No. Whether or not the other guy did this I don't know, but I'm definitely not going to make a firm assumption that he did, because that'd just make me a jackass. I'm talking about writing code back in 97. Was there even that much sample VB code in 97?
I appreciate the judgement of my code (that you've never seen) as well.
I don't promote or use VB. It was a thing of the past for me. I was doing IT for a company that had a really crappy front end for a simple inventory database. So, I took a couple of Que books off a house dev's shelf and learned enough to write the front end. It was well documented, commented, and written from scratch. And it was simple. It's not like I was writing code for a big company's payroll software or something.
My mother's computer is about 2 hours drive away from me. I built it back when the celeron 300a came out... so it's sa bit too slow for me to deal with now. I'm thinking about getting her something faster and using that box as a router though.
Through that logic, by only eating vegetables now, I've become more manly?
also the stfu part was because he was attacking me. Of course that doesn't matter right? Just like I'm attacking YOU now by calling you a prick? Next I expect to here: "Oh everyone's a prick now, and you are just perfect."
#Mainly because you don't seem to be understanding what is being said. I was trying to clarify parts of the discussion that you seemed to have problems with.
No you're trying to clarify YOUR parts of the discussion that were mixed in with saying that I didn't understand the discussion (in a thread I started).
#well, there [anchor.co.nz] is this link a joke, or were you really unable to find anything? I won't accuse you of not reading this link because it has about 100 words on it.
#seems [montana.edu]
"Detective Moo and Assistants" have really put me to shame here. You had to be joking this time. But, did you even read this link?
#to be many [nationaldairycouncil.org]
Only thing I saw in here is that dairy is nutritious and organizations say it works out in a diets, etc. I was talking about evidence, like studies, proof, etc. Not claims. You could pour spirulina into chocolate cake, and suddenly it's extremely nutritious. It doesn't mean it's great for you though.
#people [go.com] who have provided evidence.
First this says that 72% of *fat* people who eat dairy are protected from insulin resistance. Most of this is based on what people eat on the average. For the average diet, replacing thigns such as, steak, with dairy is a good idea. Sure, I can agree with that. I don't eat something as unhealthy as steak though. There's a reason that things such as beef have health recommendations attached that say "limit yourself to this amount" where as fruits and vegetables don't. Then the article says consuming too much of the fat in dairy is bad for you, so consume low-fat versions. Something definitely unhealthy there, but you're fine as long as you don't eat too much... that's just not an issue with vegetables; you'd just have to eat so much that you suspend digestion from overload... to take that to the extreme case (even though it's not extreme to me) how much poison do you limit yourself to eating?
#compared to the propaganda that the vegan/animal rights groups put forward.
I don't keep up with animal rights groups. I know people who work on farms and factories though. Animals are generally pretty tortured. Oh I've seen a few videos that people like PETA have put out as well. You don't seem to care about animals being tortured though... Which is understandable, in an inhumane way. You were taelking about the "propaganda" about dairy and meat being unhealthy though weren't you? My beliefs there are based on my own experience (which includes the people around me, not just me) and barely influenced from anything people like PETA says. For one I strictly eat raw fruits and vegetables. I don't think that is even a diet that PETA pushes, which is part why I don't care to much about the diet they push.
#EXACTLY what I said in my original statement, that there is propaganda from both sides of the fence. It's funny how your beliefs influence what you consider marketing/propaganda, while the rest of us hear the marketspeak you use (remember, PETA has to get money from somebody too) and giggle at you parroting information provided by groups with a conflict of interest in the matters at hand.
I barely even know what PETA does or says. It's funny how strongly you have generalized and profiled against me, then base all kinds of personal attack on it. Where have I "parrot"ed information provided by any groups?
Also, of course again I forgot to be precise with you in the previous post. I'm not talking about immediate effects or nutritious values. I realize though that the burden is on my shoulders for what I take healthy to mean. To me healthy is something that won't cause you to die early, make you sicker more often, make you weaker, or fater, etc. All kinds of trash food has vitamins and minerals. That doesn't mean they don't continue to impact your colon to end your ability to efficiently eliminate disease though (for one example).
#"Value is completely wrapped up in efficiency when it comes down to what is best for society." #What an empty statement!
