On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 12/5/24 4:36 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 05/12/2024 09:31, D wrote:
>>> There is great good and great evil in man. That's what makes him so
>>> fascinating and why fighting is such a necessary sport to give an outlet
>>> for all that aggression.
>>
>> Only man creates the categories of good and evil.
>> Science does not include them
>
> The Real World exists. What any of that MEANS,
> entirely our own inventions.
>
> And those inventions tend to CHANGE over time.
>
> Yea, kinda Nietzsche-esque ...
>

Don't even go there. Natural and I had very lively discussions on that
theme. ;) But yes, I'm in the camp of the people who accept the real world
as a fact, and that without humans, there's no ethics, math, true or
false.

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 12/5/24 7:17 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 5 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/12/2024 09:31, D wrote:
>>>> There is great good and great evil in man. That's what makes him so
>>>> fascinating and why fighting is such a necessary sport to give an outlet
>>>> for all that aggression.
>>>
>>> Only man creates the categories of good and evil.
>>> Science does not include them
>>
>> I think you know what I mean. In order to avoid nitpicking, let's say
>> creative and destructive energies.
>
> To "Nature" ... I think it's all just superstrings hummin'
>
> WE make of it all as we will.
>
> Joe Alien ... he many have entirely different ideas ...
>

I know. Natural and I have discussed this violently and agreed to
disagree. I'm a huge fan of the material world. As for the ultimate
nature, laws and composition, I am agnostic, and we'll see how far science
will take us. I lean towards instrumentalism/cognitive empiricism.

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 01:13:40 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> Fedora still seems ok - as far as Fedora is OK. The
>> Manjaro/Endeavour/Arch end is still OK. Never a fan of Slack, but,
>> who knows ...... gotta keep evading suckitude.
>
> Slack was my first distro. Download in pieces and copy to about 40
> floppies.

Was my first distro too. After that, I can't remember if I went to
Mandrake or if I had netbsd in between.

> I've got Fedora 40 on one machine. Not bad but it updates frequently
> compared to Ubuntu or Debian.
>
> Debian us on my work machine. I wanted stability, not cutting edge.
>

On 06/12/2024 09:00, D wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 03:29:11 -0000 (UTC), pH wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't checked with my friend Google/et.al. but I seem to recall that
>>> there is a problem that the chitin (sp?) of those insects....the
>>> 'shell'...can have some potent allergen reactions for some people.
>>>
>>> I've heard that this can be a problem with 'cricket flour', I believe.
>>
>> Probably for some people. Personally I'm a little weird and I eat the
>> tails on fried shrimp and shrimp cocktails. Maybe I have some sort of
>> dietary deficiency but I'm fairly sure I could handle cricket flour.
>>
>> I don't know if it's still around but Reese was a company that sold cans
>> of weird stuff including fried grasshoppers, whale, and chocolate covered
>> bees. The grasshoppers weren't bad.
>>
>> Trivia: Many of the Indian tribes ate grasshoppers. They approached it
>> with great efficiency and set fire to the fields. The fire got rid of the
>> legs and wings, producing roasted hoppers.
>
> Interesting! Nothing new under the sun! But somewhere there is a problem
> or else there would be abundant grasshopper protein companies.
>
> I mean, there are companies making ridiculously expensive meat
> substitutes, but they have all neglected the grasshopper route.
>
> Or maybe it is just culture, and they foresee it as being very difficult
> to persude the consumer to try it.
>

Food processing is a different regime from food cultivation

I think that point about crickets and grass hoppers is, like many many
other edible things, they just are not that good.

Tasteless prawns I would imagine.

Food really exists in three broad categories...

