How (and why) to Ramble on your goat sideways
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 574
From: Fake Virginia
They say that breast-feeding is healthy and natural, and that a woman should be able to do it anywhere.
I agree, but would like to point out that masturbation is also healthy and natural, not that you'd know it from the reaction I got on the uptown 6 train this evening.
I agree, but would like to point out that masturbation is also healthy and natural, not that you'd know it from the reaction I got on the uptown 6 train this evening.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
5 Salads With More Calories Than A Big Mac
Eating healthy can be difficult, especially when foods that you may think are low in calories are actually full of them! Here are five “healthy” salads that surprisingly contain more calories than a McDonald’s Big Mac.
1. Chicken Caesar Big Mac Salad
While grilled chicken is an excellent protein for healthy eaters, the other elements of this salad are just plain bad for you. Add up the croutons, the creamy dressing, the two all-beef patties, and everything else, and you’re actually looking at over double the amount of calories of a Big Mac.
2. Tuna Big Mac Salad
Tuna may be rich in essential fats, but there’s absolutely nothing essential about mixing in all that mayo and special sauce. Plus, that extra slice of white toast adds just way too many carbs.
3. Kale And Quinoa And Crushed Big Mac Salad
This salad is technically the healthiest one on this list, but once you realize just how many calories you’re getting from the beef, the bun, and the quinoa, you’re looking at enough to add a few inches to your waistline.
4. Tropical Big Mac Fruit Salad
While most fruits are low in calories, bananas and mangos contain a surprisingly high amount. Factor in the natural sugars, as well as over three ounces of red meat, and you’d be shocked to learn how unhealthy this salad really is.
5. Six Big Macs With A Lettuce Leaf Salad
Believe it or not, this classic American salad is worse for you than just about anything you can pick up at McDonald’s. No wonder our obesity rates are at an all-time high.
Eating healthy can be difficult, especially when foods that you may think are low in calories are actually full of them! Here are five “healthy” salads that surprisingly contain more calories than a McDonald’s Big Mac.
1. Chicken Caesar Big Mac Salad
While grilled chicken is an excellent protein for healthy eaters, the other elements of this salad are just plain bad for you. Add up the croutons, the creamy dressing, the two all-beef patties, and everything else, and you’re actually looking at over double the amount of calories of a Big Mac.
2. Tuna Big Mac Salad
Tuna may be rich in essential fats, but there’s absolutely nothing essential about mixing in all that mayo and special sauce. Plus, that extra slice of white toast adds just way too many carbs.
3. Kale And Quinoa And Crushed Big Mac Salad
This salad is technically the healthiest one on this list, but once you realize just how many calories you’re getting from the beef, the bun, and the quinoa, you’re looking at enough to add a few inches to your waistline.
4. Tropical Big Mac Fruit Salad
While most fruits are low in calories, bananas and mangos contain a surprisingly high amount. Factor in the natural sugars, as well as over three ounces of red meat, and you’d be shocked to learn how unhealthy this salad really is.
5. Six Big Macs With A Lettuce Leaf Salad
Believe it or not, this classic American salad is worse for you than just about anything you can pick up at McDonald’s. No wonder our obesity rates are at an all-time high.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Sweet times for cows as gummy worms replace costly corn feed | Reuters (Sep 23, 2012)
Originally Posted by reuters.com
Mike Yoder's herd of dairy cattle are living the sweet life. With corn feed scarcer and costlier than ever, Yoder increasingly is looking for cheaper alternatives -- and this summer he found a good deal on ice cream sprinkles.
"It's a pretty colorful load," said Yoder, who operates about 450 dairy cows on his farm in northern Indiana. "Anything that keeps the feed costs down."
As the worst drought in half a century has ravaged this year's U.S. corn crop and driven corn prices sky high, the market for alternative feed rations for beef and dairy cows has also skyrocketed. Brokers are gathering up discarded food products and putting them out for the highest bid to feed lot operators and dairy producers, who are scrambling to keep their animals fed.
