睇完俾啲建議樓豬
vocab可以加埋英文解釋
始終用中文學英文會變成用嗰陣由中文翻譯英文而唔係用英文諗嘢
我知啊 不過我驚全英俾人ignore
中英對照is ok
[15分鐘英文]環境與生態每日一篇
BrettAnderson
101 回覆
17 Like
0 Dislike
中英對照is ok
睇完俾啲建議樓豬
vocab可以加埋英文解釋
始終用中文學英文會變成用嗰陣由中文翻譯英文而唔係用英文諗嘢
中英對照is ok
好啦我一陣加返睇完俾啲建議樓豬
vocab可以加埋英文解釋
始終用中文學英文會變成用嗰陣由中文翻譯英文而唔係用英文諗嘢
我同電台頭巴點會ignore你
睇完俾啲建議樓豬
vocab可以加埋英文解釋
始終用中文學英文會變成用嗰陣由中文翻譯英文而唔係用英文諗嘢
我同電台頭巴點會ignore你
改左名差啲唔認得
g持
睇完俾啲建議樓豬
vocab可以加埋英文解釋
始終用中文學英文會變成用嗰陣由中文翻譯英文而唔係用英文諗嘢
我同電台頭巴點會ignore你
改左名差啲唔認得
原來係佢嚟
g持
g持樓豬
星期日為一周之首
今日正式開始
學語文黎講閱讀係其中一個必需元素
我知道太無聊 冇乜新意、單一主題嘅野大家未必有興趣或者未必可以持續睇落去
所以得閒會改下主題 同埋會搜集啲有趣少少嘅文章分享
希望大家會鍾意睇下
今次係一篇講Cannibalism，即係食人嘅相關學術資訊。
Week 1 article 1
Cannibalism Study Finds People Are Not That Nutritious (Part 1)
FROM NATGEO
BY ERIKA ENGELHAUPT
APRIL 2017
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2017/04/human-cannibalism-nutrition-archaeology-science
While our ancient ancestors did practice cannibalism, eating other humans just couldn’t compare with taking down a mammoth.
Note to the prehistoric party planner: One dead mammoth can feed 25 hungry Neanderthals for a month, but cannibalizing a human would provide the crowd with only a third of a day’s calories.
Essentially, you’re a walking lunch.
A new look at the nutritional value of human flesh shows that, compared with other Paleolithic prey animals, humans weren’t especially packed with calories for their size.
“When you compare us to other animals, we’re not very nutritional at all,” says study author James Cole of the University of Brighton, who published his work Thursday in Scientific Reports.
According to his estimates, boars and beavers pack about 1,800 calories into each pound of muscle compared with a measly 650 calories from a modern human. That’s about what would be expected based on our overall size and muscularity compared to other animals, he says.
So, Cole asks, if humans aren’t especially valuable in terms of prey, why eat them? After all, unless they are sick or dying, they wouldn’t be easy to hunt.
今日正式開始
學語文黎講閱讀係其中一個必需元素
我知道太無聊 冇乜新意、單一主題嘅野大家未必有興趣或者未必可以持續睇落去
所以得閒會改下主題 同埋會搜集啲有趣少少嘅文章分享
希望大家會鍾意睇下今次係一篇講Cannibalism，即係食人嘅相關學術資訊。
Week 1 article 1
Cannibalism Study Finds People Are Not That Nutritious (Part 1)
FROM NATGEO
BY ERIKA ENGELHAUPT
APRIL 2017
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2017/04/human-cannibalism-nutrition-archaeology-science
While our ancient ancestors did practice cannibalism, eating other humans just couldn’t compare with taking down a mammoth.
Note to the prehistoric party planner: One dead mammoth can feed 25 hungry Neanderthals for a month, but cannibalizing a human would provide the crowd with only a third of a day’s calories.
Essentially, you’re a walking lunch.
A new look at the nutritional value of human flesh shows that, compared with other Paleolithic prey animals, humans weren’t especially packed with calories for their size.
“When you compare us to other animals, we’re not very nutritional at all,” says study author James Cole of the University of Brighton, who published his work Thursday in Scientific Reports.
