Slashdot Mirror

The Volkswagen factory in Wolfsburg is over ten times as large. The BASF chemical factory complex in Ludwigshafen is even larger.

And GMO is really a euphemism for Monsanto. They're the *only* meaningful player in this industry right now.

And this is why you and those that argue alongside you don't deserve my trust. You're very poorly informed about even the availability, much less the techniques or safety of these things.

Dupont Pioneer
Cargill (Syngenta)
Dow
BASF
Bayer

And that's just a quick list that turned up when I found this article about how a PR campaign can make all the difference. Of those, I found that Dow seems to have the largest EU presence, followed by Syngenta (which is owned by Cargill now), at least according to their web search results.

But go on spouting how you're actually an informed and trusted source for anything on the topic. And then endorse some stupid law that bans a useful technology, based on a premise you know nothing about.

Yes, Monsanto is a shitty company. Hell, their headquarters is less than 20 miles from my house. I know people that have worked there. You don't need to tell me how terrible they are as a company, since those people that used to work there already have. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater-like substance. A single bad actor shouldn't destroy a useful improvement to agriculture.

Well given that it is being minted by an actual real government mint (New Zealand) and not some dodgy place (New York Mint I'm looking at you and your "uncut sheets of $2 bills" that only have 4 bills instead of the full 32) I wouldn't be too worried. If you want to see if something is valid wait for it to show up at a coin shop. The people there are knowledgeable and can spot 99.999% of fakes from a mile away. Personally I wouldn't trust any place that advertises on late night TV or with full page ads in the news paper (yes I still get it) or a magazine but there are some companies that make bullion rounds that are legit and respected in the coin collecting community. They don't advertise on TV of anything like that but are quality outfits (Engelhard and Pamp Suisse are 2 notable ones) that will deliver quality product if you want bullion.

Already done: http://www.basf.com/corporate/080204_micronal.htm

BASF Research
Batelle
BBC Research & Development
General Electric Global Research

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft
Motorola Labs
Microsoft Research
HP Labs
IBM Research
Intel Research
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Philips Research
Corporate Research
The Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
Toshiba Research Europa
Toyota Central R&D Labs
Viewpoints Research Institute

Sorry, that is not commonly accepted. .com means commercial, .org means organisational and .net means Network. Commercial, organisational and networking institutions exist around the world. I have a .com, a .net and a .org and I can assure you that I am not North American and will *never* be North American. Besides, I'm neither commercial, nor have a organisation nor run a network (except my home network), so the TLDs usage are not even enforced.

Those TLDs are for everyone, not only for those born under the stars 'n stripes.

I'll try to use a more corporate example for you to understand: take BASF. A well known company, which was founded in Germany. According to your ideas, BASF would *not* qualify for a .com, simply because it isn't from the United States. No, .com, .net and .org are not for US-only. You've got .us for that, just like we got .de, .fr, .lu, .nl, .de for our usages.

BASF still exists (http://www.basf.com/), it stands for "Badische Anilin- & Soda-Fabrik"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASF) and it never was AGFA, which once was a subsidary of Bayer, but now seems to be mostly a Belgian company. Before WW II BAYER was part of "IG Farben" (like Bayer, Hoechst), which became infamous for producing the poison gas for the concentration camp.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben).

According to the MSDS here: http://www.basf.com/inorganics/MSDS/NaK.Jan-3-2000 .pdf

APPEARANCE: Silver-colored liquid metal

ODOR: No odor

MELTING POINT: 12F/-11C

BOILING POINT: 1445F/785C

VAPOR PRESSURE: 0.8 psig @ 1000F

DENSITY : 0.855 g/cc @ 100C

VISCOSITY: 0.505 centipoise @ 100C

SOLUBILITY IN WATER: Reacts violently, liberating and igniting flammable hydrogen gas, perhaps explosively.

STABILITY TO AIR: May ignite spontaneously; after exposure to air, may form yellow potassium superoxide which

reacts violently and explosively with organics

I see what you mean. In this reference: http://www.basf.com/inorganics/pdf/bulletin/NaK_bu lletin.pdf it says that eutectic NaK (78% K, 22% Na) is liquid from -12.6C to 785C. That's a pretty wide range that helps explain its utility as a reactor coolant, and it also suggests a pretty low vapor pressure. Oh well.

Nope--there was nothing funny at all about the price-fixing in vitamins led by Hoffman-LaRoche. I know a manager at a local plant of Hoffman-LaRoche, and used to work (in a different industry) with a man who at one point was HLR's general manager of animal vitamins. So I've heard about the court case (which went on for years, and included anti-trust action in the EU and in the United States, and possibly elsewhere).

Is price-fixing in vitamins a big deal?
First, we're not talking about somebody trying to corner the market in One-A-Day tablets. We're talking about a small group of chemical companies colluding to fix the prices of (and markets for) vitamins that are included in food products. That's things like the Vitamin D in your milk. And--more significantly in terms of market size--it is the vitamin supplements included in animal feeds.

A brief discussion of animal feed
I am a geek--but I am a geek who is heavily involved in 4-H (non-U.S. readers: 4-H is a program for American youth [mostly farm youth] funded by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.) People who are feeding animals frequently want to feed a "complete" feed--a feed that includes all of the nutrients an animal requires. Example: dog food. You don't want Bowser running down kids in the neighborhood to supplement the meager protein requirement you feed him: you want him to get all the nutrition he requires from his bowl. In the same way, most cat owners don't want little Fiona sneaking out to hunt down the local rodent population just because there isn't enough "meat, and meat byproducts" in her Fancy Feast. (In case you're curious, a "meat byproduct" is what goes crunch when little Fiona does manage to eat one of the local rodents.)

Are you with me so far? If you live in the urban jungle you may not think of animal feeds beyond dogs and cats. And while that business is not small, there is also a huge business in other animal feeds. Think of cows, horses, chickens, and turkeys. In a nutshell, "chicken feed isn't chicken feed." Animal feeds are a multi-billion dollar business--and a major cost component for a feed manufacturer is the cost of the vitamin supplements included in the feed.

So the manufacturers get together...
It has been illegal for many years, in the United States, for manufacturers to compare prices or sales practices for common customers. But price and/or market collusion was not illegal in many other countries--and a number of multinational companies got a bit clever. If it wasn't illegal to collude on pricing in Switzerland (and in the 1980s it was not) you simply met with your counterparts in Switzerland, agreed on your prices and markets, and shook hands. According to a friend who was involved in some of these meetings (in Switzerland) everybody benefited: the people involved made their sales quotas, kept their profits up, and were spared the headaches of having to endure real competition. Sure--the customers (and ultimately the consumer) got rooked, but that was a "political issue." My friend (a U.K. citizen) assured me that Americans were far too zealous about such things. All of that ended when the U.S. government found out about it--Hoffman LaRoche, a Swiss company, settled for $500 million; BASF ("we don't make the products you buy, we just make them cost more") agreed to a fine of $250 million; other companies involved paid lesser amounts.

Want to know more?
One of the really cool things about the Web in general, and SlashDot in particular, is the ability to click on a link and go off on a tangent--learning something you'd never even thought of before. This link connects to a law firm involved in the matter.