In the mix are cookies, gummy worms, marshmallows, fruit loops, orange peels, even dried cranberries. Cattlemen are feeding virtually anything they can get their hands on that will replace the starchy sugar content traditionally delivered to the animals through corn.
"Everybody is looking for alternatives," said Ki Fanning, a nutritionist with Great Plains Livestock Consulting in Eagle, Nebraska. "It's kind of funny the first time you see it but it works well. The big advantage to that is you can turn something you normally throw away into something that can be consumed. The amazing thing about a ruminant, a cow, you can take those type of ingredients and turn them into food."
PRICING VARIES
Feed is generally the largest single production expense for cattle operators. Whatever is fed needs to supply energy and protein levels that meet the animals' nutritional needs. High prices for soy has operators seeking alternatives for both corn and soy.
Corn alternatives are in particular demand as supplies are so tight that in some areas of the country, feed corn is not available at any price.
Pricing and availability of the many different "co-products" as they are called, varies from place to place, but buyers report savings of 10 percent to 50 percent.
The savings for operators are shrinking, however, as savvy resellers tie pricing for their alternative offerings to the price of corn, which surged to record highs this summer due to drought damage.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture said last month the harvest now underway will yield the smallest corn crop in six years due to the drought that is still gripping more than half of the nation.
"They are using less corn in a number of these rations, but as corn prices go up, prices for really every other co-product go up too," said Greg Lardy, head of the animal sciences department at North Dakota State University.
Operators must be careful to follow detailed nutritional analyses for their animals to make sure they are getting a healthy mix of nutrients, animal nutritionists caution. But ruminant animals such as cattle can safely ingest a wide variety of feedstuffs that chickens and hogs can't.
The candy and cookies are only a small part of a broad mix of alternative feed offerings for cattle. Many operators use distillers grains, a byproduct that comes from the manufacture of ethanol. Other common non-corn alternatives include cottonseed hulls, rice products, potato products, peanut pellet.
Wheat "middlings," a byproduct of milling wheat for flour that contain particles of flour, bran, and wheat germ, also are fed.
And every now and then, there is a little chocolate for the hungry cows.
Hansen Mueller Grain out of Omaha, Nebraska, which markets chocolate bars alongside oats and peanut pellets, said it all comes down to fat, sugar and energy.
"That's all it is," said Bran Dill, a spokesman at Hansen Mueller. Demand is high, he said.
But he also said increasing prices are making alternatives less attractive.
"The price of this stuff has gone up so much it's gotten ridiculous," he said
"It's a pretty colorful load," said Yoder, who operates about 450 dairy cows on his farm in northern Indiana. "Anything that keeps the feed costs down."
As the worst drought in half a century has ravaged this year's U.S. corn crop and driven corn prices sky high, the market for alternative feed rations for beef and dairy cows has also skyrocketed. Brokers are gathering up discarded food products and putting them out for the highest bid to feed lot operators and dairy producers, who are scrambling to keep their animals fed.
In the mix are cookies, gummy worms, marshmallows, fruit loops, orange peels, even dried cranberries. Cattlemen are feeding virtually anything they can get their hands on that will replace the starchy sugar content traditionally delivered to the animals through corn.
"Everybody is looking for alternatives," said Ki Fanning, a nutritionist with Great Plains Livestock Consulting in Eagle, Nebraska. "It's kind of funny the first time you see it but it works well. The big advantage to that is you can turn something you normally throw away into something that can be consumed. The amazing thing about a ruminant, a cow, you can take those type of ingredients and turn them into food."
PRICING VARIES
Feed is generally the largest single production expense for cattle operators. Whatever is fed needs to supply energy and protein levels that meet the animals' nutritional needs. High prices for soy has operators seeking alternatives for both corn and soy.
Corn alternatives are in particular demand as supplies are so tight that in some areas of the country, feed corn is not available at any price.
Pricing and availability of the many different "co-products" as they are called, varies from place to place, but buyers report savings of 10 percent to 50 percent.
