substances increase the risk of cancer in those that consume them. However, if you marinate your meat, cancer risk can be decreased by as much as 95% because it creates a barrier to high-temperature cooking. The shortest amount of time you can marinate meat to reduce the formation of these HCAs is as little as 20 minutes. This is not the only reason why you should marinate your meat. By marinating meat you can achieve not only health benefits but many more - which includes more tender, j I just came upon this article/blog on the health benefits of marinating meat(seems like there may be practical advice on marinading in there as well) Are there good scientific reasons or research as to whether that could be the case?

How did you know it had died?You are right .The domain is for sale. (224 Dollars or whatever currency they are displaying on Godaddy) Without the archive I can't see any point in buying it (Skinwalker ,the owner of thescienceforum.org once said he was keeping an eye on the domain -about 4 or 5 years ago)

lateral?

Well you didn't answer my question.The rockets were likely (as I posted above) a distraction ,part of the overall attack. But could Trump have given away vital information that allowed that part of the plan to be successful? Or was it a blindingly obvious ploy (as I also wondered) after seeing how the Ukraine war was going ,esp regarding air defences?

As per the story ""As president, I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled WH meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety," Trump wrote. "Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against Isis and terrorism." It appears to me that Trump acted off his own bat without consideration of what the CIA or others were likely to advise him .That would be in character . I wonder what information he may have had access to that might have ended up with Hamas which got around the Iron Dome?

Who was finally responsible for the setting up of the State of Israel?Was it confirmed by the UN at the time?Were there any dissenting votes?

I assumed it was just putting two and two together since the Air Defences' weaknesses came to the fore in the Ukraine war. Did Hamas do anything other than overload the defences with too many missiles at the same time? I assume they (or Iran ) built up a stockpile of those missiles over the years and fired them all at the same time to overcome the Iron Dome. How vulnerable is the actual Iron Dome itself?Ukraine has taken out an air defence system in Crimea and the Naval fleet seems to have now been relocated from there. I think Netanjahu's head may roll when the intelligence failures become clear since it was not just the missiles (were they to distract attention in part?)

That is a strawman and is not why the aircraft carrier is being moved there ,as you must know. "Funny" would not be the first word I would start a thread with on this godawful subject.

Not a bit funny. Israel has just as much a cause (the right to exist) as Hamas and is very unlikely to bend the knee. Ironic that Hamas may have helped Netanjahu's cause for now (we will see)

Haven't see that.We lived by the sea (on an island actually) and our teacher who asked for poetry reciting volunteers at the end of the school day was shot down over Germany during the war.(came back after as a POW)

I used to get home regularly 15 minutes early in primary school by volunteering to recite Flannan Isle for the class and later ,in secondary avoided Assembly entirely (doing homework instead) by virtue of a different religion to the standard C of E. Still hate queues ,though. We used to grow fungus in our empty desks by means of rotting sandwiches et al.

I never heard "tickle" used like that.It sounds different from "tinkling"-more artistic. "Tinkling" sounds a bit deprecating whereas "tickling" brings to mind trout tickling which seems a bit arcane. https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,896457,00.html

Ivories sounds like a bit of a euphemism. Maybe there is hope for us all in the afterlife. (unless you meant to say "tinkles?" )

A very uneducated guess is that you can run two stills of the scene (one immediately following another) like when they first invented the movies and you could see a lady undressing or a horse galloping(so I have heard) . It should show "movement" on the small scale.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66964430 "This year's Nobel Prize in Physics rewards experiments with light that capture "the shortest of moments" and opened a window on the world of electrons." Seems like a very big deal.They seem to be saying that practical or theoretical consequences may be in the pipeline. Does anyone here have an understanding on the ongoing research into this field?

Is there a reason for the proportion of one form to the other that has been observed? Is that promotion expected to be the same everywhere in the observable universe? Edit:a quick Google search brings up this Wikipedia page which seems to go into the question https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

This gets boring.Einstein (et al) was right. So was it just 50/50 which form of matter won out at the beginning? Or is matter more than just the mirror image of anti matter?

How can one distinguish between an internal process and an external process? If I had an artificial bladder installed would that still be internal? Btw does the number of senses we can have depend on the number of distinct sensory apparatuses we have or on the characteristics of the possible sensory links that can exist between the brain and its environment? (Eg infra red vision )

Yes ,they did a few times (and I stopped disposing of it there when I saw it happening) They are used to being given buckets of garden /kitchen waste and so followed me when they see me or the bucket. They are also partial to the dried,unburned peat(as is the dog) which is no harm.

We don't know,do we? I am guessing that,in the womb our tactile sensations might have been far more heightened than afterwards. Might unsighted infants be able to "visualize" their surroundings merely from movement,hearing and tactile sensations? If so ,they would carry that through their lives even only as an atrophied capability that might still retain something I wonder if "everblind" people can have vivid dreams.If the optical nerve is completely dead ,does the brain still have an ability to "think visually"....a bit like how we get "phantom pain" from missing limbs (I think that is fairly well established)

They must be able to imagine simple scenes or they wouldn't be able to navigate around the room. You could call fast movements red and slow movements blue. Actually touch and vision are similar in that they are both em related. You could call a sharp contact blue and a caress red. Markus knows all about synaesthesia (as do we all to a degree I believe) "Red" is just a relative term and it could be relative to anything (disregarding practicalities)

That was what I wa That was what I was worried about.That poor toad may have had a bad skin burn all over its body unless it stood in the rain or got into water quickly. I didn't have time to think and give it a wash before throwing it out onto the lawn. And the donkeys eat the ash straight from the bucket if I throw it into the field (which I no longer do)

"Seeing" is like "understanding" or "learning" I think we only experience anything by reference to something else. There are no pure experiences ,just relationships between experiences. If someone is blind from birth and ,in our eyes has no understanding of what we experience when we see something we call "red" it is a sufficient to paint (no pun intended) a scene for them ,any scene will do. Then we tell them (say it is the scene of a shipwreck at sea.) "The boat is red" And ,with the scene in their mind they will associate that boat with "redness" That is their "red" from now on (so long as they remain blind and perhaps even if they later gain the faculty of vision)