What's weird is if this isn't a legitimate way to test the Chicken, why did they get the expected results from the other 4 restaurant chains that were tested? They used two independent labs to verify the results, and both times the results indicated significantly less chicken in the subway "meat". According to this article about the testing they tested 3 samples taken from 2 sample sandwiches of each of the products tested (3 from other companies and 2 subway sandwiches). The subway meat was such a large outlier that they initially thought there was a problem with the testing so they tested 5 additional samples of each of the subway products but got the same results.
In any case, the testing certainly seems to show that there is something significantly different about the chicken procured from Subway that was tested by the labs.
Continue to run around as though the sky is falling.
Continue burying your head in the sand and pretending that everyone who isn't doing the exact same thing as you is an idiot, it makes your an easier target.
And as an aggravating factor, the sun is warmer now than it was 4.5 million years ago. So if we reach the same CO2 emissions as 4.5 million years ago, we will have more warming.
The mine you reference used to be under a glacier. The stuff in the mine froze because it was abandoned and under a glacier. 100 years ago, the glacier might have been expanding, but now it's retreated. The facts of your anecdote are entirely consistently with the mainstream theories of anthropogenic global warming.
Really? Because I don't hear any specific thing any white person did that results in them harming some minority that is summed up in social justice and white privileged. All I hear is collective guilt by association.
Ironically, you are exactly what you claim to hate.
Are you sure that I moved the goal posts? Because you're defending this statement: "SJW believe that your mere existence is wrong'ing everyone else, no matter of what you actually did." When I pointed out that the quotes were out of context and it was specifically related to what people actually did, you chose to claim that people who disagreed with you were "retarded", "totalitarian" "bullshit".
How far do I have to go to explain to you why people like Sally Brown are stupid and dangerous?
You could try giving one good reason. All I see is a meaningless tirade based on what you imagine was said and judging from your behaviour, it seems like you are easily manipulated by sound bites. Which makes you look "stupid and dangerous".
As I understand it, she said it was her job to "shut down" people who deny that racism and white privilege exist. I didn't see any mention of shaming white people for being white, or redefining justice, or any of the bogeymen that you seem to have conjured out of your race-obsessive imagination.
No, they're still paying more taxes. Far more, in most cases.
In absolute terms yes, but in relative terms no. The middle class tends to pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes.
Compared to the value they get for those taxes, which does not vary much from one individual to another based on income, they are significantly overpaying.
Considering that the primary use of tax money is maintaining the society that made them rich and generally continue to make them richer at the expense of the rest of Americans, they are almost certainly underpaying. Hint: You can tell they're underpaying because they are getting richer and the vast majority of the rest of Americans are not.
Moreover, that portion they don't spend on taxable goods is being invested, which does far more good for society than one could reasonably expect to result from handing it over to the government.
That's often not the case. For instance, most of the money invested in the stock market only helps the stock market. When you buy a stock you pay another investor for his stock. The money you invested does nothing until the other investor spends it. If he spends it on more stock, it does nothing until the third investor spends it and so on. Some people do invest their money into actual productive uses, but I don't know what actual percentage of the rich are putting what percentage of their money to productive use and I don't think you do either. Frankly, I doubt the amount is anywhere near as big as you seem to think it is.
You're proposing to seize those "excess" earnings and distribute them as a handout, which at best would just drive up prices, instead of allowing the funds to be invested in finding new ways to improve the efficiency of production and make the goods people need even more affordable.
Actually, those handouts can counter-intuitively drive prices down due to economies of scale, and companies should be constantly investing into method to improve the efficiency of production unless, for some reason, they hate turning a profit. It's not the generosity or benevolence of the rich that drives prices down. It's competition and taxes have little impact on the number of competitive players in a marketplace.
Punishing saving and investment in particular is a lousy way to help the average citizen, ensuring that the next generation will be worse off than its predecessors.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what "punishing saving and investment" means. For example, if it means taxing investment income at the same rate as wages, it would almost certainly help the average citizen more than it hurts them. The average citizen receives the majority of their income from wages and a minority (if any) from investments.