Food you really like to eat
Food that is OK if boring.
Food that tastes vile, but will keep you alive, in extremis

I think insects are probably at the lower end of the second category

Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

On 06/12/2024 06:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 12/5/24 2:34 AM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 01:28:57 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>>     Had a .44 Mag lever carbine - it was ideal for boar in dense brush
>>>     ... strong enough and easy to whip around real quick. The boar hunts
>>>     YOU as much as you hunt IT. I think someone offers a .50 S&W
>>>     carbine/handgun combo now, but only use the handgun if you want
>>> fused
>>>     wrists in yer old age
>>
>> A friend bought a .454 Casull which was the big dog at the time. He was
>> pissed when S&W upped the ante. I draw the line at .357 and even then for
>> target practice I load closer to .38 Special specs.
>
>   .38 +P is about all ya need for general/defense work.
>   Just generally go for the lighter bullets, not the
>   traditional 158s. Fer sure those old "police loads"
>   did NOT impress.
>
>   NOT sure I'd like .357 for wild boar. It'd take TOO
>   perfect a hit. The .44 gives you a little slack.
>
>   I've fired a .454 ... and decided I didn't want to
>   fire one anymore. The .50 ... nah ! MAYbe for extra
>   large people. There's some point in there where you
>   go for a carbine/rifle.
>
>   Hmmmmmm ... if you necked-down the .50 to 10mm - a
>   sort of modernized 44/40. Might make a really good
>   revolver/carbine combo.

Interestingly in the UK we cannot use handguns at all. For anything
outside single shot target shooting at a registered range.

Legal firearms range from 12 gauge and even 20 gauge shotguns down
through 410 'crow guns' to game approved rifles. .22 is allowed for
small game like rabbits, but a .25 is mandatory for deer and many people
use larger.

Naturally Britain being a very small country with a lot of people,
strict codes of practice accompany game shooting. It is illegal to
shoot anything but bird shot upwards...

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 06/12/2024 06:48, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 12/5/24 4:36 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 05/12/2024 09:31, D wrote:
>>> There is great good and great evil in man. That's what makes him so
>>> fascinating and why fighting is such a necessary sport to give an
>>> outlet for all that aggression.
>>
>> Only man creates the categories of good and evil.
>> Science does not include them
>
>   The Real World exists. What any of that MEANS,
>   entirely our own inventions.
>
>   And those inventions tend to CHANGE over time.
>
>   Yea, kinda Nietzsche-esque ...

More Kant-ian.

His metaphysics draws a clear distinction between the 'world-in-itself'
and how we perceive it. His point being that the objects we reify it
into are not actually there as discrete entities, they are simply how we
describe it to ourselves and to others.

Which immediately solves the 'Theseus' ship' paradox*, as such a ship
doesn't exist, it is merely how we refer to a collection of rotting bits
of wood.

(The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's Paradox, is a paradox and
a common thought experiment about whether an object is the same object
after having all of its original components replaced over time,
typically one after the other.

In Greek mythology, Theseus, the mythical king of the city of Athens,
rescued the children of Athens from King Minos after slaying the
Minotaur and then escaped onto a ship going to Delos. Each year, the
Athenians would commemorate this by taking the ship on a pilgrimage to
Delos to honour Apollo. A question was raised by ancient philosophers:
After several hundreds of years of maintenance, if each individual piece
of the Ship of Theseus were replaced, one after the other, was it still
the same ship? )

Modern philosophers still get their knickers in a twist over this. If
you are a died in the wool realist and materialist it is a problem
because you believe there exists such a thing as 'Theseus' Ship' in reality.

Kantians say that it's just a label: Distinct from the object that it
refers to. Meta data. A pointer.

--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

On 06/12/2024 09:09, D wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 12/5/24 4:36 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 05/12/2024 09:31, D wrote:
>>>> There is great good and great evil in man. That's what makes him so
>>>> fascinating and why fighting is such a necessary sport to give an
>>>> outlet for all that aggression.
>>>
>>> Only man creates the categories of good and evil.
>>> Science does not include them
>>
>>  The Real World exists. What any of that MEANS,
>>  entirely our own inventions.
>>
>>  And those inventions tend to CHANGE over time.
>>
>>  Yea, kinda Nietzsche-esque ...
>>
>
> Don't even go there. Natural and I had very lively discussions on that
> theme. ;) But yes, I'm in the camp of the people who accept the real
> world as a fact, and that without humans, there's no ethics, math, true
> or false.

