DDT was widely used because it is highly effective at stopping the spread of infectious diseases by killing the vector.
This was before anybody took a critical look at it, and it had already been in use for nearly a century before anybody had. The people saying it was still safe were the ones following the long term momentum, much as the anti-GMO crowd is saying that millennia old organic farming is safe (and in reality it's not safe compared to modern synthetic farming methods.)
What alternatives? The only one I'm aware of is irradiating plants to trigger mutations to speed up the selective selection process. I'm not sure what makes you think that is safer than small (usually less than 200 nucleotides) deliberate DNA modification based on the science of proteomics.
I'm of the mind that YOU would NOT have supported the basic food labelling we have now for ingredients....
You're wrong; of course I support that. The purpose is to help anybody who has allergens or other dietary concerns to avoid foods that might bother them specifically. For example, as somebody with CKD caused by IgA Nephropathy, I look at the ingredients list for items containing phosphorous, and if they're high in the list, then I avoid that food.
Phosphorous is safe (and indeed, healthy) for 99.9% of the population, just not me.
That's what food labels are for. They aren't intended to scare people just to satisfy YOUR anti-science ideology.
Keep in mind that this comes after Chipotle just switched from their previous supplier that provided GMO food to one that is all organic. Smart choice, wasn't it?
Anyways let's hear it, tell me the process you use to remove the lettuce from the burrito to then wash it.
Every single non-industry-funded study on GMOs has returned absolutely horrifying results about what their consumption does to, specifically, the digestive system and the immune system.
And guess what? All of them have been debunked. Furthermore, they're mostly done by people like this guy:
In other words, people who have an ideology they want to push, so they use borderline fraudulent tactics and gross scientific misconduct to try to push their "studies".
My opinion of GMO food has nothing to do with Monsanto. When I speak about GMO, I speak only about the science and nothing else.
In fact, that's another reason why the anti-GMO movement is so full of bullshit that it's falling out of their ears: They constantly create false dilemmas. "You support GMO? You must support monsanto then!" or "You support GMO? You must eat frankenfood!" It's all a load of crap.
In fact one more thing to add: If you're truly concerned about food safety and ethics, then you should be lobbying against organic food, which has on numerous occasions caused death by food poisoning, which stems from the fact that it requires using cow shit and limiting pasteurization.
Meanwhile, guess how many got sick or died from GMO food? Zero. Not a one.
Another thing: Organic food requires a LOT more farmland for the same yield, and it's worth pointing out that making way for farmland is the biggest cause of deforestation.
No, radiation is optional in organic. Organic just means you grow it in cow shit and don't pasteurize it, which is why organic farming is responsible for hundreds of death and thousands of illnesses every year.
This is exactly what I hate about the anti-GMO movement: They cite examples like this even though no food like the example above actually makes it on your plate. That's just done for research purposes to better understand genetics.
They're banning it for the same reason that requiring labeling for cell phone radiation levels is now banned: It's a pointless indicator designed to create consumer FUD because of somebody's silly religious belief.
Seriously, GMO food is safe people. So far the best argument against GMO food is "We haven't found any actual scientific evidence that there's anything wrong with it, but you never know, therefore it should be labeled and/or banned." File this under other phobias like Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity.
ReplayTV lacked the legal muscle to defend ad skipping (being sued by basically every television media company in existence is NOT cheap,) however Dish had enough to make muster. And now that there's legal precedent behind it, Tivo is safe to go ahead with it.
Although there is a difference between the two, you're full of shit about your claims of how exactly it tastes.
All sugars have a mix of sweet and sour (two of the six basic flavors.) HFCS has a slightly higher amount of sour due to the slightly higher fructose content. It shouldn't taste "nasty" unless anything with the sour flavor tastes nasty to you. And if it does, then anything with lemon in it should taste absolutely horrible to you.
But either way, I know you're exaggerating it. Why are you exaggerating it? My guess is because you're a devout follower of the food religion, and whatever the latest pop culture hipster magazine says about it you take as gospel. It's the same reason these idiots think they can "easily" tell the difference between organic and non-organic food, even though in reality they can't tell the difference:
Honestly based on your other posts, it's pretty clear you're a devout follower of the food religion that basically throws out all scientific thought in favor of the latest diet fads that would make any hipster blush, and I strongly advise anybody to stay away from your recommendations.