I understand they are people albeit retarded and dangerous.
See, right there. You don't consider people who disagree with you to be equals who are capable of rational thought, clearly they must be defective because they don't agree with your all-knowing self, right?
Or you have real world examples like the head of the Idaho Democratic party that stated un-ironically: "shut other white people down".
Of course, the rest of that quote is (paraphrased for clarity) is "when they are interrupting non-whites talking about how racism affects them" and "when they are denying that white people have advantages that non-whites don't have". But I bet you didn't understand that and probably don't care to understand what she was talking about because then you might actually have to consider that your enemies might also be people.
Appeals to authority are not generally a fallacy. Thye are only fallacious if the authority is not an expert on the topic being considered. So, for example, referring to consensus view of practising climate scientists on global warming is not fallacious, but referring to the views of a retired mining middle manager on global warming would be a fallacious appeal to authority.
Science doesn't happen by consensus. It happens by rigorous proof and verifiable, repeatable testing of a (hopefully null) hypothesis.
Climate "science" is a joke, and it has been for decades. Not a single accurate model. Not a single null hypothesis actually tested. No rigor in measurement or data collection. Instead we're looking at a short time period with inconsistent measurements (and still throwing out or "adjusting" data to fit the predetermined conclusions) and engaging in statistical wankery to predict doom and gloom. Unless, of course, we spend lots of money to support the policies and programs of the people funding the research.
What a desperate load of bunk, who are you trying to convince? Yourself?
Oh it's simple. Google is seen to be "anti-Trump" and Comcast and Verizon are "pro-Trump". Therefore the rules should only apply to Google and not Comcast or Verizon. Everything else is porcine cosmetics.
Most of what you wrote is complete and utter bullshit. The majority of the bad loans weren't even written by banks, they were written by loan companies which were under no obligations to provide loans to anyone for any reason. You blame the government, but the banks would have done it anyway in the quest for profits. Sub-prime loans were extremely profitable, and as long as the housing market continued to rise, they were almost risk free because whoever owned the loan could foreclose on the house which would be worth more than the loan on it. The shady side of the subprime loan industry was the belief that even if they offered loans to people who likely couldn't pay, the lender could take their money until they couldn't pay any more and then steal the house for resale (and a quick profit) when they failed to make payments.
The government didn't have to force them to do anything, they hung themselves with short-sighted greed.
Given the fact that society has not changed one bit regardless of the increasing risk, I'd say it's more a problem of you not understanding human behavior.
I'm not talking about society, I'm talking about the people your company is hiring to write the supposedly secure software that your company presumably sells. The way I see it, if you can't trust your developers to keep their lap tops encrypted (after telling them they are required to do so), to not lose their lap tops, to not pirate software, and to back up their work regularly on the network SCM server, you shouldn't be trusting them do any work for you at all. To put it bluntly, your company seems to be hiring incompetent and irresponsible children. Frankly, if I knew where you worked, I would avoid having anything to do with any software that comes from your company because your employees appear to be fundamentally incompetent at their jobs.
I expect more from the people who work for me, and I get that from them because I expect them to act like adults and I can and do fire people who can't meet minimum standards.
It's all true. I've seen countless prominent Trump supporters on Slashdor give PopeRatzo full credit for Trump's victory... Clearly without his support, Trump would be just another billionaire presidential wannabe...
Slashdot Mirror
now run by a muppet.
WTF are you talking about? The Muppets have a much better platform than our current 'leadership'.
He probably meant a Feeble, but then again most people wouldn't get that reference....
What's weird is if this isn't a legitimate way to test the Chicken, why did they get the expected results from the other 4 restaurant chains that were tested? They used two independent labs to verify the results, and both times the results indicated significantly less chicken in the subway "meat". According to this article about the testing they tested 3 samples taken from 2 sample sandwiches of each of the products tested (3 from other companies and 2 subway sandwiches). The subway meat was such a large outlier that they initially thought there was a problem with the testing so they tested 5 additional samples of each of the subway products but got the same results.