The savings for operators are shrinking, however, as savvy resellers tie pricing for their alternative offerings to the price of corn, which surged to record highs this summer due to drought damage.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture said last month the harvest now underway will yield the smallest corn crop in six years due to the drought that is still gripping more than half of the nation.
"They are using less corn in a number of these rations, but as corn prices go up, prices for really every other co-product go up too," said Greg Lardy, head of the animal sciences department at North Dakota State University.
Operators must be careful to follow detailed nutritional analyses for their animals to make sure they are getting a healthy mix of nutrients, animal nutritionists caution. But ruminant animals such as cattle can safely ingest a wide variety of feedstuffs that chickens and hogs can't.
The candy and cookies are only a small part of a broad mix of alternative feed offerings for cattle. Many operators use distillers grains, a byproduct that comes from the manufacture of ethanol. Other common non-corn alternatives include cottonseed hulls, rice products, potato products, peanut pellet.
Wheat "middlings," a byproduct of milling wheat for flour that contain particles of flour, bran, and wheat germ, also are fed.
And every now and then, there is a little chocolate for the hungry cows.
Hansen Mueller Grain out of Omaha, Nebraska, which markets chocolate bars alongside oats and peanut pellets, said it all comes down to fat, sugar and energy.
"That's all it is," said Bran Dill, a spokesman at Hansen Mueller. Demand is high, he said.
But he also said increasing prices are making alternatives less attractive.
"The price of this stuff has gone up so much it's gotten ridiculous," he said
Last edited by EO2K; Nov 6, 2015 at 07:26 PM.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
So far as I can tell, this is actually a real thing. It's basically The Matrix for chickens.
Virtual Reality for Chickens - Modern Farmer
Second Livestock
Virtual Reality for Chickens - Modern Farmer
Second Livestock
Reply
0
0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 574
From: Fake Virginia
So far as I can tell, this is actually a real thing. It's basically The Matrix for chickens.
Virtual Reality for Chickens - Modern Farmer
Second Livestock
Virtual Reality for Chickens - Modern Farmer
Second Livestock
Reply
0
0
Someone Built A Pizza Rat Robot To Scare The Heck Out Of New Yorkers - Digg. Seems like this would fit in with this crowd.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Someone Built A Pizza Rat Robot To Scare The Heck Out Of New Yorkers - Digg. Seems like this would fit in with this crowd.
Very clever. Speaking of robots:
Assume that you are the chief designer of a self-driving car. From a design-ethics perspective, how would you deal with the following scenario:
The vehicle is traveling at a high but legal speed (eg: 55 mph) down a two-lane highway. It has one occupant. It is raining.
A group of six schoolchildren suddenly appear in the road just in front of the car. The distance between the car and the schoolchildren is far too short to stop the vehicle, given the speed and road conditions.
There is no area into which the vehicle can be safely ditched. A concrete wall borders to the roadway just to the right, and there is a tractor-trailer approaching in the oncoming lane.
What do you do?
Option 1 would be to brake as hard as possible while remaining in the lane. The vehicle will strike the children at a speed sufficiently high that they will most likely be killed, however the occupant of the vehicle will be unharmed apart from minor injuries from bits of flying glass and child-parts entering the cabin.
Option 2 would be to maneuver the vehicle away from the children. This will place it directly into the path of the oncoming truck, which will undoubtedly result in serious injury to the sole occupant of the vehicle.
Does the vehicle always have an obligation to prioritize the safety of its occupant over the safety of all other humans? Or must it prioritize the relative harms resulting from all possible courses of action? In so doing, is the priority given to the lives of the children weighted against the fact that they are responsible for placing themselves in harms' way and causing the unsafe situation in the first place?
Reply
0
0
Option 1 while simultaneously sounding the horn and flashing the lights in the gallant, but futile, attempt at maybe giving the children as much time as possible to get out of the way.
All the while realizing that all I've done is to give them the awareness that they may soon be leaving us....
All the while realizing that all I've done is to give them the awareness that they may soon be leaving us....