What is it empty about it? That sentence's foundation is "what is best for society". That means, that in my opinion, when you start with "what is best for society", efficienct is the top most concern. Read that again: What is best for society... Efficient is a very flexible word, but it should still be of top most concern for a society that is looking to change and develop into a lasting society, not one that will just destory itself (of course I realize my opinion is in here as well). Now you also have to understand that I'm talking about very long term, not TODAY, and I'm talking about making things better, not keeping things the way they are, or trying to change into utopia tomorrow. That is why we are doing things such as, using manure for energy, working on electric cars, developing better public transportation, spraying insecticides on crops, using assembly lines, using computers, etc. To do things more efficiently. Now unless you just want to narrowly define value to whatever fits your argument, you can't say that that is an empty statement. I feel that technology is a result of our needs. We don't get less and less efficient as time goes on. Technology has a lot to do with this.
#Of course lots of things apply when you want to get into hypothetical situations about what is best for society, but society rarely does the smartest thing. Maybe in fantasy-land decisions are based on environmental reasons alone, but here in the real world value, whether real or imagined, is dictated by market forces and the parties who purchase/manufacture the product. If value and efficiency where completely intertwined, nobody would buy diamonds, wood fuel would be banned, soy plots would be outlawed, etc.
Where exactly do diamonds enter into "what is best for society"? It seems like you totally missed the point again oh ye bastion of comprehension. So before you blow up and start talking about how I don't understand how the world works blah blah blah, realize that I said "what is best for society". Do you honestly think diamonds enter into a discussion about "what is best for society"? And also, when putting "what is best for society" into perspective, consider a time frame a tad longer than 50 years.
#"Get off my back about being rude." #Why? You have a history of comments on this story alone where you are condescending and arrogant, which frustrates debate because most of your opinions are just that, with no proof. Let's look through some of your greatest hits for this thread:
Ok here's what you said to me to start off the nastiness between you and I:
#You aren't saying anything that isn't completely obvious to anyone with even a basic grasp of the problems the environment faces
Here you're calling me ignorant about what I'm talking about. That's a tad rude isn't it? I feel like it is.
#Sometimes I wish people (read: hippies) would actually have a clue to how this world works before suggesting childish, badly planned solutions.
You called me a hippy, clueless, childish, and either not thinking about what I'm saying or not understanding what I'm saying (badly planned solutions).
#seriously seem to have some comprehension issues.
Going back to something you said "Efficiency doesn't even enter the conversation until you brought it up." You're right. That's why the thread I started was called "inefficient". Who has comprehension issues here? How can you say it didn't enter into the conversation when it was the first word in the conversation? Understand that yet? The beginning == Efficiency being brought up. If you don't understand that yet, start clicking "parent".
#certainly need to spend some time working on your comprehension skills and learning to correctly interpret blah blah blah. yeah... and you must be immune to this if you can't understand where efficiency fits in a thread started off with the word "inefficient"?
#So since you just blabber on and don't have a clue, just stfu.
Great work here. Did you happen to look at what was said to me? He was basically trolling me. I was justified in being rude to someone who practically BEGGED me to be rude by throwing several insults at me. You can't just take a statement like "I'm going to kill you!" and call someone an attempted murderer if the person they are replying to just threw a grenade at them. Disclaimer (since you've taken my analogies literally previously): That was an analogy to help you get the point.
# I don't drink or eat cows. Yet I still eat... amazing eh?
That wasn't "rude". That was joking. This is example doesn't apply. Good try at picking anything for fuel though. The person I was replying to even defended me later when people were still arguing something I wasn't suggesting.
# So here it is in what I hope is easier English for you to understand
You're right, this was bit uncalled for. But it was after several people already took what I meant the wrong way and refused to hear what I meant in the first place, or spent the time to read my other explanations of this, so I was a little upset. Do you not see that he still didn't get my point though, and that is the reason that I was upset? I made it clear over and over again that I didn't mean we should not try to use manure for fuel. Yet he was still arguing it.
# you are the type who doesn't care about the survival of his or her own species
I can't even find where I said this. It was probably justified for any shred of "rudeness" though since most of the other stuff you picked was irrelevant.