In any case, the testing certainly seems to show that there is something significantly different about the chicken procured from Subway that was tested by the labs.
Look up food babe. You'd love her. She shamelessly self-promotes by looking for ingredients that sound a bit science-y and then scaremongering them.
Oh, I love her. That's how I found out that microwaves turn food evil, just like saying the words "Hitler" or "Satan" near your food does...
Continue to run around as though the sky is falling.
Continue burying your head in the sand and pretending that everyone who isn't doing the exact same thing as you is an idiot, it makes your an easier target.
And as an aggravating factor, the sun is warmer now than it was 4.5 million years ago. So if we reach the same CO2 emissions as 4.5 million years ago, we will have more warming.
Feeling too lazy right now to dig up evidence you're not going to bother reading anyways.
Well, it is very difficult to find things that don't exist, and then get other people to read the stuff that you didn't find...
The mine you reference used to be under a glacier. The stuff in the mine froze because it was abandoned and under a glacier. 100 years ago, the glacier might have been expanding, but now it's retreated. The facts of your anecdote are entirely consistently with the mainstream theories of anthropogenic global warming.
Really? Because I don't hear any specific thing any white person did that results in them harming some minority that is summed up in social justice and white privileged. All I hear is collective guilt by association.
Ironically, you are exactly what you claim to hate.
I see you like to move goal posts.
Are you sure that I moved the goal posts? Because you're defending this statement: "SJW believe that your mere existence is wrong'ing everyone else, no matter of what you actually did." When I pointed out that the quotes were out of context and it was specifically related to what people actually did, you chose to claim that people who disagreed with you were "retarded", "totalitarian" "bullshit".
How far do I have to go to explain to you why people like Sally Brown are stupid and dangerous?
You could try giving one good reason. All I see is a meaningless tirade based on what you imagine was said and judging from your behaviour, it seems like you are easily manipulated by sound bites. Which makes you look "stupid and dangerous".
As I understand it, she said it was her job to "shut down" people who deny that racism and white privilege exist. I didn't see any mention of shaming white people for being white, or redefining justice, or any of the bogeymen that you seem to have conjured out of your race-obsessive imagination.
No, they're still paying more taxes. Far more, in most cases.
In absolute terms yes, but in relative terms no. The middle class tends to pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes.
Compared to the value they get for those taxes, which does not vary much from one individual to another based on income, they are significantly overpaying.
Considering that the primary use of tax money is maintaining the society that made them rich and generally continue to make them richer at the expense of the rest of Americans, they are almost certainly underpaying. Hint: You can tell they're underpaying because they are getting richer and the vast majority of the rest of Americans are not.
Moreover, that portion they don't spend on taxable goods is being invested, which does far more good for society than one could reasonably expect to result from handing it over to the government.
That's often not the case. For instance, most of the money invested in the stock market only helps the stock market. When you buy a stock you pay another investor for his stock. The money you invested does nothing until the other investor spends it. If he spends it on more stock, it does nothing until the third investor spends it and so on. Some people do invest their money into actual productive uses, but I don't know what actual percentage of the rich are putting what percentage of their money to productive use and I don't think you do either. Frankly, I doubt the amount is anywhere near as big as you seem to think it is.
You're proposing to seize those "excess" earnings and distribute them as a handout, which at best would just drive up prices, instead of allowing the funds to be invested in finding new ways to improve the efficiency of production and make the goods people need even more affordable.
Actually, those handouts can counter-intuitively drive prices down due to economies of scale, and companies should be constantly investing into method to improve the efficiency of production unless, for some reason, they hate turning a profit. It's not the generosity or benevolence of the rich that drives prices down. It's competition and taxes have little impact on the number of competitive players in a marketplace.
Punishing saving and investment in particular is a lousy way to help the average citizen, ensuring that the next generation will be worse off than its predecessors.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what "punishing saving and investment" means. For example, if it means taxing investment income at the same rate as wages, it would almost certainly help the average citizen more than it hurts them. The average citizen receives the majority of their income from wages and a minority (if any) from investments.
I understand they are people albeit retarded and dangerous.