In fact, to add to my post, if people just threw out ingredients they never heard of, then they'd be throwing out ingredients that are required for our survival but they don't make mention the latest pop culture diet fad book. Take for example lysine, which your body cannot produce, and if you didn't consume any you'd go blind first, and die not long after.
I don't know about you, but I think going with organic farming is far more morally repugnant than going with GMO foods. Why? Because organic farming requires a LOT more farmland just to get the same yield, and in case you haven't noticed, the number one reason for deforestation is so that people can clear forest to make room for farmland. Over the last 50 years, new farming techniques have increased the crop yields by 300%.
Honestly your food religion does MUCH more harm than good. I don't know why you believe that freezing farming methods back in time is somehow the moral high ground; it's very much the opposite. If it were up to you, agricultural science would be stuck in a permanent dark age to please mother Gaia.
No they aren't. You should be able to understand what you are eating. Even processed foods don't require ingredients that most people can't pronounce.
Unless you're a chemist, then you'll never understand exactly what you're consuming. Ever. Again, look at that ingredient list for natural blueberries. In fact every "natural" food has an ingredient list that will show items I guarantee you that you won't recognize. The whole point of ingredient lists is to help allergy sufferers know what to avoid, that's it; there's no other useful purpose for it.
In fact, here's a challenge I have for you: Go look at that ingredient list for blueberries and briefly describe to me what you know about each of those chemicals. Don't go to wikipedia, just look that list over and tell me how each of them affects you. Then do it for bananas, tomatoes, potatoes, romaine lettuce, corn, and avacado.
If you can't, then by your own backwards logic, you personally should never eat a single one of the food items I just listed.
Why is APK so fucking obsessed with host files? Is this a rolling gag or something that I'm not aware of? Or does he just have a severe case of OCD and/or Asperger's?
I don't think it's a losing battle, just a constant cat and mouse arms race. As ad developers create new technologies to circumvent blockers, ad blockers will find new ways to defeat those countermeasures. Though the ad blockers will probably stay perpetually ahead most of the time.
Why? Because sites that host these ads lack the agility afforded to ad blocker developers. They can't sit there and change things at the drop of a hat because it might break their site, which is much worse than making sure that somebody sees a few extra ads. Meanwhile ad blockers have little to no risk, and even if something breaks, the end user can temporarily suppress the blocker.
However an acceptable ads policy is, IMO, an acceptable compromise. Ads don't bother me, but ads that get in the way of whatever I'm trying to do (or play audio during quiet time) and/or waste bandwidth do bother me. Besides, unless you want to pay for every site you visit, you're going to end up with advertising at some point.
One quirk of the labels is that they just show what was added to it and not necessarily what's in it. For example, if you add a blueberries to your recipe, you'll put "blueberries" on the label, but in reality there's a bit more to it than that. See this:
And by the way, if somebody ever tells you to never consume something that has a chemical name you can't pronounce, they're full of shit and they're basically subscribing to the recent "food with integrity" religion that has all of about zero basis in science. It's this same mistaken belief that tells you "high fructose corn syrup" is bad, when in reality it's because somebody is afraid of the name. In fact if you pay close attention to that list of ingredients, and count only the simple sugars (fructose, glucose, and sucrose) these "natural" blueberries actually have more fructose than high fructose corn syrup.
They are a little different in that they have about 9.5% simple sugars by volume, whereas soda is somewhere around 15%+ (depends on the soda.) But still, the calories mostly just come from the simple sugars, and if you were to consume the same amount of calories found in juice as you would otherwise get from a smaller amount of soda (which it seems that this is what most people do) then there's no effective difference.
Yes I did. "Check inside the threads to see what is working/nonworking."
That rarely if ever covers that though. Take for example the HD Voice and voice recording features. None of the roms mention that those don't work, you just have to find out after installing it.
Well no, the beverage industry likely doesn't think of it the same way. If you have a proprietary recipe, then you're the only source of that drink, which means you can charge more for it and/or profit the most from it. Meanwhile just anybody can make bottled water, so it's not exactly lucrative.
Along with that, I think somebody should point out that fuit juice is almost as bad as soda. Sure it contains a small dose of nourishment absent from soda, but the amount of sugar in it just isn't worth it and can contribute to obesidy, fatty liver, cholesterol, and other problems just as bad as soda does.
