truth_sentinell

The FDA is a joke then. So any greedy business man can fake the data or some of the data and just send it to the FDA for approval?

I don't know. Laravel uses a hash algorithm that uses bcrypt and never outputs the same hash.

Probably some religious non-sense.

I saw in a documentary that with only a sample of the skin they can grow like 10k burguers, and the animal won't even notice, it's like an injection. I don't remember the doc but it seems pretty ethical IMO.

Oh ok, I guess this doesn't happen with bcrypt, right? Because it spits out a different hash every time you hash it.

IMHO a fiancee that demands a diamond is not a spouse worth keeping.

Trump is a reflection of American society.

And what do they hit to make sure the password was cracked? Do they make bots to login? I don't understand.

Isn't that what we practically have from rats? a "subset" of the human brain? I cringe every time I see on some tech/science news some headline: "this is the reason you do this, or you think that", and then reading the study, you find out it was conducted on rats...

If we are extrapolating results from rats to humans, why can't we just simulate a rat brain and avoid torturing more? Probably because rats are cheap, and supercomputers, well, are super expensive.

I don't think it would be difficult to simulate a fully functional rat brain with state-of-the-art technology and bright people.

I'd definitely consider a fully emulated human brain another human, because by the premise that's fully emulated, it will also feel desires, and have survival instincts. That'd be another moral debate -similar to slavery-, because there will be people that would emphatize with them, and there will be others that will think they're just "machines".

But that's talk for another topic. On this case, you'd want to emulate only the physical functioning of our brain and body and not our minds.

You can't raise livestock for hundreds of millions of people "ethically" -whatever that means-. That's why people industrialized the process, and on most big factories there's little human intervention.

I can't picture the day where people stop eating meat. It just won't happen, not matter what arguments you present.

The best way to go is replacing it, and the perfect postulate is lab meat, which I hope, is going to be massively produced at low cost in the next ten years. And even if it doesn't ill people, tastes the same as natural meat, you will find resistence.

So, to summarise: lab meat at lower cost than natural meat, demands plunge, billions of animals are saved every year.

I'm eager for the day to come when we can map an entire animal to a computer model -or even human-, so animals won't be necessary anymore for this kind of procedure. How many years away do you guys think we are from that dream?

I understand. You're balancing the life you have now vs your dream career. And you don't foresee anything better in the latter. It's ok. Due to today's society, a lot of us sacrifice what we love doing for economical comfort.

I never said it was easy. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, and most of the time you have to make sacrifices in order to do what you love. In your case, it means lowering your living standards, but that's up to you, I respect that.

Well, obviously you need to need to train ... [...], but OP I was referring to, implied that you have to be born a certain way in order to dance, which is completely BS as long as you have all your limbs and good health.

Unless you're severely handicapped, I don't understand why wouldn't you be able to dance whatever type of dance you want.

If you have all your limbs and can walk, you can perfectly dance whatever is that you want. If you're fat and can't dance no more that one minute without getting out of breath, get in shape and train endurance. As simple as that.

If you're 5.4" or less and feel intimidated dancing with a taller woman, find yourself a woman of your same height.

You shouldn't be cutting away wings and locking up birds in cages telling them they can't fly.

Mental handicap imposed by oneself -or others, which at the end of the day ends being oneself- is the worst of all.

Ok. Apparently you have the wrong concept of creativity, or you're looking through it with only one glass.

Creativity is not only doing aesthetics or poetry, the bare concept of creativity is unifying things that otherwise don't seem unifiable. Associate a dog with a circuit, that's creativity; innovation.

And boy, you have a lot in bare programming. There are many ways to write a code that does the same thing. Sure, not every code involves the level of creativity a painting can, but that's not to say programming doesn't have creativity whatsoever.

React, Redux, Sass, those all are great examples of programming creativity, just beginning by the problem they solve, it's creativity on his own...

You could save money from your programming job and fund yourself a dancing academy. Or even better, find a way to mix the two. Never stop dreaming!

If it is what it claims, it's probably better than any human

Pun intended

I seriously doubt that. Source?

Thanks for the suggestion, but it doesn't seem good for me. Blocking things at DNS level, can be counterproductive. Maybe there's a false positive that's been blocked and it will probably a headache to find it.

That's so annoying. Worst thing is that adblocks are not as easily available as in desktops. I'm on windows phone 10, my only browser is Edge, so I'm really fucked.

Well yeah but you don't carry around a dumbell, do you? Anger is a waste of energy and very dangerous in most of the cases. It should be avoided at all costs unless you're going into a fight and don't have any other choice.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the OP of this line of commentary. Saying anger is good and one should embrace it is a really bad suggestion.

Anger makes you blind, it fogs your rational thinking and makes you do things you'll probably regret afterwards.

So, avoid it and think rationally.

From wikipedia: > The monarchy of the Netherlands passes by right of succession to the heirs of William I.[Cons 1] The heir is determined through two mechanisms: absolute cognatic primogeniture and proximity of blood.

Again, what are you talking about mate? The fact that their country is doing well doesn't mean it's ok to decide on the lives of people just because you're the son of a monarch. There could be a lot of people more prepare and that could do better.

What do you mean by constitutional? The are two types: Inherited monarchy and "elected". In the last, the election is from a specific group of people and the monarch is not chosen by Public vote. Nobody should have privileges above others and the power to constitutionally influence their lives just because they happened to be born in a "royal family".

Apparently we have some UK's Queen fans, since my comment is down voted.

Can't believe there are still monarchs in 2016. Definitely there are millions of people living in 1500.

Abolish monarchy!!!

IMHO unless your site is just showing static content, like a flier or something like that, not using JS will plunge your UX and overall productivity.

Why would you care about IE8 - 9 or whatever other browser you might be thinking about that has probably an infinitesimal market share?

It's sad that an species has to give up to a part of themselves because of human greed.

Then why even make this comment?