Oh, it's made from '100% real chicken'. It's just not "meat" in any sense most of us would recognize.
You take all the leftover parts, puree them, add fillers and binders, stick 'em back together -- it's just the parts of the chicken with little or no nutritional value.
They can still call it chicken, and it isn't artificial. But if someone gave you a pile of what it really is (either before or after they grind it up), you sure wouldn't eat it.
Or, because they don't think the working classes should be forced to eat the bits of meat swept off the floor of a factory because it's all they can afford.
Researchers in Mississippi examined chicken nuggets at two different fast-food chains and found that only about half of the nuggets were made of muscle meat The rest of the nuggets were made of other chicken parts like fat, blood vessels, nerves, bones and cartilage
I'm a vegetarian and I disagree. Some fake meats are bad, particularly the cheap rehydratable variety, but others taste OK.
I don't think the OP meant 'meat analogues' like soy or what have you. Most vegetarians have learned to deal with those, and some of them are pretty well done.
I think he meant 'fake meat' -- as in vat grown cells of animals which are somehow supposed to be a good thing and which some vegetarians suggest would be OK because there's no animal cruelty involved.
For me, the idea of vat grown animal cells in some industrial version of pink slime meets soylent green elicits an big "ewww", and would not be something I'd ever eat.
Well, before anybody signed that, they should have understood that they couldn't legally enter into that contract, and that it sure as hell didn't give them permission to break the law.
Anybody who read that NDA and said "well, we can still use it, we just can't tell anybody" is a complete moron.
Which means either they didn't know and understand the law, or they deliberately decided to skirt around it.
This is exactly a case where I am OK with tracking down the criminal through the cell phone. The warrant would absolutely have been granted if they bothered to ask for it.
Except that they didn't get a warrant, subsequently used the device in a bunch of other cases (again, without warrants) is mind boggling.
An NDA with a vendor is not a free pass to violate the law, and if the police are stupid enough to believe they can do anything they want because they signed an NDA, they're horribly mistaken.
A vendor of such things cannot compel you to violate the law. And they should have known this -- surely somewhere they have legal counsel who can say "well, that doesn't mean you can do this any time you like".
This is either stupidity and incompetence, or deciding you now have a loophole to do an end run around the law whenever you choose.
That's like telling your mom that when you bought your brother's bicycle for $0.10 her right to punish you was covered by an NDA. It simply doesn't work that way. She will still punish you, and the courts need to really do the same here.
Police in Florida have offered a startling excuse for having used a controversial 'stingray' cell phone tracking gadget 200 times without ever telling a judge: the device's manufacturer made them sign a non-disclosure agreement that they say prevented them from telling the courts
I'm sorry, but what?
You broke the law because if you'd told the courts you'd be breaking an NDA with the company?
How the hell can a police force enter into a contract which expressly requires them to break the law?? What genius lawyer signed off on that one?
Oh, sorry your honor, we couldn't tell you we were violating the law because we signed a contract?
really? the only thing I got out of the summary was that barrels don't scale well when used as a sewage system.
Really? The summary says "ancient Belgian poop found in barrels", followed by "and speaking of poop, an ISP is running cables along the top of sewers in a place where they didn't use barrels for poop".
Wow, perhaps I have misunderstood the douchebaggery of phone companies.
I fail to see how it is legal to decree that since your phone is capable of having data, that they can force you to pay for it.
That's completely irrational, and sounds pretty sketchy from a legal perspective -- you've signed me up for something because you figure I should be paying for it? And that's legal??
I have a vague memory, though, of reading that carriers can get the model of your phone, and will happily add data if they find you're using a smart phone without a data plan. Perhaps I should be more bold.
In which case you call them up, inform them you didn't want or ask for a data plan, and that they can't legally add something to your bill without your consent and to credit your bill because you didn't sign up for it.
They certainly can't say you're not allowed to have a data-capable phone which doesn't have a data plan.
Companies may do that in the hopes that you think it's convenient and keep it, but they can't force you to take a data plan, and they know it.
More likely, you change the car's nav and entertainment system's SIM card if you want to change cellular provider and if you don't want one, don't have any.
I have seen little evidence of car companies being willing to do such things in the things they make.
Like every other company, they want lock in, monetization, and a big piece of the action of ongoing revenue.
I find it hard to believe the won't try to force you into buying from them. They're not going to make things they aren't going to profit from, because there's nothing in it for them.
They may not directly be carriers, but I'm quite certain they're likely to try to extract their cut and require a component they do control.