Slashdot Mirror
DDT was widely used because it is highly effective at stopping the spread of infectious diseases by killing the vector.
This was before anybody took a critical look at it, and it had already been in use for nearly a century before anybody had. The people saying it was still safe were the ones following the long term momentum, much as the anti-GMO crowd is saying that millennia old organic farming is safe (and in reality it's not safe compared to modern synthetic farming methods.)
What alternatives? The only one I'm aware of is irradiating plants to trigger mutations to speed up the selective selection process. I'm not sure what makes you think that is safer than small (usually less than 200 nucleotides) deliberate DNA modification based on the science of proteomics.
I'm of the mind that YOU would NOT have supported the basic food labelling we have now for ingredients....
You're wrong; of course I support that. The purpose is to help anybody who has allergens or other dietary concerns to avoid foods that might bother them specifically. For example, as somebody with CKD caused by IgA Nephropathy, I look at the ingredients list for items containing phosphorous, and if they're high in the list, then I avoid that food.
Phosphorous is safe (and indeed, healthy) for 99.9% of the population, just not me.
That's what food labels are for. They aren't intended to scare people just to satisfy YOUR anti-science ideology.
Do tell me, dear sir, how you intend to wash the lettuce served in a Chipotle burrito?
http://www.startribune.com/twi...
Keep in mind that this comes after Chipotle just switched from their previous supplier that provided GMO food to one that is all organic. Smart choice, wasn't it?
Anyways let's hear it, tell me the process you use to remove the lettuce from the burrito to then wash it.
Every single non-industry-funded study on GMOs has returned absolutely horrifying results about what their consumption does to, specifically, the digestive system and the immune system.
And guess what? All of them have been debunked. Furthermore, they're mostly done by people like this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In other words, people who have an ideology they want to push, so they use borderline fraudulent tactics and gross scientific misconduct to try to push their "studies".
My opinion of GMO food has nothing to do with Monsanto. When I speak about GMO, I speak only about the science and nothing else.
In fact, that's another reason why the anti-GMO movement is so full of bullshit that it's falling out of their ears: They constantly create false dilemmas. "You support GMO? You must support monsanto then!" or "You support GMO? You must eat frankenfood!" It's all a load of crap.
In fact one more thing to add: If you're truly concerned about food safety and ethics, then you should be lobbying against organic food, which has on numerous occasions caused death by food poisoning, which stems from the fact that it requires using cow shit and limiting pasteurization.
http://www.geneticliteracyproj...
Meanwhile, guess how many got sick or died from GMO food? Zero. Not a one.
Another thing: Organic food requires a LOT more farmland for the same yield, and it's worth pointing out that making way for farmland is the biggest cause of deforestation.
No, radiation is optional in organic. Organic just means you grow it in cow shit and don't pasteurize it, which is why organic farming is responsible for hundreds of death and thousands of illnesses every year.
http://www.geneticliteracyproj...
But remember kids, GMO is bad for you, even though nobody has ever gotten sick or died from it.
This is exactly what I hate about the anti-GMO movement: They cite examples like this even though no food like the example above actually makes it on your plate. That's just done for research purposes to better understand genetics.
They're banning it for the same reason that requiring labeling for cell phone radiation levels is now banned: It's a pointless indicator designed to create consumer FUD because of somebody's silly religious belief.
Seriously, GMO food is safe people. So far the best argument against GMO food is "We haven't found any actual scientific evidence that there's anything wrong with it, but you never know, therefore it should be labeled and/or banned." File this under other phobias like Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity.
ReplayTV lacked the legal muscle to defend ad skipping (being sued by basically every television media company in existence is NOT cheap,) however Dish had enough to make muster. And now that there's legal precedent behind it, Tivo is safe to go ahead with it.
It's useless if they have anything except 0x00 (Copy Freely.) Even 0x01 (Copy Once) won't work.
Although there is a difference between the two, you're full of shit about your claims of how exactly it tastes.
All sugars have a mix of sweet and sour (two of the six basic flavors.) HFCS has a slightly higher amount of sour due to the slightly higher fructose content. It shouldn't taste "nasty" unless anything with the sour flavor tastes nasty to you. And if it does, then anything with lemon in it should taste absolutely horrible to you.