Reply
0
0
Does the vehicle always have an obligation to prioritize the safety of its occupant over the safety of all other humans? Or must it prioritize the relative harms resulting from all possible courses of action? In so doing, is the priority given to the lives of the children weighted against the fact that they are responsible for placing themselves in harms' way and causing the unsafe situation in the first place?
Reply
0
0
Kill the kids (because no one would buy a car that they think will prioritize someone else over themselves) and then sue the portal engineer for misplacing the wormhole exit and sue the civil engineer for not providing a means to get to an emergency shoulder on a 2-lane non-divided highway.
Based on the first comment (regarding the likelihood of selling a vehicle that prioritizes the kids vs. the likelihood of selling a vehicle that prioritizes it's purchaser), as the designing engineer, I would also prioritize the person paying for the system.
If chevy and ford both sold the exact same vehicle that came off of the exact same assembly line for the exact same price, and one prioritized the kids while the other prioritized the occupants, which would you buy? Which software engineer will still have a job in 3 years?
Based on the first comment (regarding the likelihood of selling a vehicle that prioritizes the kids vs. the likelihood of selling a vehicle that prioritizes it's purchaser), as the designing engineer, I would also prioritize the person paying for the system.
If chevy and ford both sold the exact same vehicle that came off of the exact same assembly line for the exact same price, and one prioritized the kids while the other prioritized the occupants, which would you buy? Which software engineer will still have a job in 3 years?
Reply
0
0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 574
From: Fake Virginia
3 Big Red Buttons on the dash that read:
1. SACRIFICE MYSELF
2. I WANT TO LIVE
3. RANDOM
And the car gives you a choice at the last second. No choice results in random.
1. SACRIFICE MYSELF
2. I WANT TO LIVE
3. RANDOM
And the car gives you a choice at the last second. No choice results in random.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
1: Always protect the vehicle over all other priorities. (eg: cause the deaths of 10 people outside the car in order to prevent structural damage to the vehicle with no harm to its occupant.)
2: Always protect the safety of the occupants of the vehicle over all other priorities. (eg: cause the deaths of 10 people outside the car in order to protect the occupant of the car from a minor, non-life-threatening injury.)
3: Always protect the safety of the occupants of the vehicle, unless doing so will cause greater harm to people outside the vehicle (eg: allow the occupant of the vehicle to sustain a serious but nonlethal injury in order to prevent the death of someone outside the vehicle.)
4: (etc...)
If chevy and ford both sold the exact same vehicle that came off of the exact same assembly line for the exact same price, and one prioritized the kids while the other prioritized the occupants, which would you buy? Which software engineer will still have a job in 3 years?
These decisions will need to be made in a much broader context than merely that of the purchaser. Engineers, as a general rule, are held to owe a duty to the public to protect their safety, or at least avoid causing them harm. A vehicle which is consciously designed to always kill ten people in order to prevent one person from losing a leg will make the Toyota "unintended acceleration" scandal look like a day at the park*.
You have a strong point, of course, in that the same purchasing decision is made everyday by people who buy large, heavy trucks and SUVs "because they're safe in an accident," while totally ignoring the fact that said accident may well have been caused in the first place by driving a large, heavy SUV as opposed to something capable of stopping in half the distance or steering to avoid an obstacle. As yet, I'm not aware of any legal arguments which have specifically addressed this form of negligence, but you can rest assured that the first time a robot makes a deliberate decision to kill a child**, things will be different.
* = Presupposes that the day at the park is pleasant and involves warm, soft kittens frolicking in the grass, and that nobody is horribly maimed / killed by wolves.
** = Presupposes a white, American child. Brown people in other countries are ok to kill, so long as it's done by an aircraft with a cool nickname like "Reaper," and something more vitally important to public discourse is also taking place at the same time, such as a washed-up former celebrity deciding to cross-dress.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Assume that the wall's boundaries are correctly defined, and that the children jumped over it to retrieve a frisbee and/or because they're stupid and wanted to play in traffic in the rain.
Children are unpredictable and don't seem to follow a well-defined ruleset.
Reply
0
0
No backing over any survivors, though.
Reply
0
0