#Compare the definition of redundant with the number of times this joke showed up, and you might be able to answer your own question
I was kidding here. Of course you aren't seeing that because you are looking for fuel and trying to turn anything I say into what fits your argument, which is pretty low.
#blah blah blah
You still go on and on about me not understanding the discussion. The problem here was that people were basically replying to what I said as if I said something else.
You really should go back and look at who I was arguing with about getting rid of cows. The only other person I found besides you (just scanning, not picking carefully) that I was arguing with about getting rid of cows at all was someone I was arguing with about the english integrity of a sentence I made. Since you went on and on about, I take it that you came across some other post that speaks differently.
Could your arguments be anymore cosmetic? You do a damn good job setting up a cosmetic argument that has zero weight, because you're still saying I didn't understand the thread that I started and continue to accuse me of being out of place by ushering in the word efficiency for no reason... IN A THREAD THAT STARTED WITH THE WORD "INEFFICIENT" HAHAHAHA.
ok here's my last attempt for you... If you really even care to realize that you still don't get it... Go back and read through my posts also, and keep in mind that what I meant was "don't increase cows" and what people were saying was "we should use what resources that the cows we have are giving to us". I did go back and read through and that is what was happening, not what you are suggesting. The only person that fit the bs that you are saying was you. Only a few people understood, and you weren't one of them.
1) I was using "exterminate cows" as a mechanism to show how to get rid of them immediately. You appeared to be implying that my argument included getting rid of the immediately. I was showing that I didn't mean that at all. Why, in every reply, do you focus on the trivial details that don't even really apply to the argument?
2) There is evidence that shows dairy is unhealthy. There is no evidence showing that it *is* healthy. Find it. Marketing isn't evidence.
3) Value/Efficient. You just don't get it to do you? This entire thread started over ME talking about efficiency. And my point was whether increasing cows was an efficient long term solution. Value is completely wrapped up in efficiency when it comes down to what is best for society. If you think they are separate, my opinion is that you are wrong.
4) Get off my back about being rude. You started the being rude part between us. That entitles me to be rude back without being whined at about it by you.
5) "hold so much value for the human race." Again you are focusing on the details and trying to build a psychological profile or something, when I said "horn of plenty". Since you stamped cows as such a great resource for the human race, I stamped "horn of plenty" on it. Back off and stop trying to just judge me.
6) Why do you have to get personal in an argument? It's just annoying and reduces everything you say into an attack.
My "education" was changing my diet to raw organic whole foods, and no longer getting sick, where I used to get a cold about once a month, or needing to see doctors for any reason, and all of the other people whose diets I influenced having the same effects.
I don't give a fuck what is written because I've seen the difference of replacing all the fast food you eat with healthy food. I also understand the strangling the fast food industry places on the economy.
So since you just blabber on and don't have a clue, just stfu.
Actually, keeping in mind that you are posting in a thread that started from a post I made which gives me a bit of insight on what the focus was, the primary focus of the discussion was NOT producing dairy. The focus was NOT increasing the number of cows, because I feel that cows are an inefficient resource.
I think that any body with at least 100 IQ could realize that if cows are making dairy, it would be logical to make use of them as fully as possible. Why would I argue against that? If you are saying "you don't know," it's bceause you are having the wrong discussion like most everyone else in this thread was.
I already stated in several other posts that I misinterpreted the article. It wasn't skewed because of my personal beliefs. I just misinterpreted it.
You need to back off the "obvious" theory. That was sufficiently blown to all hell by the content of the posts I got in response.
We won't always have cows producing dairy products. We may even continue on into the taste of "dairy" products made synthetically after that becomes a viable option. I never said that we should exterminate every cow that is out there tomorrow. That is an assumption about my post that YOU are making. We would have to phase them out. Of coures that isn't going to happen because people don't give a rats ass about cows, people don't realize what happens to cows, people don't care how unhealthy dairy is, and people don't know how unhealthy dairy is. Cows go away when it isn't possible anymore.
The barrier to getting rid of cows isn't because they are an incredible source of value (efficient). It's the desire for public consumption and all the industry that depends on them. You couldn't go out and exterminate them because a lot of industries would collapse, and we aren't prepared to supply people with either the lost resources or lose work that would result. Any decrease in cows being as resources would have to be done in stages, or gradually. I figured that would be obvious too. Of course you, like most everyone else jumping on my case, attached anything that my post could have possibly implied.
