Really? that's your argument? It kills a great many people who don't want to partake. But hey, god forbid we step on your constitution right to poison people~
Did you know the heart attacks in non smokers in the work place has been cut in half because you can no longer smoke there? Of course you don't, that would require reading studies and being actually informed.
You know what else is legal, swing my fist around in public. Hey, kit's not my fault it hit someone , they could go somewhere else.
250 ppm is the min you need to get the FDA warning. Coca-cola has.4ppm
The asshat at CSPI have decided the if any amount at all has any probability of causing cancer, then any dose can cause cancer.
Because a 100 metric ton rock on your head can kill you, then clearly a.001 gram rock hitting you an your head can kill you. Like many groups started in the 70's to help people, it has become an group solely to gather money and spew alarmist misinformation.
The morons at CSPI force government regulation down CAs throat based on the flimsist evidence, such as this case. They have basically made it so cancer labels are useless.
That article is alarmist and misleading. A) Coca-coal doesn't 'add it'. It is created when caramel is made. BTW, Coca-cola doesn't make caramel, they buy it from suppliers. B) a serving has.4ppm... Which is about what you would get from any browning process.
And anyone who had a parody of the item they are allegedly looking into cannot be trusted. Clearly they are biased.
And why, exactly, makes you think the CSPI are the good guys? Because everything I read from them is always misleading, it is always biased, and it is always full of logical fallacy's. They are either following an agenda that falls under naturalist fallacies, or they are just incompetent.
The 4-MI levels in soda aren't even worth noting, but hey6 they can't get funding by being honest and reasonable. Fuck. Them.
Which is in NO WAY an endorsement of ABA.
I mean, look at this: "But the levels of 4-MI in the tested colas still may be causing thousands of cancers in the U.S. population." False. There is no evidence of that at all. Unless there are people drinking 100's of cans of soda everyday for weeks on end.
, “the FDA’s limit for 4-MEI in caramel coloring is 250 parts per million (ppm). That caramel would then be diluted when it is put in soda. The highest levels of 4-MEI found by CSPI were about 0.4 ppm, So to even begin to enter the risk are, you would need to drink 1000 cans.
And they don't 'add it' tit comes naturally form the cooking of the caramel.
Just so people know, you get it in pretty much anything the browns.
How manyn peope beciome scientist andengineers because of star trek?
" You can't put lipstick on a pig." I must, disAgree withyou mY good man. With the patented Frink 3000 piglipstick-abaug , you most certainly can.
Or to be more modern.
"You see Perry the platypus, people say you can't put lipstick on a pig, but with my Piglipstickanator, you can. Once peoples see how cute pigs look with lipstick, they won't eat pork. And as you know, Bacon is this economic back bone of the tri-state area... there's more, but you see where I'm going with this."
How to you become a retired hobbiest? Isn't that just stopping to do the hobby?
Anyways, robots are not stagnant, not by any stretch. Big dog, cheetah, we have bipedal robots that run.
You need to define sentience. Please apply the definition to fire. If fire can be described with your definition, then the definition is wrong, OR fir is sentient.
Oh, and we have system that can learn stuff we don't know and can't figure out when they tell us:
If you haven't read it, I suggest you get "Understanding Computers and Cognition" by Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores
AS humans we will have no problem with the compartmentalization issues. So we could have 'slave' robots and not apply that to anyone else.
Finally, we have computer virus the evolve, computers that can figures out mathematical formulas through observation, computers that can profile people who have never used them, and self driving cars. So, yeah it's here.
Gets my mail, answers my phone it I want it to, looks for music I might like, l lets me know of up coming social event. Play chess against it.
It's called a 'smart phone'. Hell, with minimal effort I can have it follow me on it's own accord. I mean, some Lego motors and gear, and it can us it's camera to follow me. Might take a day.
No. They need to loose their jobs. The city needs to be sued, and everyone convicted should get recompense for the monies the spent, impacts on their jobs, and reputation.
I don't want to pay to put someone in jail when they aren't actual a dangerous threat to society.