See, right there. You don't consider people who disagree with you to be equals who are capable of rational thought, clearly they must be defective because they don't agree with your all-knowing self, right?
Or you have real world examples like the head of the Idaho Democratic party that stated un-ironically: "shut other white people down".
Of course, the rest of that quote is (paraphrased for clarity) is "when they are interrupting non-whites talking about how racism affects them" and "when they are denying that white people have advantages that non-whites don't have". But I bet you didn't understand that and probably don't care to understand what she was talking about because then you might actually have to consider that your enemies might also be people.
Neither, because you failed to cite sources for either number.
Oh, no. No it's not. Not even close. The U.S. produces 14% of the world's CO2 emissions with 4% of the world's population.
No business can survive a tax of $300/tonne. Which is what Trudeau wants to push here in Canada, it would crash our economy overnight.
It's $50/tonne by 2022. Which is 1/6th of what you claim.
Fallacy of argument by trusting in "authority".
Appeals to authority are not generally a fallacy. Thye are only fallacious if the authority is not an expert on the topic being considered. So, for example, referring to consensus view of practising climate scientists on global warming is not fallacious, but referring to the views of a retired mining middle manager on global warming would be a fallacious appeal to authority.
What if someone's standing on the North Pole?
Then the sun rises in the spring and sets in the fall.
Science doesn't happen by consensus. It happens by rigorous proof and verifiable, repeatable testing of a (hopefully null) hypothesis. Climate "science" is a joke, and it has been for decades. Not a single accurate model. Not a single null hypothesis actually tested. No rigor in measurement or data collection. Instead we're looking at a short time period with inconsistent measurements (and still throwing out or "adjusting" data to fit the predetermined conclusions) and engaging in statistical wankery to predict doom and gloom. Unless, of course, we spend lots of money to support the policies and programs of the people funding the research.
What a desperate load of bunk, who are you trying to convince? Yourself?
Oh it's simple. Google is seen to be "anti-Trump" and Comcast and Verizon are "pro-Trump". Therefore the rules should only apply to Google and not Comcast or Verizon. Everything else is porcine cosmetics.
Most of what you wrote is complete and utter bullshit. The majority of the bad loans weren't even written by banks, they were written by loan companies which were under no obligations to provide loans to anyone for any reason. You blame the government, but the banks would have done it anyway in the quest for profits. Sub-prime loans were extremely profitable, and as long as the housing market continued to rise, they were almost risk free because whoever owned the loan could foreclose on the house which would be worth more than the loan on it. The shady side of the subprime loan industry was the belief that even if they offered loans to people who likely couldn't pay, the lender could take their money until they couldn't pay any more and then steal the house for resale (and a quick profit) when they failed to make payments.
The government didn't have to force them to do anything, they hung themselves with short-sighted greed.
Given the fact that society has not changed one bit regardless of the increasing risk, I'd say it's more a problem of you not understanding human behavior.
I'm not talking about society, I'm talking about the people your company is hiring to write the supposedly secure software that your company presumably sells. The way I see it, if you can't trust your developers to keep their lap tops encrypted (after telling them they are required to do so), to not lose their lap tops, to not pirate software, and to back up their work regularly on the network SCM server, you shouldn't be trusting them do any work for you at all. To put it bluntly, your company seems to be hiring incompetent and irresponsible children. Frankly, if I knew where you worked, I would avoid having anything to do with any software that comes from your company because your employees appear to be fundamentally incompetent at their jobs.
I expect more from the people who work for me, and I get that from them because I expect them to act like adults and I can and do fire people who can't meet minimum standards.
From a security perspective, I was including developers in that description of average users.
That may be indicative of problems in your hiring methodology, management, and/or employee conduct standards.
It's all true. I've seen countless prominent Trump supporters on Slashdor give PopeRatzo full credit for Trump's victory... Clearly without his support, Trump would be just another billionaire presidential wannabe...
Go ahead. I'm not stopping you from proving yourself to be an immature idiot.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Or if you prefer, grow a sense of humour.
What, am I not allowed to point out the obvious?