Anyhow, as long as people want leather, dairy, steaks, etc, and as long as it is marketed to them so strongly, cows are going to be hard to get away from. And those are the only reasons. Not because they are the horn of plenty as you suggest.
No, what you are a LOT of people are missing is that neithre he or I are discussing whether or not current farmers should try to use their by products as efficiently as possible. Using every resource in your disposal should be an obvious goal.
He is talking straight efficiency. I was talking about it being a bad idea to increase the number of cows, and he is showing why.
The reason I said my original post is because I thought the farmer was saying that we should increase the number of cows. After reading the article again though, I realize that the farmer only said that we industry should be more self sufficient.
Which was? I was saying that increasing the amount of cows was inefficient. Where is the strawman in that? The only argument anyone had against me was argument against something I wasn't saying.
Thanks for being really nitpicky on the diary thing. That really helped everyone.
but you are a retard for saying that this sentence isn't correct: "I never said that we shouldn't use what cows we have, but I AM saying that we should get rid of the cows we have."
Do you not realize that the first part of the sentence is something I never said, but the last part is something I DID say? That sentence doesn't mean "use the cows we have and get rid of the cows we have". It means "do what we can now, but cows have to go". I didn't realize that every fucking thing I say has to be 100% obvious or morons like you. I guess that sentence included a basic logic that apparently is too complex for you.
The point was that everyone was jumping on me for thinking that I meant this idea was inefficient to implement Right Now. I didn't mean that. I meant that long term it is inefficient to increase the number of cows. You need to get that straight before attempting to insult me through your ignorance.
But on the useful side of your post, which was mostly flame, you're right, I read the article wrong. He didn't say that cows are a good means of resource for the future. Mostly what he said was that industry should be more self sufficient, but he included the idea of keeping things the way they are. We can't keep things the way they are, or we will just run out of fuels.
Of course he isn't envisioning that. I can't believe you even imagined that anyone would say something that ignorant after the entire point was: not to keep cows alive for a single purpose.
People who are using the land to feed and power their family may be efficient, but this guy isn't just feeding and powering his family. He is producing dairy products that go into circulation. That is the inefficient and unhealthy part. He's also making a few people on top who have strangled the business from top to bottom, very rich, destroying the sharing of wealth.
The land usage isn't even that efficient. At some point this will be an issue, but currently I guess it isnt.
And did you even read the articles? Even the FARMERS are calling it a farm...
Today's lesson was to not assume anyone replying to you will read the article, or have any clue about the OBVIOUS.
I'm not implying that we should NOT use what manure cows are producing now. I'm saying that we should NOT increase the number of cows in usage. That is why I started it off with how inefficient it is as a long term solution (ill go out and feed my 10 cows). I did NOT mean that this is a waste of time, nor that this is a process we should totally forget about. Sure I think using what cows are currently in consumption to produce power is great. But this farmer is talking about making strides for the future, and that cows should be an integral part of that (including population growth).
I really don't see how anyone misunderstood me so extremely.
>You like beef? How about milk? Butter? Cream with your coffee? Cheese?
No. I don't consume anything in that list (including coffee). Are you surprised? I'm assuming you are since you followed that question up with telling me that those are dairy products.
But the amazing part (to some of you, obviously) is that I am still alive and I eat every day.
Is everyone a total moron and didn't read the article or what? I'm not talking about NOT using the waste from current cows. The farmer was talking about implementing this as a solution for the future, basically increasing the amount of cows in usage. I never said that we shouldn't use what cows we have, but I AM saying that we should get rid of the cows we have.
Slashdot Mirror
Did this post bounce off the atmosphere from the 1940's or something? Cause this guy is WAY off.
No. Whether or not the other guy did this I don't know, but I'm definitely not going to make a firm assumption that he did, because that'd just make me a jackass. I'm talking about writing code back in 97. Was there even that much sample VB code in 97?
I appreciate the judgement of my code (that you've never seen) as well.