Its not that the real world is not at some level most usefully regarded
as a fact, it is that the more subtle question is whether what we
*perceive* is in fact the real world *at all*. Or simply a construction
in our own minds that maps what is *actually* there (maybe a
probabilistic entangled quantum soup) into a recognisable world of
objects and events linked in space time by natural law and causality.

Kant's objection to that view (what you see is what is there), which
formed the basis for classical science, has been ignored until the early
20th century, when it began to re-emerge in the philosophy of science.
Karl Popper's view that science was not the discovery of natural laws of
fact, but rather the invention of testable theories that *fitted the
facts*, was a direct response to Einstein and the quantum boys.

In that context Kant's views are of course a construction in their own
right. As unprovable as the laws of science. But, like science, "it
works, bitches"

And philosophy and physics are really coming together at last, with very
smart people trying to come up with structures that work, that look
nothing whatsoever like the ordinary world of our perceptions.

Science is of course a mere branch of philosophy - 'Natural philosophy'.

--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

On 06/12/2024 09:11, D wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 12/5/24 7:17 AM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 5 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/12/2024 09:31, D wrote:
>>>>> There is great good and great evil in man. That's what makes him so
>>>>> fascinating and why fighting is such a necessary sport to give an
>>>>> outlet for all that aggression.
>>>>
>>>> Only man creates the categories of good and evil.
>>>> Science does not include them
>>>
>>> I think you know what I mean. In order to avoid nitpicking, let's say
>>> creative and destructive energies.
>>
>>  To "Nature" ... I think it's all just superstrings hummin'
>>
>>  WE make of it all as we will.
>>
>>  Joe Alien ... he many have entirely different ideas ...
>>
>
> I know. Natural and I have discussed this violently and agreed to
> disagree. I'm a huge fan of the material world. As for the ultimate
> nature, laws and composition, I am agnostic, and we'll see how far
> science will take us. I lean towards instrumentalism/cognitive empiricism.

I don't think we disagree except on one fundamental point.

I do not see the world we commonly understand as 'real' to be anything
more than a construction.

BUT where we do agree is that it has a sense and order that reflects
some underlying reality that is beyond our power to modify, and that is
the massive mistake the 'reality is a social construct' trans and
Marxist ideologists make. You can wear a dress, but you cannot thereby
change what you really are.

It is the introduction of a level of meta-data - a series of
indirections, that creates the world of our experience. And that
introduction is man made. Our everyday life deals with the pointers,
never with the data itself. That is the essence of Kant, phrased for an
IT audience..

And we can rearrange the pointers in any damn fool way we want - and
the Left love to do that - but the data itself is not ours to change.

So I too have the concept of a 'beyond the mind' reality. I just don't
consider it to be accessible directly. We work with interpretations of
it that are anthropic and approximate only.

"The map, is not the territory."...

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 06/12/2024 08:56, D wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 10:22:53 +0100, D wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm, I wonder if it is difficult to make? My wifes father has about 15
>>> apple trees or so in the country side and gets more apples than he can
>>> deal with.
>>
>> https://www.instructables.com/How-to-make-cider/
>>
>> That would work for small quantities. The person we got cider from had a
>> hopper that fed the apples into a drum with screws sticking out and used
>> the tractor PTO to run the drum but he was large scale. The press was
>> essentially the same but larger with a jackscrew rather than a hydraulic
>> jack.
>>
>
> Interesting! That could be a project for next summer. On the other hand,
> for every liter of cider, I'd be giving up a liter of apple juice in the
> morning. =/

That is indeed a problem. At one time we (me and the ex) tried all that
an created gallons of apple juice and indeed pear juice for ourselves
family and friends. One set of friends apples was emptied into plastic
milk bottles and destined for cider, but it proved too tempting and was
drunk within a month.

I was recovering from a tumour operation at that point and was on
seriously concrete butt plugging pain relief.

I drank a couple of points of pear juice. Delicious. And unbeknownst to
me Natures best laxative...