According to his estimates, boars and beavers pack about 1,800 calories into each pound of muscle compared with a measly 650 calories from a modern human. That’s about what would be expected based on our overall size and muscularity compared to other animals, he says.
So, Cole asks, if humans aren’t especially valuable in terms of prey, why eat them? After all, unless they are sick or dying, they wouldn’t be easy to hunt.
Week 1 article 1
Cannibalism Study Finds People Are Not That Nutritious (Part 2)
FROM NATGEO
BY ERIKA ENGELHAUPT
APRIL 2017
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2017/04/human-cannibalism-nutrition-archaeology-science
“You have to get together a hunting party and track these people, and then they aren’t just standing there waiting for you to stab them with a spear,” says Cole.
Instead, Cole argues that perhaps not all ancient cannibalism was for filling bellies; it may have also served various social functions for early humans and their ancestors.
Cannibal Roots
Archaeologists have found evidence of cannibalism in the human family tree at least as far back as 800,000 years. And though cutting and gnawing marks on bones can’t reveal motivations, ancient remains do offer a few clues to how widespread cannibalistic practices were throughout human evolution.
At the Gran Dolina cave site in Spain, for instance, the butchered remains of bison, sheep, and deer were mixed with those of at least 11 humans, all children or adolescents, whose bones showed signs of cannibalism. In addition to marks showing flesh was stripped from the bone, evidence suggests the Gran Dolina residents—an ancient human relative called Homo antecessor—ate their victims’ brains.
The butchered human parts appear in layers in the cave spanning about a hundred thousand years, suggesting that the practice occurred somewhat regularly.
The remains were also mixed with those of other animals and had been prepared the same way, leading some anthropologists to suggest that cannibalism at the site might not have been done in a food-stress emergency or as ritual behavior.
Perhaps human flesh was a common supplement to their diet, or perhaps the youngsters were outsiders, and cannibalism served as an effective “keep out” sign—the bones can’t say for sure.
That’s true for most cases of prehistoric cannibalism, says anthropologist Silvia Bello of the Natural History Museum in London.
“I agree with [Cole] that Paleolithic cannibalism was probably more often practiced as a ‘choice’ rather than mere ‘necessity,’” she says. “I think, however, that to find the motivation of the choice is a very difficult matter.”
Meat Is Meat?
In some cases, cannibalism may have been purely practical.
“The issue is not one of nutrition as an alternative to large game,” says anthropologist Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis. “It is an issue of survival when there are no other food sources, members of one's social group have died, and the surviving members consume the bodies of already-dead people.”
Cannibalism Study Finds People Are Not That Nutritious (Part 2)
FROM NATGEO
BY ERIKA ENGELHAUPT
APRIL 2017
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2017/04/human-cannibalism-nutrition-archaeology-science
“You have to get together a hunting party and track these people, and then they aren’t just standing there waiting for you to stab them with a spear,” says Cole.
Instead, Cole argues that perhaps not all ancient cannibalism was for filling bellies; it may have also served various social functions for early humans and their ancestors.
Cannibal Roots
Archaeologists have found evidence of cannibalism in the human family tree at least as far back as 800,000 years. And though cutting and gnawing marks on bones can’t reveal motivations, ancient remains do offer a few clues to how widespread cannibalistic practices were throughout human evolution.
At the Gran Dolina cave site in Spain, for instance, the butchered remains of bison, sheep, and deer were mixed with those of at least 11 humans, all children or adolescents, whose bones showed signs of cannibalism. In addition to marks showing flesh was stripped from the bone, evidence suggests the Gran Dolina residents—an ancient human relative called Homo antecessor—ate their victims’ brains.
The butchered human parts appear in layers in the cave spanning about a hundred thousand years, suggesting that the practice occurred somewhat regularly.
The remains were also mixed with those of other animals and had been prepared the same way, leading some anthropologists to suggest that cannibalism at the site might not have been done in a food-stress emergency or as ritual behavior.
Perhaps human flesh was a common supplement to their diet, or perhaps the youngsters were outsiders, and cannibalism served as an effective “keep out” sign—the bones can’t say for sure.