I don't promote or use VB. It was a thing of the past for me. I was doing IT for a company that had a really crappy front end for a simple inventory database. So, I took a couple of Que books off a house dev's shelf and learned enough to write the front end. It was well documented, commented, and written from scratch. And it was simple. It's not like I was writing code for a big company's payroll software or something.
I've coded a quick db front end for internal use in less than a couple of days.
:) It's just so fun to knock cause it's so bloated.
So I'm qualified for knocking it right?
I know VB has it's purpose
Sounds like visual basic programmers are complaining or something.
got an example?
I love being trolled! yay!
My mother's computer is about 2 hours drive away from me. I built it back when the celeron 300a came out... so it's sa bit too slow for me to deal with now. I'm thinking about getting her something faster and using that box as a router though.
figured I'd let you troll at me a little more..
Through that logic, by only eating vegetables now, I've become more manly?
also the stfu part was because he was attacking me. Of course that doesn't matter right? Just like I'm attacking YOU now by calling you a prick? Next I expect to here: "Oh everyone's a prick now, and you are just perfect."
haha
#Mainly because you don't seem to be understanding what is being said. I was trying to clarify parts of the discussion that you seemed to have problems with.
No you're trying to clarify YOUR parts of the discussion that were mixed in with saying that I didn't understand the discussion (in a thread I started).
#well, there [anchor.co.nz]
is this link a joke, or were you really unable to find anything? I won't accuse you of not reading this link because it has about 100 words on it.
#seems [montana.edu]
"Detective Moo and Assistants" have really put me to shame here. You had to be joking this time. But, did you even read this link?
#to be many [nationaldairycouncil.org]
Only thing I saw in here is that dairy is nutritious and organizations say it works out in a diets, etc. I was talking about evidence, like studies, proof, etc. Not claims. You could pour spirulina into chocolate cake, and suddenly it's extremely nutritious. It doesn't mean it's great for you though.
#people [go.com] who have provided evidence.
First this says that 72% of *fat* people who eat dairy are protected from insulin resistance. Most of this is based on what people eat on the average. For the average diet, replacing thigns such as, steak, with dairy is a good idea. Sure, I can agree with that. I don't eat something as unhealthy as steak though. There's a reason that things such as beef have health recommendations attached that say "limit yourself to this amount" where as fruits and vegetables don't. Then the article says consuming too much of the fat in dairy is bad for you, so consume low-fat versions. Something definitely unhealthy there, but you're fine as long as you don't eat too much... that's just not an issue with vegetables; you'd just have to eat so much that you suspend digestion from overload... to take that to the extreme case (even though it's not extreme to me) how much poison do you limit yourself to eating?
#compared to the propaganda that the vegan/animal rights groups put forward.
I don't keep up with animal rights groups. I know people who work on farms and factories though. Animals are generally pretty tortured. Oh I've seen a few videos that people like PETA have put out as well. You don't seem to care about animals being tortured though... Which is understandable, in an inhumane way. You were taelking about the "propaganda" about dairy and meat being unhealthy though weren't you? My beliefs there are based on my own experience (which includes the people around me, not just me) and barely influenced from anything people like PETA says. For one I strictly eat raw fruits and vegetables. I don't think that is even a diet that PETA pushes, which is part why I don't care to much about the diet they push.
#EXACTLY what I said in my original statement, that there is propaganda from both sides of the fence. It's funny how your beliefs influence what you consider marketing/propaganda, while the rest of us hear the marketspeak you use (remember, PETA has to get money from somebody too) and giggle at you parroting information provided by groups with a conflict of interest in the matters at hand.
I barely even know what PETA does or says. It's funny how strongly you have generalized and profiled against me, then base all kinds of personal attack on it. Where have I "parrot"ed information provided by any groups?
Also, of course again I forgot to be precise with you in the previous post. I'm not talking about immediate effects or nutritious values. I realize though that the burden is on my shoulders for what I take healthy to mean. To me healthy is something that won't cause you to die early, make you sicker more often, make you weaker, or fater, etc. All kinds of trash food has vitamins and minerals. That doesn't mean they don't continue to impact your colon to end your ability to efficiently eliminate disease though (for one example).
#"Value is completely wrapped up in efficiency when it comes down to what is best for society."
#What an empty statement!