--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On 06/12/2024 08:58, D wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, pH wrote:
>
>> On 2024-12-02, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> I haven't checked with my friend Google/et.al. but I seem to recall that
>> there is a problem that the chitin (sp?) of those insects....the
>> 'shell'...can have some potent allergen reactions for some people.
>>
>> I've heard that this can be a problem with 'cricket flour', I believe.
>>
>> This being Usenet I'm sure someone will set me straight if I'm way off
>> base!
>>
>> pH in Aptos
>
> Wouldn't surprise me at all, but if that is only a problem with a
> minority of people, it could still be a thing. Imagine, prime african
> grasshopper steak! Hmm, or maybe that would be closer to bread? Or
> grasshopper burger?
>

Shrimp paste or ground shrimp is close I suspect. Crustaceans are
related to insects closely.

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 06/12/2024 09:00, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 03:29:11 -0000 (UTC), pH wrote:
>>>
>>>> I haven't checked with my friend Google/et.al. but I seem to recall that
>>>> there is a problem that the chitin (sp?) of those insects....the
>>>> 'shell'...can have some potent allergen reactions for some people.
>>>>
>>>> I've heard that this can be a problem with 'cricket flour', I believe.
>>>
>>> Probably for some people. Personally I'm a little weird and I eat the
>>> tails on fried shrimp and shrimp cocktails. Maybe I have some sort of
>>> dietary deficiency but I'm fairly sure I could handle cricket flour.
>>>
>>> I don't know if it's still around but Reese was a company that sold cans
>>> of weird stuff including fried grasshoppers, whale, and chocolate covered
>>> bees. The grasshoppers weren't bad.
>>>
>>> Trivia: Many of the Indian tribes ate grasshoppers. They approached it
>>> with great efficiency and set fire to the fields. The fire got rid of the
>>> legs and wings, producing roasted hoppers.
>>
>> Interesting! Nothing new under the sun! But somewhere there is a problem or
>> else there would be abundant grasshopper protein companies.
>>
>> I mean, there are companies making ridiculously expensive meat substitutes,
>> but they have all neglected the grasshopper route.
>>
>> Or maybe it is just culture, and they foresee it as being very difficult to
>> persude the consumer to try it.
>>
>
> Food processing is a different regime from food cultivation
>
> I think that point about crickets and grass hoppers is, like many many other
> edible things, they just are not that good.
>
> Tasteless prawns I would imagine.
>
>
> Food really exists in three broad categories...
>
> Food you really like to eat
> Food that is OK if boring.
> Food that tastes vile, but will keep you alive, in extremis
>
> I think insects are probably at the lower end of the second category

I agree. The closest thing I eat on a regular basis is crayfish, and by
themselves they taste very little and need spices and condiments.

I think the market segment for cricket-flour would be the lowest end of
the market, that need calories and proteins at a low cost. I can imagine,
perhaps a few eco-fascists might jump on the cricket-train as well.

>
> Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle more
> than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump their spears
> on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the battle dance and
> dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is that they are dead.
> Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.
>
>

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 06/12/2024 06:48, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 12/5/24 4:36 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 05/12/2024 09:31, D wrote:
>>>> There is great good and great evil in man. That's what makes him so
>>>> fascinating and why fighting is such a necessary sport to give an outlet
>>>> for all that aggression.
>>>
>>> Only man creates the categories of good and evil.
>>> Science does not include them
>>
>>   The Real World exists. What any of that MEANS,
>>   entirely our own inventions.
>>
>>   And those inventions tend to CHANGE over time.
>>
>>   Yea, kinda Nietzsche-esque ...
>
> More Kant-ian.
>
> His metaphysics draws a clear distinction between the 'world-in-itself' and
> how we perceive it. His point being that the objects we reify it into are not
> actually there as discrete entities, they are simply how we describe it to
> ourselves and to others.
>
> Which immediately solves the 'Theseus' ship' paradox*, as such a ship doesn't
> exist, it is merely how we refer to a collection of rotting bits of wood.
>
> (The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's Paradox, is a paradox and a
> common thought experiment about whether an object is the same object after
> having all of its original components replaced over time, typically one after
> the other.
>
> In Greek mythology, Theseus, the mythical king of the city of Athens, rescued
> the children of Athens from King Minos after slaying the Minotaur and then
> escaped onto a ship going to Delos. Each year, the Athenians would
> commemorate this by taking the ship on a pilgrimage to Delos to honour
> Apollo. A question was raised by ancient philosophers: After several hundreds
> of years of maintenance, if each individual piece of the Ship of Theseus were
> replaced, one after the other, was it still the same ship? )
>
> Modern philosophers still get their knickers in a twist over this. If you are
> a died in the wool realist and materialist it is a problem because you
> believe there exists such a thing as 'Theseus' Ship' in reality.