I got my Nexus - S from best buy. For the same price as a screen and case I got a replacement plan. SO if it becomes damaged, I can replace it. This means I don't worry as much and just keep it in my back pocket.
As an added bonus: I paid 99 dollars for the phone, and if I take it back to best buy I get a 119 dollar gift card.
I do occasional buy custom back pieces. My last one Had Dr venture on it.
A) This has been policy since it's inception, so not new.
B) This isn't abuse
C) You can buy apps through a number of other channels.
D) Google gave devs a long time to adopt to the policy.
In the last 2 years, there has been an increasing Google hate in the media and on/.(which is redundant) But since Goolge actually plays pretty damn well, people have started exaggerating and out right lying about Google's actions, impacts, and effects. Behind every OMG Google is evil'! story there has been perfectly reasonable reasons. Assuming the statement is true to begin with.
Yes it's legal. If it was the only place you could buy apps, it might warrant a abuse of monopoly power investigation. Since you can sell you're apps and in apps services through a variety of other ways, there is no monopoly concern.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? that's your argument?
It kills a great many people who don't want to partake. But hey, god forbid we step on your constitution right to poison people~
Did you know the heart attacks in non smokers in the work place has been cut in half because you can no longer smoke there?
Of course you don't, that would require reading studies and being actually informed.
You know what else is legal, swing my fist around in public. Hey, kit's not my fault it hit someone , they could go somewhere else.
The fucking leave.
You need to look at the dose. It take 1000 cans to even get to the range where it would ahve a chance to casue canser igf you are predisposed.
Look at the numbers:
Studies in rats show effects at 1250 ppm, and fmakle rtas at 5000ppm had a higher risk.
Coca-Cola has .4 ppm
You can't even cross the point where its a risk at all.
So, no worries.
Of course, there is no evidence at all that this can, is, or has happened in humans..but the Rat/Mouse studies where pretty well done. I
Sugar is WORSE for you.
Idiot.
Probably not even that much.\
250 ppm is the min you need to get the FDA warning. Coca-cola has .4ppm
The asshat at CSPI have decided the if any amount at all has any probability of causing cancer, then any dose can cause cancer.
Because a 100 metric ton rock on your head can kill you, then clearly a .001 gram rock hitting you an your head can kill you.
Like many groups started in the 70's to help people, it has become an group solely to gather money and spew alarmist misinformation.
The morons at CSPI force government regulation down CAs throat based on the flimsist evidence, such as this case.
They have basically made it so cancer labels are useless.
That article is alarmist and misleading. .4ppm... Which is about what you would get from any browning process.
A) Coca-coal doesn't 'add it'. It is created when caramel is made. BTW, Coca-cola doesn't make caramel, they buy it from suppliers.
B) a serving has
FDA say 250ppm is where the issue might begin. However, the studies regarding 4-MI see an effect in rats over 1250 ppm:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2366200/?tool=pubmed
And anyone who had a parody of the item they are allegedly looking into cannot be trusted. Clearly they are biased.
And why, exactly, makes you think the CSPI are the good guys? Because everything I read from them is always misleading, it is always biased, and it is always full of logical fallacy's. They are either following an agenda that falls under naturalist fallacies, or they are just incompetent.
The 4-MI levels in soda aren't even worth noting, but hey6 they can't get funding by being honest and reasonable.
Fuck. Them.
Which is in NO WAY an endorsement of ABA.
I mean, look at this:
"But the levels of 4-MI in the tested colas still may be causing thousands of cancers in the U.S. population."
False. There is no evidence of that at all. Unless there are people drinking 100's of cans of soda everyday for weeks on end.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2366200/?tool=pubmed
note the PPM 1250 and 5000
from http://www.itwire.com/science-news/health/53314-coke-and-pepsi-new-formulas-have-less-cancer-causing-stuff?start=1
, “the FDA’s limit for 4-MEI in caramel coloring is 250 parts per million (ppm). That caramel would then be diluted when it is put in soda. The highest levels of 4-MEI found by CSPI were about 0.4 ppm,
So to even begin to enter the risk are, you would need to drink 1000 cans.