What is it empty about it? That sentence's foundation is "what is best for society". That means, that in my opinion, when you start with "what is best for society", efficienct is the top most concern. Read that again: What is best for society... Efficient is a very flexible word, but it should still be of top most concern for a society that is looking to change and develop into a lasting society, not one that will just destory itself (of course I realize my opinion is in here as well). Now you also have to understand that I'm talking about very long term, not TODAY, and I'm talking about making things better, not keeping things the way they are, or trying to change into utopia tomorrow. That is why we are doing things such as, using manure for energy, working on electric cars, developing better public transportation, spraying insecticides on crops, using assembly lines, using computers, etc. To do things more efficiently. Now unless you just want to narrowly define value to whatever fits your argument, you can't say that that is an empty statement. I feel that technology is a result of our needs. We don't get less and less efficient as time goes on. Technology has a lot to do with this.
#Of course lots of things apply when you want to get into hypothetical situations about what is best for society, but society rarely does the smartest thing. Maybe in fantasy-land decisions are based on environmental reasons alone, but here in the real world value, whether real or imagined, is dictated by market forces and the parties who purchase/manufacture the product. If value and efficiency where completely intertwined, nobody would buy diamonds, wood fuel would be banned, soy plots would be outlawed, etc.
Where exactly do diamonds enter into "what is best for society"? It seems like you totally missed the point again oh ye bastion of comprehension. So before you blow up and start talking about how I don't understand how the world works blah blah blah, realize that I said "what is best for society". Do you honestly think diamonds enter into a discussion about "what is best for society"? And also, when putting "what is best for society" into perspective, consider a time frame a tad longer than 50 years.
#"Get off my back about being rude."
#Why? You have a history of comments on this story alone where you are condescending and arrogant, which frustrates debate because most of your opinions are just that, with no proof. Let's look through some of your greatest hits for this thread:
Ok here's what you said to me to start off the nastiness between you and I:
#You aren't saying anything that isn't completely obvious to anyone with even a basic grasp of the problems the environment faces
Here you're calling me ignorant about what I'm talking about. That's a tad rude isn't it? I feel like it is.
#Sometimes I wish people (read: hippies) would actually have a clue to how this world works before suggesting childish, badly planned solutions.
You called me a hippy, clueless, childish, and either not thinking about what I'm saying or not understanding what I'm saying (badly planned solutions).
#seriously seem to have some comprehension issues.
Going back to something you said "Efficiency doesn't even enter the conversation until you brought it up."
You're right. That's why the thread I started was called "inefficient". Who has comprehension issues here? How can you say it didn't enter into the conversation when it was the first word in the conversation? Understand that yet? The beginning == Efficiency being brought up. If you don't understand that yet, start clicking "parent".
#certainly need to spend some time working on your comprehension skills and learning to correctly interpret blah blah blah.
yeah... and you must be immune to this if you can't understand where efficiency fits in a thread started off with the word "inefficient"?
#So since you just blabber on and don't have a clue, just stfu.
Great work here. Did you happen to look at what was said to me? He was basically trolling me. I was justified in being rude to someone who practically BEGGED me to be rude by throwing several insults at me. You can't just take a statement like "I'm going to kill you!" and call someone an attempted murderer if the person they are replying to just threw a grenade at them. Disclaimer (since you've taken my analogies literally previously): That was an analogy to help you get the point.
# I don't drink or eat cows. Yet I still eat... amazing eh?
That wasn't "rude". That was joking. This is example doesn't apply. Good try at picking anything for fuel though. The person I was replying to even defended me later when people were still arguing something I wasn't suggesting.
# So here it is in what I hope is easier English for you to understand
You're right, this was bit uncalled for. But it was after several people already took what I meant the wrong way and refused to hear what I meant in the first place, or spent the time to read my other explanations of this, so I was a little upset. Do you not see that he still didn't get my point though, and that is the reason that I was upset? I made it clear over and over again that I didn't mean we should not try to use manure for fuel. Yet he was still arguing it.
# you are the type who doesn't care about the survival of his or her own species
I can't even find where I said this. It was probably justified for any shred of "rudeness" though since most of the other stuff you picked was irrelevant.
#Compare the definition of redundant with the number of times this joke showed up, and you might be able to answer your own question
I was kidding here. Of course you aren't seeing that because you are looking for fuel and trying to turn anything I say into what fits your argument, which is pretty low.