I would argue that the ones who most certainly do not have a problem with
this are materialists. It's a bunch of atoms, and we can then make up
labels. The problem guys are the platonists with their ideal heavens,
concepts etc. which are forever beyond proof. The ding an sich is an
absurd konzept an sich. If you postulate something which can never be
known, it is kind of useless. It goes the same way as god, or a postulated
first mover etc.

> Kantians say that it's just a label: Distinct from the object that it refers
> to. Meta data. A pointer.
>
>
>

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 06/12/2024 09:09, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/5/24 4:36 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 05/12/2024 09:31, D wrote:
>>>>> There is great good and great evil in man. That's what makes him so
>>>>> fascinating and why fighting is such a necessary sport to give an outlet
>>>>> for all that aggression.
>>>>
>>>> Only man creates the categories of good and evil.
>>>> Science does not include them
>>>
>>>  The Real World exists. What any of that MEANS,
>>>  entirely our own inventions.
>>>
>>>  And those inventions tend to CHANGE over time.
>>>
>>>  Yea, kinda Nietzsche-esque ...
>>>
>>
>> Don't even go there. Natural and I had very lively discussions on that
>> theme. ;) But yes, I'm in the camp of the people who accept the real world
>> as a fact, and that without humans, there's no ethics, math, true or false.
>
> Its not that the real world is not at some level most usefully regarded as a
> fact, it is that the more subtle question is whether what we *perceive* is in
> fact the real world *at all*. Or simply a construction in our own minds that
> maps what is *actually* there (maybe a probabilistic entangled quantum soup)
> into a recognisable world of objects and events linked in space time by
> natural law and causality.

I'd say it is an obvious fact and not a subtle question if we look at the
limited spectrum of our senses, and our limited compute resources. I think
in terms of reality, it can be seen as a spectrum of probabilities about
things in the world. Many clever people cling to this, and think it means
that no world exists, or that nothing can be proven. I reverse that, and
say that any proposed alternatives to the real world should be proven, and
if they are not, the real world is a perfectly reasonable default
assumption.

> Kant's objection to that view (what you see is what is there), which formed
> the basis for classical science, has been ignored until the early 20th
> century, when it began to re-emerge in the philosophy of science. Karl
> Popper's view that science was not the discovery of natural laws of fact, but
> rather the invention of testable theories that *fitted the facts*, was a
> direct response to Einstein and the quantum boys.
>
> In that context Kant's views are of course a construction in their own right.
> As unprovable as the laws of science. But, like science, "it works, bitches"
>
> And philosophy and physics are really coming together at last, with very
> smart people trying to come up with structures that work, that look nothing
> whatsoever like the ordinary world of our perceptions.
>
> Science is of course a mere branch of philosophy - 'Natural philosophy'.
>
>
>
>

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 06/12/2024 09:11, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/5/24 7:17 AM, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 5 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/12/2024 09:31, D wrote:
>>>>>> There is great good and great evil in man. That's what makes him so
>>>>>> fascinating and why fighting is such a necessary sport to give an
>>>>>> outlet for all that aggression.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only man creates the categories of good and evil.
>>>>> Science does not include them
>>>>
>>>> I think you know what I mean. In order to avoid nitpicking, let's say
>>>> creative and destructive energies.
>>>
>>>  To "Nature" ... I think it's all just superstrings hummin'
>>>
>>>  WE make of it all as we will.
>>>
>>>  Joe Alien ... he many have entirely different ideas ...
>>>
>>
>> I know. Natural and I have discussed this violently and agreed to disagree.
>> I'm a huge fan of the material world. As for the ultimate nature, laws and
>> composition, I am agnostic, and we'll see how far science will take us. I
>> lean towards instrumentalism/cognitive empiricism.
>
> I don't think we disagree except on one fundamental point.
>
> I do not see the world we commonly understand as 'real' to be anything more
> than a construction.