That’s true for most cases of prehistoric cannibalism, says anthropologist Silvia Bello of the Natural History Museum in London.
“I agree with [Cole] that Paleolithic cannibalism was probably more often practiced as a ‘choice’ rather than mere ‘necessity,’” she says. “I think, however, that to find the motivation of the choice is a very difficult matter.”
Meat Is Meat?
In some cases, cannibalism may have been purely practical.
“The issue is not one of nutrition as an alternative to large game,” says anthropologist Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis. “It is an issue of survival when there are no other food sources, members of one's social group have died, and the surviving members consume the bodies of already-dead people.”
Week 1 article 1
Cannibalism Study Finds People Are Not That Nutritious (Part 3)
FROM NATGEO
BY ERIKA ENGELHAUPT
APRIL 2017
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2017/04/human-cannibalism-nutrition-archaeology-science
Cole acknowledges there’s only so much we can take from his limited analysis of human nutritional value, which was based on only a few modern humans. And certainly our ancient ancestors weren’t counting calories to make dinner choices.
Perhaps, he says, the real message is that ancient people had more of a mix of motivations for cannibalism than we’ve given them credit for. After all, human cannibalism in recent centuries has many roots, including warfare, survival, spiritual beliefs, and psychosis.
Most likely, ancient people survived by being incredibly opportunistic, and sometimes cannibalistic, says Bill Schutt, a biology professor at Long Island University’s Post campus and author of the new book Cannibalism: A Perfectly Natural History.
“Cannibalism is extremely widespread in the animal kingdom,” Schutt says, and humans are no exception. “What makes us different are the rituals, the culture, the taboos,” he says. “We’ve been patterned to believe that cannibalism is the worst thing you could do.”
Indeed, Cole says that working out the calorie count of human flesh was a bit disconcerting, as it forced him to think about what cannibalism would be like. “I found it quite difficult to eat bacon for the last year or so,” he says.
Cannibalism Study Finds People Are Not That Nutritious (Part 3)
FROM NATGEO
BY ERIKA ENGELHAUPT
APRIL 2017
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2017/04/human-cannibalism-nutrition-archaeology-science
Cole acknowledges there’s only so much we can take from his limited analysis of human nutritional value, which was based on only a few modern humans. And certainly our ancient ancestors weren’t counting calories to make dinner choices.
Perhaps, he says, the real message is that ancient people had more of a mix of motivations for cannibalism than we’ve given them credit for. After all, human cannibalism in recent centuries has many roots, including warfare, survival, spiritual beliefs, and psychosis.
Most likely, ancient people survived by being incredibly opportunistic, and sometimes cannibalistic, says Bill Schutt, a biology professor at Long Island University’s Post campus and author of the new book Cannibalism: A Perfectly Natural History.
“Cannibalism is extremely widespread in the animal kingdom,” Schutt says, and humans are no exception. “What makes us different are the rituals, the culture, the taboos,” he says. “We’ve been patterned to believe that cannibalism is the worst thing you could do.”
Indeed, Cole says that working out the calorie count of human flesh was a bit disconcerting, as it forced him to think about what cannibalism would be like. “I found it quite difficult to eat bacon for the last year or so,” he says.
連登冇人學英文? 
連登冇人學英文?
頂 我啱啱好有心機多左堆additional information 點知彈app 灰連登冇人學英文?
我我我
良好風氣
好啦
睇依篇Cannibalism Study Finds People Are Not That Nutritious 嘅文章時候，如果閣下係比較少留意人文學科同科學可能會對某啲字同概念有啲陌生。
首先，
Anthropology係人類學
Archaeology係考古學
入門知識黎講你大可以理解Anthropology為對人類古今行為習俗嘅學習同研究。而Archaeology就係人類學門下一個延伸，或者可以講係一個專科（不過有另外一啲更加specific嘅學科）。
佢地同Palaeontology古生物學、Geology地質學、Geography地理學、History歷史、Museology博物館學等等息息相關。而National Geographic就可以話係大眾眼中最出色，我地最容易接觸，包含以上所提及學科資訊嘅機構。
另外，講一講一啲相關而又經常被撈亂/令人好confused嘅字。
1: Historic, Historical (adj.)