#blah blah blah
You still go on and on about me not understanding the discussion. The problem here was that people were basically replying to what I said as if I said something else.
You really should go back and look at who I was arguing with about getting rid of cows. The only other person I found besides you (just scanning, not picking carefully) that I was arguing with about getting rid of cows at all was someone I was arguing with about the english integrity of a sentence I made. Since you went on and on about, I take it that you came across some other post that speaks differently.
Could your arguments be anymore cosmetic? You do a damn good job setting up a cosmetic argument that has zero weight, because you're still saying I didn't understand the thread that I started and continue to accuse me of being out of place by ushering in the word efficiency for no reason... IN A THREAD THAT STARTED WITH THE WORD "INEFFICIENT" HAHAHAHA.
ok here's my last attempt for you... If you really even care to realize that you still don't get it... Go back and read through my posts also, and keep in mind that what I meant was "don't increase cows" and what people were saying was "we should use what resources that the cows we have are giving to us". I did go back and read through and that is what was happening, not what you are suggesting. The only person that fit the bs that you are saying was you. Only a few people understood, and you weren't one of them.
er... but it wasn't the first...
1) I was using "exterminate cows" as a mechanism to show how to get rid of them immediately. You appeared to be implying that my argument included getting rid of the immediately. I was showing that I didn't mean that at all. Why, in every reply, do you focus on the trivial details that don't even really apply to the argument?
2) There is evidence that shows dairy is unhealthy. There is no evidence showing that it *is* healthy. Find it. Marketing isn't evidence.
3) Value/Efficient. You just don't get it to do you? This entire thread started over ME talking about efficiency. And my point was whether increasing cows was an efficient long term solution. Value is completely wrapped up in efficiency when it comes down to what is best for society. If you think they are separate, my opinion is that you are wrong.
4) Get off my back about being rude. You started the being rude part between us. That entitles me to be rude back without being whined at about it by you.
5) "hold so much value for the human race." Again you are focusing on the details and trying to build a psychological profile or something, when I said "horn of plenty". Since you stamped cows as such a great resource for the human race, I stamped "horn of plenty" on it. Back off and stop trying to just judge me.
6) Why do you have to get personal in an argument? It's just annoying and reduces everything you say into an attack.
At least be funny when you troll.
My "education" was changing my diet to raw organic whole foods, and no longer getting sick, where I used to get a cold about once a month, or needing to see doctors for any reason, and all of the other people whose diets I influenced having the same effects.
I don't give a fuck what is written because I've seen the difference of replacing all the fast food you eat with healthy food. I also understand the strangling the fast food industry places on the economy.
So since you just blabber on and don't have a clue, just stfu.
Actually, keeping in mind that you are posting in a thread that started from a post I made which gives me a bit of insight on what the focus was, the primary focus of the discussion was NOT producing dairy. The focus was NOT increasing the number of cows, because I feel that cows are an inefficient resource.
I think that any body with at least 100 IQ could realize that if cows are making dairy, it would be logical to make use of them as fully as possible. Why would I argue against that? If you are saying "you don't know," it's bceause you are having the wrong discussion like most everyone else in this thread was.
I already stated in several other posts that I misinterpreted the article. It wasn't skewed because of my personal beliefs. I just misinterpreted it.
You need to back off the "obvious" theory. That was sufficiently blown to all hell by the content of the posts I got in response.
We won't always have cows producing dairy products. We may even continue on into the taste of "dairy" products made synthetically after that becomes a viable option. I never said that we should exterminate every cow that is out there tomorrow. That is an assumption about my post that YOU are making. We would have to phase them out. Of coures that isn't going to happen because people don't give a rats ass about cows, people don't realize what happens to cows, people don't care how unhealthy dairy is, and people don't know how unhealthy dairy is. Cows go away when it isn't possible anymore.
The barrier to getting rid of cows isn't because they are an incredible source of value (efficient). It's the desire for public consumption and all the industry that depends on them. You couldn't go out and exterminate them because a lot of industries would collapse, and we aren't prepared to supply people with either the lost resources or lose work that would result. Any decrease in cows being as resources would have to be done in stages, or gradually. I figured that would be obvious too. Of course you, like most everyone else jumping on my case, attached anything that my post could have possibly implied.