While I do buy some organic food it's not for health reasons. It's more because I find it appealing to avoid using pesticides and inorganic fertilizerswhich often end up in our waterways or antibiotics (which promots antibiotic resistant bacteria).
Which, oddly enough, comes full circle to health reasons, even if they're indirect.
and the anti-GMO crowd wants poor brown people to starve
No, we want some assurances they've done real safety testing instead of just assuming, and that if those 'poor brown people' get food aid, they're not beholden to a multinational which says they can't keep seeds to grow their own crops next year and be able to feed themselves, and we don't want the option of buying non-GMO foods destroyed because of cross-pollination which contaminates crops which aren't supposed to have that in it.
Your desire to characterize it as you have doesn't substitute for facts.
For example, imagine a driver getting turn-by-turn navigation while a front-seat passenger streams music from the Internet, and each back-seat passenger watches streaming videos on separate displays.
Now imagine how much the data plan for your car is going to cost you. You'll be locked into a plan with the car company and pay through the nose.
No thanks. I have a dedicated GPS, an MP3 player I can connect to my car stereo, and most everybody has portable devices which can play video already.
Now get off my damned lawn, because I don't want or need a car which is connected to the interwebs.
Off the top of my head: someone upgraded their iPhone and got a new one and had a spare, they bought a used phone, or went into the Apple store and bought the phone at retail price.
If you've got a phone which just uses a SIM card, you can swap phones pretty easily.
Hell, my SIM card has been through about 6-7 phones in the last 14 years (which is how long I've had the number).
You can't buy from a carrier w/o the data plan because the subsidy factors in the cost of your data plan. But it's easy enough to change phones unless they're the really annoying carrier locked crap which doesn't just use SIM cards. I've got a (cheap) smart phone with no data plan.
Does it actually play games? Since it isn't backwards compatible, I assume there's not many.
Does it play Blu Ray discs? Because the last one they'd bet on HD-DVD which went nowhere.
Does it let me play games without trying to monetize every aspect of that and share that information with Microsoft? I seriously doubt that.
To me it sounds like an attempt to be the entertainment hub of your room, sell you ads and premium services, violate your privacy, and has conveniently forgotten what some people want is a video game console.
To me it sounds like they're making something else and calling it a video game. And if it needs an internet connection, I have no interest in it.
Why do you assume that non networked devices don't surveil you?
But if it's powered off and or air-gapped, who is going to collect it and how?
When my XBox 360 isn't in use, the Kinect is powered down. When it isn't connected to the internet (which it never is, and never will be), there's no mechanism for someone to get anything from it.
The XBone insists it is always connected to the internet (last I heard) and I'm not sure I trust that when the deice is off it isn't still recording -- many people pretty much have been saying this would happen for years, that our entertainment devices would become privacy nightmares.
When Microsoft et al decided it was their console and that it would do whatever they wanted... many of us decided we'd not be willing to buy it.
If the government wants this information they're going to get it, no matter what we do with our gaming consoles
I refuse to own a gaming console which is required to be connected to the internet.
I disconnected my XBox 360 when it started showing me ads, and since I don't play games online or use it to stream videos, I have no use for a game console which requires the internet -- especially if we have to treat the privacy implications as inevitable.
I'll give up gaming before I put an always connected camera in my living room.
Make me a gaming console which doesn't need to be connected to the internet, or don't expect me to buy one that does.
There's actually two different numbers at play here:
In a mobile monetization report released today, app testing firm Swrve found that in January, half of free-to-play gamesâ(TM) in-app purchases came from 0.15 percent of players. Only 1.5 percent of players of games in the Swrve network spent any money at all.
So, half of all spending comes from 0.15% of all players, and only 1.5% of all players spent anything (and make up the other half of spending).
The rest of us refuse to hand over money for whatever in-game gimmick you have implemented which makes the game suck without it and end up uninstalling the damned game.
Any time I "buy" all the microtransaction purchases, I feel like I'm cheating.
I've found many of the new crop of mobile games are more or less set up that unless you're buying the stuff in the game, you'll never get anywhere.
I've seen a few games which let you play once or twice/day unless you buy something. I've seen games where it would take an infinite amount of time to earn the things needed in the game.
I have two tests for a new game I've downloaded:
1) Put the phone into airplane mode and turn off wifi -- if the game complains it can't connect to a server, uninstall it, because it it can't work on a plane I don't care.
2) Check if the game immediately starts suggesting you go to their store in order to be useful -- if it looks like you'll never get anywhere without buying the baubles, uninstall it.