I have a feeling our disagreement then, is more about definitions, than
about actual state of things. Since I am leaning towards
instrumentalism/constructive empiricism, I am very comfortable with
science as a map, or tool, and not an exact description of reality.

I once experimented with the concept of agnostic monism, by which I mean,
a unified underlying construction or explanation of the world (of which
we are a part), but, that we cannot (at the moment, and probably, never will)
determine the nature of it.

> BUT where we do agree is that it has a sense and order that reflects some
> underlying reality that is beyond our power to modify, and that is the
> massive mistake the 'reality is a social construct' trans and Marxist
> ideologists make. You can wear a dress, but you cannot thereby change what
> you really are.
>
> It is the introduction of a level of meta-data - a series of indirections,
> that creates the world of our experience. And that introduction is man made.
> Our everyday life deals with the pointers, never with the data itself. That
> is the essence of Kant, phrased for an IT audience..
>
> And we can rearrange the pointers in any damn fool way we want - and the
> Left love to do that - but the data itself is not ours to change.
>
> So I too have the concept of a 'beyond the mind' reality. I just don't
> consider it to be accessible directly. We work with interpretations of it
> that are anthropic and approximate only.
>
> "The map, is not the territory."...
>
>
>

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 06/12/2024 08:56, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 5 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 10:22:53 +0100, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmm, I wonder if it is difficult to make? My wifes father has about 15
>>>> apple trees or so in the country side and gets more apples than he can
>>>> deal with.
>>>
>>> https://www.instructables.com/How-to-make-cider/
>>>
>>> That would work for small quantities. The person we got cider from had a
>>> hopper that fed the apples into a drum with screws sticking out and used
>>> the tractor PTO to run the drum but he was large scale. The press was
>>> essentially the same but larger with a jackscrew rather than a hydraulic
>>> jack.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting! That could be a project for next summer. On the other hand,
>> for every liter of cider, I'd be giving up a liter of apple juice in the
>> morning. =/
>
> That is indeed a problem. At one time we (me and the ex) tried all that an
> created gallons of apple juice and indeed pear juice for ourselves family and
> friends. One set of friends apples was emptied into plastic milk bottles and
> destined for cider, but it proved too tempting and was drunk within a month.
>
> I was recovering from a tumour operation at that point and was on seriously
> concrete butt plugging pain relief.
>
> I drank a couple of points of pear juice. Delicious. And unbeknownst to me
> Natures best laxative...

Pear juice? Had no idea! I do know though, that after enjoying fresh
pressed apple juice, most, if not all, store bought juice tastes awful. I
am also not a fan of the filtered apple juice you get on planes, which
probably comes down to the previous statement.

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 06/12/2024 08:58, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, pH wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-12-02, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't checked with my friend Google/et.al. but I seem to recall that
>>> there is a problem that the chitin (sp?) of those insects....the
>>> 'shell'...can have some potent allergen reactions for some people.
>>>
>>> I've heard that this can be a problem with 'cricket flour', I believe.
>>>
>>> This being Usenet I'm sure someone will set me straight if I'm way off
>>> base!
>>>
>>> pH in Aptos
>>
>> Wouldn't surprise me at all, but if that is only a problem with a minority
>> of people, it could still be a thing. Imagine, prime african grasshopper
>> steak! Hmm, or maybe that would be closer to bread? Or grasshopper burger?
>>
>
> Shrimp paste or ground shrimp is close I suspect. Crustaceans are related to
> insects closely.

This sounds very reasonable!

And then there is Joy to the world over in the drwho groups.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ;
Merry Christmas 2024 and Happy New Year 2025

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 10:00:47 +0100, D wrote:

> I mean, there are companies making ridiculously expensive meat
> substitutes, but they have all neglected the grasshopper route.

