Speaking of writhing, living 'meat,' how about Casu Marzu? Sardinian (and Corsican) cheese that's processed with fly larvae, whose intestinal juices produce a unique flavor in the fermentation process. When disturbed -- as they naturally would be when cheese is being eaten -- they can launch themselves several inches. Buon appetito.
Casu marzu is considered to be unsafe to eat by Sardinian aficionados when the maggots in the cheese have died. Because of this, only cheese in which the maggots are still alive is usually eaten, although allowances are made for cheese that has been refrigerated, which can kill the maggots. When the cheese has fermented enough, it is often cut into thin strips and spread on moistened Sardinian flatbread (pane carasau), to be served with a strong red wine. Casu marzu is believed to be an aphrodisiac by Sardinians.Because the larvae in the cheese can launch themselves for distances up to 15 centimetres (6 in) when disturbed, diners hold their hands above the sandwich to prevent the maggots from leaping. Some who eat the cheese prefer not to ingest the maggots. Those who do not wish to do so place the cheese in a sealed paper bag. The maggots, starved for oxygen, writhe and jump in the bag, creating a "pitter-patter" sound. When the sounds subside, the maggots are dead and the cheese can be eaten.
Though it would have been worse had he tried the casu marzu, that sounds absolutely disgusting. "Waiter, a maggot just jumped into my eye..." Anyone ever hear of Swedish "Surstomming"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iebNdCSqWmcThey eat fermented fish in Norway also. Some military guys I was working with years ago were trying to get me to eat it...but I just couldn't get past the smell. Like cheese...I love cheese, except for Limburger. It smells like feet and there is no way I could even force myself unless huge money was involved (of course). So...Surstomming?...no. |
|
|
|
Nope - I can be picky with food, and that pic grosses me out a bit.It was not till after college that I even ate pizza.
I am the opposite. I will try, and have enjoyed for the most part...all foods. Absolute favorite is Korean...then Mexican then Italian. I can eat Kimchee like there's no tomorrow. But Fast Food burgers...absolutely no way. Watch Fast Food Nation and you won't either. Would I eat that mess? Not on a bet! I really do not know where to begin in describing how disgusting that garbage is. I guess one must begin with the glazed donuts serving as a bun, followed by the faux cheese product (most likely cheez whiz out of a jar). And that meat? Good Gawd what is it? Looks vaguely like canned dog food. I'll just be kind and refer to it as mystery meat. I grew up on a cuisine that was heavy on the sea food and was a strange mixture of Italian, Slovene, and German cooking. But even at its weirdest, nothing compared to this concoction. It does not appeal to me at all. In fact, most of the new upscale burgers with all sorts of unappealing substances crammed between the bun halves also do not appeal to me. I like the classic cheeseburger, with the classic pickles, tomato slices, lettuce, and onions. I prefer that it be made using the more inexpensive grade of ground chuck with the higher fat content for flavor and juiciness. The high priced stuff with nearly no fat is dry and tasteless IMHO. |
|
|
|
|
Some restaurants around here serve live shrimp, recall a restaurant critic describing experience as somehow spiritual, that is, he felt the life leave the creature to be ingested and used to sustain his. There's a movement among the farm to table foodies advocating carnivores to witness or even take part in slaughter and dressing of animal they eat, the idea being to be fully conscious of, and honor the life involved in the deal. This awareness not possible if all meat consumed is bought in shrink wrapped packaging.