I find many many games seem to be built for the sole purpose of advertising and selling in-game stuff. Which is why I only play games in airplane mode with no connectivity, and something which has caused me to uninstall a lot of them after under 5 minutes.
It is amazing how many apps which should require no internet connectivity insist on it -- and I'm sure that's not about anything other than trying to get them revenue, which I have no intention of providing them with in the first place.
Can't speak to what the GP said... but the way governments have been behaving lately, I know I more or less assume such things.
You know, like that an always-connected-to-the-internet XBone would be misused by spy agencies to spy on us -- and now we see news reports saying exactly that.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, it's made from '100% real chicken'. It's just not "meat" in any sense most of us would recognize.
You take all the leftover parts, puree them, add fillers and binders, stick 'em back together -- it's just the parts of the chicken with little or no nutritional value.
They can still call it chicken, and it isn't artificial. But if someone gave you a pile of what it really is (either before or after they grind it up), you sure wouldn't eat it.
Or, because they don't think the working classes should be forced to eat the bits of meat swept off the floor of a factory because it's all they can afford.
Because, really:
that's pretty nasty stuff.
I don't think the OP meant 'meat analogues' like soy or what have you. Most vegetarians have learned to deal with those, and some of them are pretty well done.
I think he meant 'fake meat' -- as in vat grown cells of animals which are somehow supposed to be a good thing and which some vegetarians suggest would be OK because there's no animal cruelty involved.
For me, the idea of vat grown animal cells in some industrial version of pink slime meets soylent green elicits an big "ewww", and would not be something I'd ever eat.
Well, before anybody signed that, they should have understood that they couldn't legally enter into that contract, and that it sure as hell didn't give them permission to break the law.
Anybody who read that NDA and said "well, we can still use it, we just can't tell anybody" is a complete moron.
Which means either they didn't know and understand the law, or they deliberately decided to skirt around it.
Except that they didn't get a warrant, subsequently used the device in a bunch of other cases (again, without warrants) is mind boggling.
An NDA with a vendor is not a free pass to violate the law, and if the police are stupid enough to believe they can do anything they want because they signed an NDA, they're horribly mistaken.
A vendor of such things cannot compel you to violate the law. And they should have known this -- surely somewhere they have legal counsel who can say "well, that doesn't mean you can do this any time you like".
This is either stupidity and incompetence, or deciding you now have a loophole to do an end run around the law whenever you choose.
That's like telling your mom that when you bought your brother's bicycle for $0.10 her right to punish you was covered by an NDA. It simply doesn't work that way. She will still punish you, and the courts need to really do the same here.
I'm sorry, but what?
You broke the law because if you'd told the courts you'd be breaking an NDA with the company?
How the hell can a police force enter into a contract which expressly requires them to break the law?? What genius lawyer signed off on that one?
Oh, sorry your honor, we couldn't tell you we were violating the law because we signed a contract?
That's ridiculous.
Really? The summary says "ancient Belgian poop found in barrels", followed by "and speaking of poop, an ISP is running cables along the top of sewers in a place where they didn't use barrels for poop".
Absolutely a Slashvertizement.
Wow, perhaps I have misunderstood the douchebaggery of phone companies.
I fail to see how it is legal to decree that since your phone is capable of having data, that they can force you to pay for it.
That's completely irrational, and sounds pretty sketchy from a legal perspective -- you've signed me up for something because you figure I should be paying for it? And that's legal??
In which case you call them up, inform them you didn't want or ask for a data plan, and that they can't legally add something to your bill without your consent and to credit your bill because you didn't sign up for it.
They certainly can't say you're not allowed to have a data-capable phone which doesn't have a data plan.
Companies may do that in the hopes that you think it's convenient and keep it, but they can't force you to take a data plan, and they know it.
I have seen little evidence of car companies being willing to do such things in the things they make.
Like every other company, they want lock in, monetization, and a big piece of the action of ongoing revenue.
I find it hard to believe the won't try to force you into buying from them. They're not going to make things they aren't going to profit from, because there's nothing in it for them.
They may not directly be carriers, but I'm quite certain they're likely to try to extract their cut and require a component they do control.
Which, oddly enough, comes full circle to health reasons, even if they're indirect.
No, we want some assurances they've done real safety testing instead of just assuming, and that if those 'poor brown people' get food aid, they're not beholden to a multinational which says they can't keep seeds to grow their own crops next year and be able to feed themselves, and we don't want the option of buying non-GMO foods destroyed because of cross-pollination which contaminates crops which aren't supposed to have that in it.
