idiot74's comments

Yeah but it can be unpleasant when other people casually bring up tragedies about your life randomly when the context isn't quite right.

How long until we can use these for machine learning?

> He was inspired by his father, an aeronautical engineer and inventor, who killed himself when Mr Browning was a teenager.

Was this really necessary? Imagine the reaction of the guy: "Oh cool, there's a bbc article on me.. oh... :(".

Well, google have an amazing resource on their hands. Data mining, machine learning, etc.

Relevant article:

http://bytesizebio.net/2009/10/11/weekly-poll-replicators-fi...

"Replicators First

Aka RNA World: RNA emerges as the first molecule that can replicate and perform enzymatic processes. It stores information and it is biochemically active. Thus it can both replicate and control a primitive meabolism. Later came the transition to DNA as an information storage, and the enzymatic role was mostly relegated to proteins.The first replicators might not even have been RNA molecules, but some pre-RNA nucleic acid such as PNA or TNA..."

"Metabolism First

Metabolism First holds that metabolic processes assembled prior to the existence of replicators. Günter Wächtershäuser proposed that the pioneer organism originated in high (>100C) temperatures in hydrothermal vents. This organism resembled the catalytic converter in a car, more than a primitive cell: it had a composite structure of a mineral base with catalytic transition metal centers, such as iron-sulfide and nickel-sulfide... "

I definitely wanted the other things too, such as the moving chocolate frogs, but sadly they aren't as available as stale bread and cheese.

1. Who said it was? But it's clear it benefits the environment and individuals.

2. Hmm, I keep reading things saying that vegetarian diets can be healthy for people with diabetes. Even on the official American Diabetes association website [1]. But if it truly isn't then it is a special case.

3. I agree that shame and embarrassment is not a good way to persuade people. However, there are lots of genuinely good things about a vegetarian diet that people might want to think about.

[1] http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/planning-meals... - "A vegetarian diet is a healthy option, even if you have diabetes. Research supports that following this type of diet can help prevent and manage diabetes. In fact, research on vegan diets has found that carbohydrate and calorie restrictions were not necessary and still promoted weight loss and lowered participants.

"Vegan diets are naturally higher in fiber, much lower in saturated fat, and cholesterol-free when compared to a traditional American diet. The high fiber in this diet may help you feel full for a longer time after eating and may help you eat less over all. When fiber intake is greater than 50 grams per day on a vegan diet, it may help lower blood glucose levels.

"This diet also tends to cost less. Meat, poultry, and fish are usually the most expensive foods we eat."

That's great and totally not the point I was making. My point was to counteract the claim that animal and crop production are equivalent in their impact on the environment, which is not accurate.

Whether it is worth the environmental impact is a different issue. Interestingly, googling 'vegetarian diabetic diet' suggests that a vegetarian diet may be healthier for diabetic people:

"Vegetarianism excludes high-calorie foods and animal products laden with saturated fats. It instead concentrates on foods that give necessary minerals and vitamins that help give diabetics a better chance of blood glucose control."

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/vegetarian-diet.html

Yet you accused people trying to reduce their impact on the environment as doing it just to 'feel good'; why do you assume they need to feel good about anything?.. I don't think it's constructive to disparage people who are attempting to reduce their impact on the environment.

> Unless one is producing their own vegetables, industrial production of them is no different than meat.

This post lacks common sense. Processing and feeding animals uses far more resources than processing crops (especially since crops are often processed in order to feed animals...).

"The efficiency with which various animals convert grain into protein varies widely. With cattle in feedlots, it takes roughly 7 kilograms of grain to produce a 1-kilogram gain in live weight. For pork, the figure is close to 4 kilograms of grain per kilogram of weight gain, for poultry it is just over 2, and for herbivorous species of farmed fish (such as carp, tilapia, and catfish), it is less than 2. As the market shifts production to the more grain-efficient products, it raises the productivity of both land and water."

http://www.earth-policy.org/books/pb2/pb2ch9_ss4

> It is nothing more than "I feel good" kind of thing.

Seems like you would deny reality in order to continue to 'feel good' about eating meat.

Yes. I found it appealing because I identified with Harry and wanted to share an experience with him. Why you hate on me.

I have a strong memory of Harry being banished to his room and he only manages to get some stale bread and cheese. I can't remember which book it was, but thinking maybe Chamber of Secrets (or at least one of the first three). I remember at the time going and getting some stale bread and cheese. (it wasn't necessarily presented as a good thing in the book, but somehow I found it appealing).

Same here with Harry Potter in regards to stale bread and cheese.

I thought I was fully converted to e-reading, but have recently moved back to physical books. Impacting or meaningful books on my bookshelf are like old friends, and they deserve to take up physical space in my physical space.

Overly cynical comment. Article author isn't a psychologist, so has no reason to be a 'salesman'. Additionally, the question of how changeable an individual's personality is, is a perfectly valid and interesting topic to research. (Unfortunately the article does not mention the title, or provide a link to the research).

Could be. With no financial reward there's not much incentive to spend energy thinking about things: so answers default to supporting political views. Suddenly there's a financial incentive, and so people take a few more steps in their thought processes. (maybe, idk)