|
|
|
|
I would have eaten that in my younger days, probably two of them at a time, when it seemed nothing affected me. I ate like a horse just to keep from wasting away; I must have had the metabolism of a humming bird. But that was before I thought of the health consequences of eating bad foods, you know, when you think you are invincible. Now, it just looks disgusting and I can feel my arteries clogging just looking at the picture. LOL
Never had that luxury . We who have struggled our whole lives with metabolisms better suited to life in areas where there's frequent famine, who can gain weight merely by gazing at images such as the OP hate you. ;-) |
|
|
|
The things the MS3 definitely has over the ST are time-on-market and aftermarket support. The MS3 has been around since 2007, so it's a well-known vehicle and any bugs or shortcomings have been resolved by either Mazda or the aftermarket. MazdaspeedForums is a jackpot of info and advice for the MS3 and there are several manufacturers and vendors who offer a huge range of reliability and performance upgrades. New Mini is like the New Beetle.Old: AwesomeNew: Lulz
Why fwd? You prefer the torque steer feel or just trying to save a couple k? For zipping around town FWD is fine and responds more safely at the limit of grip. Usually better MPGs and increased interior room per wheelbase. Responds more safely at the point of grip? Maybe some fwd with a good lsd you might be able to push into corners as well as other drivetrains, but I've felt as confident in only one of my fwd vehicles. But then after a few years i lost the front around a corner and drove into a rail while driving at the edge of handling. After aggressively driving for over 10 years in fwd, awd and rwd vehicles, I seriously question your assertion. Better to understeer, brake, and regain control than lose the ass end and head backwards towards whatever direction your momentum is going to carry you. |
|
|
|
The things the MS3 definitely has over the ST are time-on-market and aftermarket support. The MS3 has been around since 2007, so it's a well-known vehicle and any bugs or shortcomings have been resolved by either Mazda or the aftermarket. MazdaspeedForums is a jackpot of info and advice for the MS3 and there are several manufacturers and vendors who offer a huge range of reliability and performance upgrades. New Mini is like the New Beetle.Old: AwesomeNew: Lulz
Why fwd? You prefer the torque steer feel or just trying to save a couple k? For zipping around town FWD is fine and responds more safely at the limit of grip. Usually better MPGs and increased interior room per wheelbase. |
|
|
|
|
The things the MS3 definitely has over the ST are time-on-market and aftermarket support. The MS3 has been around since 2007, so it's a well-known vehicle and any bugs or shortcomings have been resolved by either Mazda or the aftermarket. MazdaspeedForums is a jackpot of info and advice for the MS3 and there are several manufacturers and vendors who offer a huge range of reliability and performance upgrades. New Mini is like the New Beetle.Old: AwesomeNew: Lulz
|
|
|
|
|
I bought my MS3 in January last year and have 26.5K miles on it now. I haven't actually driven the Focus ST so I can't offer any direct comparison points, but I can recommend the MS3 without reservation. It has been everything I wanted in a car and I have very few complaints. Like you, apman, I liked the MS3's raucous nature over the ST's more refined way and I haven't regretted my choice one bit. My MS3 is my daily driver and puts a grin on my face every damn day, nearly every minute I'm in it. It's taken me on one longish road trip (1200mi. round trip) and it was surprisingly comfortable. I average 28mpg in 50/50 mixed driving, which includes long sections of slow traffic, frequent shirt section of full throttle acceleration, and everything in between.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm only going to comment on this thread because its activity shows up in the "Today" stream...and because my name is in it. Normally I prefer to just ignore the three of you on your religious threads.
But for the record:
rigon is a liar and a dumbass. Anyone can go to the original thread and see he did not repeat my words and he is too effing stupid to grasp I was pointing out HIS listing of the best nations on earth are those which are all milky white.
I do not share his opinion that those nations are even the best, let alone his apparent preference for milky white folks.
That is all.
|
|
|
|
Nope - I can be picky with food, and that pic grosses me out a bit.It was not till after college that I even ate pizza.
I am the opposite. I will try, and have enjoyed for the most part...all foods. Absolute favorite is Korean...then Mexican then Italian. I can eat Kimchee like there's no tomorrow. But Fast Food burgers...absolutely no way. Watch Fast Food Nation and you won't either. |
|
|
|
|
Absolutely would not eat that. Haven't eaten at a fast food joint (McD, BK, Wendies or anything like those) for almost 20 years.
Watch "Fast Food Nation" and you will never eat another fast food burger. Especially one that would instantly clog your arteries like that one.
|
|
|
|
|
Username: sana8410
Rank:Sr Member
Posts: 1440 (not counting this one)
BTC address: 15Bkkqp6CQzonuDkArzkmuMVd34DWfx8bK
|
|
|
|
so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).
I don't think these wars are being fought for any historical claims for land,rather Israel is going to war because Hamas refuses to give up shooting rockets into their country. Hamas fights because Israel is continuing to build settlements in what was once Arab land. The arbitrary manner in which the British divided the country and declared a new country right in their midst doesn't help either. Most importantly though is the evolution of our global society into one that wishes to see the establishment of norms and the realization of a better world. Part of that are things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and another part is putting an end to the acquisition of land through military action, and the respect for basic human rights for everyone in the world. It is these things that Israel stands in violation of, the ideals of our future society. We don't want to see such theft specifically because we have seen it in the past and it is horrible. These laws and norms started coming into existence after WWI and especially after WWII. |
|
|
|
so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).
Palestinian is a rather new sub-ethnic identity, they are Arabs, but they were also a population that was also Arabized. That is to say when the Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula expanded their empire they exported their culture, language, and religion to existing groups living elsewhere, these indigenous people then became Arabs over time. During the Ottoman Empire, we didn't just see banners of Arab nationalism rise against Turkish rule, but more localized expressions of nationalism like Phonetician Nationalism in Palestine and southern Lebanon. They've long held strong regional identities, particularly (where Palestine is concerned) in conjunction and relation to Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. Under the Ottoman Empire Ottoman land codes which are legally recognized internationally (and technically by Israel's high court though they are often ignored when it comes to settlement expansion) can stipulate land ownership. |
|
|
|
|
The second intelligent species on a planet doesn't get to evolve naturally. In fact, no matter how many intelligent species evolve......they would all be burdened with the society of the first. They don't get to evolve their own religion because we will spoon feed them ours when they are susceptible. Then again they would want to develop their own since there is no special place in ours for them. They don't get to invent anything, everything they could possibly need would have been invented by us. It would be a very very very long time before they would be treated as equals. Possibly never among humans who still believe in a god who created us in "his" image.
I think I have a few screenplays here. A punctuated development of a secondary species accelerates and surpasses the first evolved, creating a battle for dominance and a world that changes rapidly to suit the new dominant. A second screenplay is one where humans grapple with some of the questions above as a second species becomes fully sentient like equality, the truth of our own religion, etc.
|
|
|
|
Where the article is going seems to revolve around these three ideas :
1.With humans around, it's very difficult for another superintelligent species to evolve, said Jan Zalasiewicz, a paleobiologist at the University of Leicester.
"Humans have been quite good at removing the competition," Zalasiewicz told Live Science
2.But assuming humans had managed to kill themselves off with famine, plague, war or climate change, it could take many millions of years for a new species to evolve the intelligence and abilities to dominate the Earth
3.On some level, humans don't dominate the Earth now
Rats and pigs were the suggestions, given #2, as well as AI.
Bacteria and ants were brought up given #3.
or eating the competition ....like pigs. Its fun to ponder. If we can keep elephants and whales alive they have a chance. We are so impatient. It took us about 6 million years to get from approximately where they are today. If we get wise enough to save some of these intelligent creatures in the long run (assuming we can save ourselves....big assumption), we will accelerate their evolution and affect it in ways that otherwise would not have occurred if they were first. |
|
|
|
Israel does everything in their power to only strike militant targets, while Hamas does everything in their power to strike civilian targets. Hamas is committing a double war crime by hiding behind civilians and attacking civilians.
That's absolutely not true. In fact there is well documented UN evidence to the contrary. Hamas use of rocket attacks against Israel is a war crime absolutely. But that doesn't change anything discussed in this thread. |
|
|
|
Hamas has rejected the ceasefire. Israel stopped its attacks in Gaza for six hours while Hamas continued to fire rockets.
The ceasefire called for a halt to hostilities after 12 hours. Hamas was/is still considering it. The Al Qassam Brigade openly rejected it, but in the end it is the political wing that tends to get its way. Either way, like I said, a ceasefire won't really last long / do much unless Israel releases the people it arbitrarily detained and unless it is willing to significantly ease the blockade. Neither of which this ceasefire really does. I prefer starting with the Egypt-brokered ceasefire first. Then negotiations can start afterwards. Except that's what was supposed to happen in 2012 and despite a very quiet year in 2013 the blockade remained in place. Of what long run benefit would another unsustainable ceasefire be to Al Qassam? I prefer to ease the blockade after the ceasefire. A nice sentiment, but that hasn't happened historically despite promises which leads elements like al Qassam and the Palestinian Jihad to be highly skeptical of such a simple offer. They don't get anything out of it. It's also largely why the ceasefire broke down leading up to Operation Cast Lead. |
|
|
|
Hamas has rejected the ceasefire. Israel stopped its attacks in Gaza for six hours while Hamas continued to fire rockets.
The ceasefire called for a halt to hostilities after 12 hours. Hamas was/is still considering it. The Al Qassam Brigade openly rejected it, but in the end it is the political wing that tends to get its way. Either way, like I said, a ceasefire won't really last long / do much unless Israel releases the people it arbitrarily detained and unless it is willing to significantly ease the blockade. Neither of which this ceasefire really does. I prefer starting with the Egypt-brokered ceasefire first. Then negotiations can start afterwards. Except that's what was supposed to happen in 2012 and despite a very quiet year in 2013 the blockade remained in place. Of what long run benefit would another unsustainable ceasefire be to Al Qassam? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