Your desire to characterize it as you have doesn't substitute for facts.
Bah, just use one of the 2.1A USB things instead of the 1A USB things and it'll be fine, right? ;-)
Now imagine how much the data plan for your car is going to cost you. You'll be locked into a plan with the car company and pay through the nose.
No thanks. I have a dedicated GPS, an MP3 player I can connect to my car stereo, and most everybody has portable devices which can play video already.
Now get off my damned lawn, because I don't want or need a car which is connected to the interwebs.
Off the top of my head: someone upgraded their iPhone and got a new one and had a spare, they bought a used phone, or went into the Apple store and bought the phone at retail price.
If you've got a phone which just uses a SIM card, you can swap phones pretty easily.
Hell, my SIM card has been through about 6-7 phones in the last 14 years (which is how long I've had the number).
You can't buy from a carrier w/o the data plan because the subsidy factors in the cost of your data plan. But it's easy enough to change phones unless they're the really annoying carrier locked crap which doesn't just use SIM cards. I've got a (cheap) smart phone with no data plan.
Does it actually play games? Since it isn't backwards compatible, I assume there's not many.
Does it play Blu Ray discs? Because the last one they'd bet on HD-DVD which went nowhere.
Does it let me play games without trying to monetize every aspect of that and share that information with Microsoft? I seriously doubt that.
To me it sounds like an attempt to be the entertainment hub of your room, sell you ads and premium services, violate your privacy, and has conveniently forgotten what some people want is a video game console.
To me it sounds like they're making something else and calling it a video game. And if it needs an internet connection, I have no interest in it.
But if it's powered off and or air-gapped, who is going to collect it and how?
When my XBox 360 isn't in use, the Kinect is powered down. When it isn't connected to the internet (which it never is, and never will be), there's no mechanism for someone to get anything from it.
The XBone insists it is always connected to the internet (last I heard) and I'm not sure I trust that when the deice is off it isn't still recording -- many people pretty much have been saying this would happen for years, that our entertainment devices would become privacy nightmares.
When Microsoft et al decided it was their console and that it would do whatever they wanted ... many of us decided we'd not be willing to buy it.
I refuse to own a gaming console which is required to be connected to the internet.
I disconnected my XBox 360 when it started showing me ads, and since I don't play games online or use it to stream videos, I have no use for a game console which requires the internet -- especially if we have to treat the privacy implications as inevitable.
I'll give up gaming before I put an always connected camera in my living room.
Make me a gaming console which doesn't need to be connected to the internet, or don't expect me to buy one that does.
Sorry, you clearly grasped that ... but clearly some people are having a hard time understanding it.
There's actually two different numbers at play here:
So, half of all spending comes from 0.15% of all players, and only 1.5% of all players spent anything (and make up the other half of spending).
The rest of us refuse to hand over money for whatever in-game gimmick you have implemented which makes the game suck without it and end up uninstalling the damned game.
I've found many of the new crop of mobile games are more or less set up that unless you're buying the stuff in the game, you'll never get anywhere.
I've seen a few games which let you play once or twice/day unless you buy something. I've seen games where it would take an infinite amount of time to earn the things needed in the game.
I have two tests for a new game I've downloaded:
1) Put the phone into airplane mode and turn off wifi -- if the game complains it can't connect to a server, uninstall it, because it it can't work on a plane I don't care.
2) Check if the game immediately starts suggesting you go to their store in order to be useful -- if it looks like you'll never get anywhere without buying the baubles, uninstall it.
I find many many games seem to be built for the sole purpose of advertising and selling in-game stuff. Which is why I only play games in airplane mode with no connectivity, and something which has caused me to uninstall a lot of them after under 5 minutes.
It is amazing how many apps which should require no internet connectivity insist on it -- and I'm sure that's not about anything other than trying to get them revenue, which I have no intention of providing them with in the first place.
Well, I postulate a new law:
It may not be the intent, but it will be the effect.
Can't speak to what the GP said ... but the way governments have been behaving lately, I know I more or less assume such things.
You know, like that an always-connected-to-the-internet XBone would be misused by spy agencies to spy on us -- and now we see news reports saying exactly that.
What? A fudged demo? I'm shocked I tell 'ya.
Oh, wait, no I'm not.
I'm pretty sure people don't want to be walking around with a phone which has sodium metal or thermite in it.
Security is one thing, but having a phone with the potential to detonate in your pocket doesn't sound like my idea of fun.