Agreed, but fly did lead the conversation down the beer-road, he could have specified bread, but he's an alcoholic.
I believe the specific strain I listed is responsible for beer.
Agreed, but fly did lead the conversation down the beer-road, he could have specified bread, but he's an alcoholic.
Most common fermentation is done using a variant of S.cerevisiae. The bread yeast you get in the packet for example.I believe the specific strain I listed is responsible for beer.
I'd like to talk about small dogs.I own a small dog, so if anyone wants to discuss small dogs I'm game.
She's half beagle and half Jack Russell. She has an underbite which sometimes gives her snaggle teeth on the bottom, and a white stripe down the center of her head which naturally grows into a long mohawk. She doesn't bite ankles and she doesn't pee on the carpet. Thank god. Our good friends have a cairn terrier which pees everywhere, all the time. Especially near the windows when he sees other dogs outside. What a godd*mn nightmare.
I must think of that quote 1,000 times a day. Mostly when suffering through small talk.
I think of so many quotes from that movie every day.
You're not to compare the species, but the effects they have had on us!
I know, and I've been struggling with this, too, because without either it's likely we would not be where we are today; do you look at which came first, without which the other might not have been possible? Because that's not really an accurate assessment. So then, which one affected more lives? Well, that's a tough one, too. And you can't look at gross number of lives affected, because populations have varied over the years, and while the actual population # might be lower in one instance, it may account for a larger percentage of the population.
tl;dr: too many variables and not enough specific criteria to assess to reach an outcome I'd feel comfortable supporting
tl;dr-tl;dr: shit's hard, ionno mang.
I'd like to think that beer helped a greater percentage of people.
But could we have gotten to that stage without the help of dogs in our earlier days?
Do you count the percentage of people harmed by alcohol against the total of those helped?
edit: i'm not casting my vote either way, just things that I've thought about
Yes, I think we were successful hunters without dogs. They just added to it.
If it was just dogs, we'd still just be hunter gatherers with dogs.
But beer/whisky, that drove us to cultivate land.