Anyhow, as long as people want leather, dairy, steaks, etc, and as long as it is marketed to them so strongly, cows are going to be hard to get away from. And those are the only reasons. Not because they are the horn of plenty as you suggest.
im not pushing just "what you eat religion". I'm pushing ultimate efficiency in the long run.
I've recommended a few newbies start out on gentoo and they are diehards now....
then again the newbies I know aren't computer newbies... just linux newbies.
second attempt:
We should use what cows we currently have in circulation as efficiently as possible.
We should not increase the number of cows.
And we should EVENTUALLY, get rid of cows.
No, what you are a LOT of people are missing is that neithre he or I are discussing whether or not current farmers should try to use their by products as efficiently as possible. Using every resource in your disposal should be an obvious goal.
He is talking straight efficiency. I was talking about it being a bad idea to increase the number of cows, and he is showing why.
The reason I said my original post is because I thought the farmer was saying that we should increase the number of cows. After reading the article again though, I realize that the farmer only said that we industry should be more self sufficient.
Which was? I was saying that increasing the amount of cows was inefficient. Where is the strawman in that? The only argument anyone had against me was argument against something I wasn't saying.
Thanks for being really nitpicky on the diary thing. That really helped everyone.
but you are a retard for saying that this sentence isn't correct: "I never said that we shouldn't use what cows we have, but I AM saying that we should get rid of the cows we have."
Do you not realize that the first part of the sentence is something I never said, but the last part is something I DID say? That sentence doesn't mean "use the cows we have and get rid of the cows we have". It means "do what we can now, but cows have to go". I didn't realize that every fucking thing I say has to be 100% obvious or morons like you. I guess that sentence included a basic logic that apparently is too complex for you.
The point was that everyone was jumping on me for thinking that I meant this idea was inefficient to implement Right Now. I didn't mean that. I meant that long term it is inefficient to increase the number of cows. You need to get that straight before attempting to insult me through your ignorance.
But on the useful side of your post, which was mostly flame, you're right, I read the article wrong. He didn't say that cows are a good means of resource for the future. Mostly what he said was that industry should be more self sufficient, but he included the idea of keeping things the way they are. We can't keep things the way they are, or we will just run out of fuels.
Of course he isn't envisioning that. I can't believe you even imagined that anyone would say something that ignorant after the entire point was: not to keep cows alive for a single purpose.
retard.
Ok, so you are another person who doesn't have a clue what I'm saying.
So here it is in what I hope is easier English for you to understand: Turn manure into power, good. More cows, bad.
People who are using the land to feed and power their family may be efficient, but this guy isn't just feeding and powering his family. He is producing dairy products that go into circulation. That is the inefficient and unhealthy part. He's also making a few people on top who have strangled the business from top to bottom, very rich, destroying the sharing of wealth.
The land usage isn't even that efficient. At some point this will be an issue, but currently I guess it isnt.
And did you even read the articles? Even the FARMERS are calling it a farm...
Today's lesson was to not assume anyone replying to you will read the article, or have any clue about the OBVIOUS.
I'm not implying that we should NOT use what manure cows are producing now. I'm saying that we should NOT increase the number of cows in usage. That is why I started it off with how inefficient it is as a long term solution (ill go out and feed my 10 cows). I did NOT mean that this is a waste of time, nor that this is a process we should totally forget about. Sure I think using what cows are currently in consumption to produce power is great. But this farmer is talking about making strides for the future, and that cows should be an integral part of that (including population growth).
I really don't see how anyone misunderstood me so extremely.
oh well..
>You like beef? How about milk? Butter? Cream with your coffee? Cheese?
No. I don't consume anything in that list (including coffee). Are you surprised? I'm assuming you are since you followed that question up with telling me that those are dairy products.
But the amazing part (to some of you, obviously) is that I am still alive and I eat every day.
Is everyone a total moron and didn't read the article or what? I'm not talking about NOT using the waste from current cows. The farmer was talking about implementing this as a solution for the future, basically increasing the amount of cows in usage. I never said that we shouldn't use what cows we have, but I AM saying that we should get rid of the cows we have.