Historic係用以形容歷史意義重大同著名嘅野
而Historical嘅野則係指與history有關，或發生/存在喺過去嘅事物
'Historic and historical are used in slightly different ways. Historic means ‘famous or important in history’, as in a historic occasion, whereas historical means ‘concerning history or historical events’, as in historical evidence; thus a historic event is one that was very important, whereas a historical event is something that happened in the past.'
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/historic-or-historical
2: Butcher, Slaughter
主要講依兩個字係動詞詞性之上嘅意思分別
其實兩者都係指屠殺一條生命用以食用用途
但Butcher俾人一個較著重切啲肉出黎(後來用黎食)嘅感覺
而slaughter則比較突出'殺'嘅部分
'The difference here is very minimal.
Slaughter – The process of killing an animal for food.
Butcher – (as a verb) to cut up an animal for food.
So to butcher something refers to the process of cutting the meat up and making it presentable to customers or consumers. Slaughter usually refers more to the killing of the animal in the first place.'
Source: https://www.myenglishteacher.eu/question/difference-between-butcher-and-slaughter/
3: 提到Slaughter，我順便提下manslaughter
Manslaughter並唔係劏人黎食，係誤殺
Manslaughter喺法律入面有voluntary同involuntary manslaughter之分。
入門解釋可以去 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter 睇下
想對香港對誤殺罪同Criminal law，甚至成個法律體制嘅定義有更多理解可以睇下《香港法概論》。
睇依篇Cannibalism Study Finds People Are Not That Nutritious 嘅文章時候，如果閣下係比較少留意人文學科同科學可能會對某啲字同概念有啲陌生。
首先，
Anthropology係人類學
Archaeology係考古學
入門知識黎講你大可以理解Anthropology為對人類古今行為習俗嘅學習同研究。而Archaeology就係人類學門下一個延伸，或者可以講係一個專科（不過有另外一啲更加specific嘅學科）。
佢地同Palaeontology古生物學、Geology地質學、Geography地理學、History歷史、Museology博物館學等等息息相關。而National Geographic就可以話係大眾眼中最出色，我地最容易接觸，包含以上所提及學科資訊嘅機構。
另外，講一講一啲相關而又經常被撈亂/令人好confused嘅字。
1: Historic, Historical (adj.)
Historic係用以形容歷史意義重大同著名嘅野
而Historical嘅野則係指與history有關，或發生/存在喺過去嘅事物
'Historic and historical are used in slightly different ways. Historic means ‘famous or important in history’, as in a historic occasion, whereas historical means ‘concerning history or historical events’, as in historical evidence; thus a historic event is one that was very important, whereas a historical event is something that happened in the past.'
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/historic-or-historical
2: Butcher, Slaughter
主要講依兩個字係動詞詞性之上嘅意思分別
其實兩者都係指屠殺一條生命用以食用用途
但Butcher俾人一個較著重切啲肉出黎(後來用黎食)嘅感覺
而slaughter則比較突出'殺'嘅部分
'The difference here is very minimal.
Slaughter – The process of killing an animal for food.
Butcher – (as a verb) to cut up an animal for food.
So to butcher something refers to the process of cutting the meat up and making it presentable to customers or consumers. Slaughter usually refers more to the killing of the animal in the first place.'
Source: https://www.myenglishteacher.eu/question/difference-between-butcher-and-slaughter/
3: 提到Slaughter，我順便提下manslaughter
Manslaughter並唔係劏人黎食，係誤殺
Manslaughter喺法律入面有voluntary同involuntary manslaughter之分。
入門解釋可以去 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter 睇下
想對香港對誤殺罪同Criminal law，甚至成個法律體制嘅定義有更多理解可以睇下《香港法概論》。
Lm
好在 明哂 篇article
良好風氣
輕輕一推
輕輕一推
推
輕輕一推
推
謝巴打輕輕一推
推
no thx
唔好意思依一篇同環境同生態有少少離題
輕輕一推
毒撚開post冇人理