And they don't 'add it' tit comes naturally form the cooking of the caramel.
Just so people know, you get it in pretty much anything the browns.
As always, it's the dose that makes the poison;.
How manyn peope beciome scientist andengineers because of star trek?
" You can't put lipstick on a pig."
I must, disAgree withyou mY good man. With the patented Frink 3000 piglipstick-abaug , you most certainly can.
Or to be more modern.
"You see Perry the platypus, people say you can't put lipstick on a pig, but with my Piglipstickanator, you can. Once peoples see how cute pigs look with lipstick, they won't eat pork. And as you know, Bacon is this economic back bone of the tri-state area... there's more, but you see where I'm going with this."
But a construction worker might see a disk lying on a counter and torrent it. Plausible deniability.
http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh
move quick
How to you become a retired hobbiest? Isn't that just stopping to do the hobby?
Anyways, robots are not stagnant, not by any stretch.
Big dog, cheetah, we have bipedal robots that run.
You need to define sentience. Please apply the definition to fire. If fire can be described with your definition, then the definition is wrong, OR fir is sentient.
Oh, and we have system that can learn stuff we don't know and can't figure out when they tell us:
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/apr/05/limits-of-science/
If you haven't read it, I suggest you get "Understanding Computers and Cognition" by Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores
AS humans we will have no problem with the compartmentalization issues. So we could have 'slave' robots and not apply that to anyone else.
Finally, we have computer virus the evolve, computers that can figures out mathematical formulas through observation, computers that can profile people who have never used them, and self driving cars. So, yeah it's here.
we already have robots that learn. Mostly via a USB cable and download, but also through observation.
In fact, sometime they learn things and give us a mathematical answer that works..but humans haven't figured out how.
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/apr/05/limits-of-science/
Hey! put that routine in as a joke, don't blame me if QA didn't do their job.
no. It needs to have a definition for those things, doesn't need to feel them.
Also, we have robots that can learn through observation. Don't really need meat emotions to learn.
Gets my mail, answers my phone it I want it to, looks for music I might like, l lets me know of up coming social event. Play chess against it.
It's called a 'smart phone'. Hell, with minimal effort I can have it follow me on it's own accord.
I mean, some Lego motors and gear, and it can us it's camera to follow me. Might take a day.
No. They need to loose their jobs. The city needs to be sued, and everyone convicted should get recompense for the monies the spent, impacts on their jobs, and reputation.
I don't want to pay to put someone in jail when they aren't actual a dangerous threat to society.
This goes for many people who are in jail.
Not if my employers are aware of that fact.
I got my Nexus - S from best buy.
For the same price as a screen and case I got a replacement plan. SO if it becomes damaged, I can replace it. This means I don't worry as much and just keep it in my back pocket.
As an added bonus: I paid 99 dollars for the phone, and if I take it back to best buy I get a 119 dollar gift card.
I do occasional buy custom back pieces. My last one Had Dr venture on it.
It's not anti trust because they have a competitive market place, unlike Apple.
Apps you are paying money for have ads? huh.
You can replace "Google" with "ISP" Or facebook, or slashdot, or at&t or t-mobile, or verizon, and so on.
In fact, you should just get off the internet.
Seems to me you are focused on the wrong thing.
A thinking person would dispute the charges with the CC company.
A) This has been policy since it's inception, so not new.
B) This isn't abuse
C) You can buy apps through a number of other channels.
D) Google gave devs a long time to adopt to the policy.
In the last 2 years, there has been an increasing Google hate in the media and on /.(which is redundant)
But since Goolge actually plays pretty damn well, people have started exaggerating and out right lying about Google's actions, impacts, and effects. Behind every OMG Google is evil'! story there has been perfectly reasonable reasons. Assuming the statement is true to begin with.
Yes it's legal. If it was the only place you could buy apps, it might warrant a abuse of monopoly power investigation. Since you can sell you're apps and in apps services through a variety of other ways, there is no monopoly concern.