It wouldn't be vegan.

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 18:23:09 +0100, D wrote:

> I once experimented with the concept of agnostic monism, by which I
> mean,
> a unified underlying construction or explanation of the world (of which
> we are a part), but, that we cannot (at the moment, and probably, never
> will)
> determine the nature of it.

It's all water.

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 13:09:34 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Legal firearms range from 12 gauge and even 20 gauge shotguns down
> through 410 'crow guns' to game approved rifles. .22 is allowed for
> small game like rabbits, but a .25 is mandatory for deer and many people
> use larger.

Over the years .223 has become acceptable in more states. Part of that has
been the NRA promoting AR-15 style rifles as the 'modern sporting rifle'
as a counterweight to the ignorant leftists screaming 'assault rifle'. I
have a bolt action .223 which is very accurate and pleasant to shoot but
if I were deer hunting I'd go with the 7.62 x 54R.

The traditional deer rifle where I grew up was the .32 Winchester Special.
That was a regional preference over the more popular .30-30 one the theory
that .32 trumps .30. The ballistics are similar however. Some of the more
populous counties were restricted to 12 gauge slugs or buckshot.

In this state anything up to .50 caliber is legal. There was an attempt to
supersede Federal laws for firearms manufactured in state that would allow
up to 1.5" for man portable smokeless powder weapons. It was actually as
10th Amendment states rights challenge more than a 2nd Amendment.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/firearms-freedom-act-
constitution-gary-marbut/

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 10:00:47 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> I mean, there are companies making ridiculously expensive meat
>> substitutes, but they have all neglected the grasshopper route.
>
> It wouldn't be vegan.
>

Ahh... so that is their target group. Then it makes sense, thank you.

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 18:23:09 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> I once experimented with the concept of agnostic monism, by which I
>> mean,
>> a unified underlying construction or explanation of the world (of which
>> we are a part), but, that we cannot (at the moment, and probably, never
>> will)
>> determine the nature of it.
>
> It's all water.
>

Nonsense! Ether!

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 10:09:11 +0100, D wrote:

> Don't even go there. Natural and I had very lively discussions on that
> theme. But yes, I'm in the camp of the people who accept the real world
> as a fact, and that without humans, there's no ethics, math, true or
> false.

Buddhism has the concept of two truths, conventional and ultimate.
Conventionally I went out this morning to feed two cats. Ultimately 'cat'
is a construct I imposed and there aren't two of anything.

https://thebuddhistcentre.com/system/files/groups/files/heart_sutra.pdf

Nietzsche condensed into a couple of hundred Chinese ideograms...

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 21:39:58 +0100, D wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 10:00:47 +0100, D wrote:
>>
>>> I mean, there are companies making ridiculously expensive meat
>>> substitutes, but they have all neglected the grasshopper route.
>>
>> It wouldn't be vegan.
>>
>>
> Ahh... so that is their target group. Then it makes sense, thank you.

That's Impossible Burgers claim to fame. I've had vegetable birgers like
the black bean varieties and they aren't bad but they're not pretending to
be meat and they aren't expensive. Somehow a vegan eating something that
looks like a bloody hamburger reminds me of Jews chowing down on faux
bacon.

On 2024-12-06, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 01:13:40 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> Fedora still seems ok - as far as Fedora is OK. The
>>> Manjaro/Endeavour/Arch end is still OK. Never a fan of Slack, but,
>>> who knows ...... gotta keep evading suckitude.
>>
>> Slack was my first distro. Download in pieces and copy to about 40
>> floppies.

When I decided to try Linux I went to the local bookstore and browsed
the Linux books, comparing all the ones that came with an install CD.
I liked Patrick Volkerding's book best, so I wound up starting out
with Slackware 3.5. I continued with it for several years (and
upgrades), but the lack of a package manager required lots of
application builds from source, which grew tiresome.

I tried several other distros, e.g. Mint and CrunchBang.
Ubuntu was very easy to bring up, but when they switched
to the Unity desktop in release 10, I decided it was time
to move on. I finally settled on Debian.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey