Chat with a bot who thinks it is God. Almost as annoying as arguing with a theist!

http://demo.vhost.pandorabots.com/pandor...247e355742

Hint..Ask where it is. lol!

"So distinctive is salmon’s orangey-pink hue that Crayola named a crayon after it. It’s an accurate representation of the flesh of wild salmon, but not that of farmed salmon, whose meat is naturally gray. Or at least, it would be, if salmon farmers didn’t spike their artificial diet with pink-ifying pellets.

Wild salmon get their ruddy shade by eating krill and shrimp, which contain a reddish-orange compound called astaxanthin. (That shrimp-heavy diet is also what turns flamingos pink.) The spectrum varies with the species: Since Alaska’s sockeye salmon are closer to the Bering Sea’s teeming krill, they’re the reddest of all. Salmon further south—Coho, king, and pink, for instance—eat relatively less krill and shrimp, giving them a lighter orange hue.

Like their wild cousins, farmed salmon come in a spectrum of pinks and oranges, depending on diet. But it’s the farmers—not the food chain—who determine the salmon’s color.

Since farm-raised salmon live in a pen, they’re fed kibble made from a hodgepodge that might include the oil and flesh of smaller fish (e.g. herring and anchovies), corn gluten, ground-up feathers, soybeans, chicken fat, and genetically engineered yeast.

An essential ingredient in these pellets is astaxanthin. Sometimes it’s made “naturally” through algae or pulverized crustaceans; other manufacturers synthesize the compound in a lab, using petrochemicals. While astaxanthin provides the salmon with some of the vitamins and antioxidants they’d get in the wild, salmon health isn’t the selling point.

It’s the “pigmenting,” to use feed industry parlance, that really matters, letting salmon farmers determine how red their fillets will be. (Thanks to a 2003 lawsuit, they have to alert customers to the fact of “added” coloring.)"====http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...nk/387586/

"For the first time ever, scientist have snapped a photo of light behaving as both a wave and a particle at the same time.

The research was published on Monday in the journal Nature Communications.

Scientists know that light is a wave. That's why light can bend around buildings and squeeze through tiny pinholes. Different wavelengths of light are why we can see different colors, and why everyone freaked out about that black and blue dress.

But all the characteristics and behaviors of a wave aren't enough to explain everything that light does.

When light hits metal for example, it ejects a stream of electrons. Einstein explained this back in 1905 by suggesting that light is also made of particles and that those particles of light smack into the metal electrons like billiard balls and send them flying. The insight eventually won him the Nobel Prize, but scientists were not happy about being forced to conclude that light can behave as both a wave and particle.

It's been over 100 years and every experiment with light that any scientist has ever performed proves that light either behaves as a wave or that light behaves as a particle, but never both at the same time. No one has glimpsed both states simultaneously until now..."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/image-of-...z3UeLLab6w

"It has been more than 200 years since Kant developed his philosophy. The world has changed a lot. We have moved beyond the Newtonian view of the world. Einstein’s theories of relativity and quantum physics have changed our view of the world. It has been a long time since philosophers have dropped Kant’s notion of a noumenal world existing alongside the phenomenal world. Could it be true that Kant was right after all? That his philosophy is not only compatible with our contemporary view of the world, but that the noumenal realm that he postulated is nothing but the higher dimensional structure of our universe that have recently been taken seriously by theoretical scientists?

In this essay I proposed that this is indeed the case. After giving a broad overview of the Kantian view, I made some proposals how his philosophy could be adapted (one should rather say extended) to incorporate new developments in pschoanalysis as well as physics. The existence of the noumenal realm opens up the possibility that our knowledge could indeed to some extent be grounded in the human subject, not as standing apart from the world, but as being part of the world. His philosophy also, not only provides a unified perspective on our world that could incorporate disciplines as far apart as psychoanalysis and physics; it also enable us to reconcile the different interpretations of quantum physics.

If my proposals are accepted, the implications thereof are profound. It implies that philosophy has taken a wrong turn when it rejected the noumenal realm. Since this provides the natural ground for knowledge, at least some of what has been done since then leading to the skepticism of post-modernism should be reconsidered. The adapted Kantian perspective could provide a powerful framework within which the contemporary developments in physics could be interpreted. Lastly, the existence of such a realm reinforces the fact that our world consists of much more than the observable realm."=====http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2011/07/kant...ed-in.html

I've only had mead at the Texas Rennaisance Festival. I think it was white wine with honey in it. Here's some REAL mead recipes. And yes, you CAN make mead from jolly ranchers!

http://www.stormthecastle.com/mead/mead-recipes.htm

For the less experimental, you can also purchase mead online:

http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Legend-Trad...hecastl-20

http://www.islamicity.com/Articles/artic...C1101-4421

EXCERPT: Within Islam it is both legitimate and right to ask the question: "Why Islam?" Every tenet in Islam is subject to analysis and contention. No other religion is willing to subject its basic fundamentals of faith to such questioning. For example, Saint Thomas Aquinas, the most rational of Christian theologians, stopped the use of reason when it came to the basic fundamentals of Christian faith. He then tried to justify faith. So to ask "why Christianity?" is an illegitimate question. However, Allah invites the question as to "why Islam?"....

This is one of my favorite foods. Here's a recipe boasting better than take-out. I will try it out and return to comment on it. I would only add at this point bean sprouts fried into the mixture. They add a crunchy texture that contrasts well with the soft rice and chicken.

http://therecipecritic.com/2014/03/chicken-fried-rice/

Award winning photo. Beauteous indeed! This is OUR planet!

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150310.html