There is at least one real problem with only getting your "food" through liquids - your teeth. Chewing and bitting is a very important part of keeping your mouth healthy. Especially your teeth (and gums). Also your saliva has some important functions that also only get into action if you have the food in your mouth for long enough.

I'm very sceptical about this. Not saying that it is all BS (because i obviously haven't tried it or have any inside data) ... but there are already so many nutrition supplements that have been hailed as "the end all be all" of nourishment that were "disproved" by studies that i will wait for a more thorough research into this product before i forsake the traditional intake of food.
Just look at all those supplements for athlets...for example all those protein shakes that promise you more muscles etc etc ... i recently read a research paper done by a handful of professors of the appropriate fields that clearly shows that the intake of more protein does nothing for muscle growth...they even have hints that too much protein can actually hinder muscle growth.

I also have experience with a handful of so called nutrition supplements of the last couple of years that have been distributed via other means than retail (snowball like systems) that have promoted themselves as perfect complements or even replacements to the traditional food intake. All of them have dropped of the face of the earth because they could not hold what they promised.

Would it be awesome if all about Soylent is true and we have found the "holy grail" of foods? Sure it would. Is it likely? I doubt it.

As for positive effects of said products for some of the customer-base...well, unfortunately, this is no proof that it works. Remember, placebo-effect aka the power of the mind is a very powerful tool. If you believe in Soylent with all your heart it indeed can have a positive effect without it being the product itself that helps you. Just wanted to throw that out there.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this product will continue. Maybe it IS the holy grail of foods...

lol...i'm sorry if i poked into a hornets nest here.

As i said, i was not trying to troll. Therefore, you read too much into it, Sci. It was not addressed to those who disargreed with anor. I just found his way of argumenting and staying "objective" the best IN MY OPINION. As someone who worked at University and in a field where concise and precise working is a must (mathematics) i just find that a lot of people are too...vague...in their construction of their points and discussions. And don't get me wrong - this is not meant as a "you guys can't" ... i know that i have too high a standard but after some years as a mathematician, i just...see...all that imprecision "ruling" our lives.
Another problem is the misrepresenting of points made by others...how many times does one poster "put words" into another posters mouth that this poster never "said" that way etc etc . It can get frustrating real fast (and somehow i guess we saw some of that in the discussion between Wilshire and anor).

Hrm...i think i come of way to snob-y...i'm sorry but i can't put it better into words (how imprecise of me, right?!  ) ... but english is not my mother tongue so at least i have an excuse Just kidding, all languages are imprecise tools (at least compared to math).

I'll stop now before everyone hates me 

To sum it up : yeah, i was just wondering how many of you stand behind what they are defending/discussing...and as it seems i was right...not many (aka a lot of advocatus diaboli in here). That is not to say that the discussion can not be interesting, mind you. But i just find discussion where i get the impression that many participants play advocatus diaboli not very...satisfying. Gah...anyway...i'm talking in circles.

Suffice it to say (just to have something that is at least a bit on topic), i do think that this Mr. Sheldrake needs to proof his stuff (how did Madness put it - the onus is on him)...and not that he can come in, throw a theory in the room, and then just leave and say something like "Well, it was not disproved..." ... THAT is definitely not scientific work.

Quote

I can't read educational and/or scientific stuff in my free time, i have enough of those in my line of work (at least from the field of mathematics).

Not all of us have intellectually challenging careers yet,so you should be happy you don`t have to 

Never seen it that way... 
But i still feel kind of lazy that i never "challenge" myself with something a bit more....real....in my freetime...as you guys seem to do on a regular basis.

Wow, you guys read a lot of intellectual stuff ... i feel intimidated 

I can't read educational and/or scientific stuff in my free time, i have enough of those in my line of work (at least from the field of mathematics).

So for relaxation and fun, i only read fantasy. At the moment i am reading:

- Reread of The Judging Eye
- Mark T. Barnes' The Garden of Stones
- Guy Gavriel Kay's Under Heaven

So you're saying the books were originally written without a hope of recompense (though surely the latter books in this case would have had signs of sales?) but the TV series was definately going to be a paid thing?

No to the first part...but yes to the second part. If you read my last post closely, i said that if you write books, you cannot be sure you'll be paid for them. I guess in case of Martin, this might only be a half-truth because when writing the first SoIaF book he already was a publised and known author so he could be reasonably sure that someone would pick his fantasy series up. I was more speaking from a general standpoint.
And i also think it is reasonable to assume that if you have a well selling book series and you get approached by a TV channel or a cinema production firm, you'll definitely make money if the pick it up.

Anyway, i guess if you really disagree with those statements, this discussion is going nowhere...so let us end it. We are way off topic anyway 
If you want to answer my questions from my last post and/or elaborate on your post before my last, then feel free to send me a PM.

Cheers

Cnaiür
Akka
Esmi
Kellhus
No God

WHAT?! 

I like the ones Baztek suggested the best so far...closely followed by those of Wilshire. I don't think i like locke's idea (sorry mate, nothing personal  ).

Quote from: Callan S. on August 28, 2013, 01:49:00 am

Maybe GRRM is one of the last stands of artistic protagonism in a world drenched with entertainment - a last stand of the artist coming before.

I'm glad at least someone got what I was trying to say.

Not sure if the rest of us didn't understand what you were trying to say...i think it was more of a "we do not agree".

And i am with Wilshire here on account of the series and why Martin said "yes" to that project. I totally understand that decision, don't get me wrong...and i am also not damning any author who sells his/her books for tv or cinema...just to be clear. I'd do it as well if i had a novel hollywood would want to buy from me.
But i laugh into the face of anyone who tries to convince me that such a step was taken so as to ensure or expand the artistic value/horizon/what-have-you of ones work and property.