But either way, I know you're exaggerating it. Why are you exaggerating it? My guess is because you're a devout follower of the food religion, and whatever the latest pop culture hipster magazine says about it you take as gospel. It's the same reason these idiots think they can "easily" tell the difference between organic and non-organic food, even though in reality they can't tell the difference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Telling people to "buy a decent juicer and some fresh fruit" is as bad of advice as telling them to go drink sodas.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Honestly based on your other posts, it's pretty clear you're a devout follower of the food religion that basically throws out all scientific thought in favor of the latest diet fads that would make any hipster blush, and I strongly advise anybody to stay away from your recommendations.
In fact, to add to my post, if people just threw out ingredients they never heard of, then they'd be throwing out ingredients that are required for our survival but they don't make mention the latest pop culture diet fad book. Take for example lysine, which your body cannot produce, and if you didn't consume any you'd go blind first, and die not long after.
I don't know about you, but I think going with organic farming is far more morally repugnant than going with GMO foods. Why? Because organic farming requires a LOT more farmland just to get the same yield, and in case you haven't noticed, the number one reason for deforestation is so that people can clear forest to make room for farmland. Over the last 50 years, new farming techniques have increased the crop yields by 300%.
Honestly your food religion does MUCH more harm than good. I don't know why you believe that freezing farming methods back in time is somehow the moral high ground; it's very much the opposite. If it were up to you, agricultural science would be stuck in a permanent dark age to please mother Gaia.
No they aren't. You should be able to understand what you are eating. Even processed foods don't require ingredients that most people can't pronounce.
Unless you're a chemist, then you'll never understand exactly what you're consuming. Ever. Again, look at that ingredient list for natural blueberries. In fact every "natural" food has an ingredient list that will show items I guarantee you that you won't recognize. The whole point of ingredient lists is to help allergy sufferers know what to avoid, that's it; there's no other useful purpose for it.
In fact, here's a challenge I have for you: Go look at that ingredient list for blueberries and briefly describe to me what you know about each of those chemicals. Don't go to wikipedia, just look that list over and tell me how each of them affects you. Then do it for bananas, tomatoes, potatoes, romaine lettuce, corn, and avacado.
If you can't, then by your own backwards logic, you personally should never eat a single one of the food items I just listed.
Why is APK so fucking obsessed with host files? Is this a rolling gag or something that I'm not aware of? Or does he just have a severe case of OCD and/or Asperger's?
I don't think it's a losing battle, just a constant cat and mouse arms race. As ad developers create new technologies to circumvent blockers, ad blockers will find new ways to defeat those countermeasures. Though the ad blockers will probably stay perpetually ahead most of the time.
Why? Because sites that host these ads lack the agility afforded to ad blocker developers. They can't sit there and change things at the drop of a hat because it might break their site, which is much worse than making sure that somebody sees a few extra ads. Meanwhile ad blockers have little to no risk, and even if something breaks, the end user can temporarily suppress the blocker.
However an acceptable ads policy is, IMO, an acceptable compromise. Ads don't bother me, but ads that get in the way of whatever I'm trying to do (or play audio during quiet time) and/or waste bandwidth do bother me. Besides, unless you want to pay for every site you visit, you're going to end up with advertising at some point.
One quirk of the labels is that they just show what was added to it and not necessarily what's in it. For example, if you add a blueberries to your recipe, you'll put "blueberries" on the label, but in reality there's a bit more to it than that. See this:
http://static1.businessinsider...
And by the way, if somebody ever tells you to never consume something that has a chemical name you can't pronounce, they're full of shit and they're basically subscribing to the recent "food with integrity" religion that has all of about zero basis in science. It's this same mistaken belief that tells you "high fructose corn syrup" is bad, when in reality it's because somebody is afraid of the name. In fact if you pay close attention to that list of ingredients, and count only the simple sugars (fructose, glucose, and sucrose) these "natural" blueberries actually have more fructose than high fructose corn syrup.
At that point it's basically a smoothie, which nutritionally isn't much different from actual fruit.
They are a little different in that they have about 9.5% simple sugars by volume, whereas soda is somewhere around 15%+ (depends on the soda.) But still, the calories mostly just come from the simple sugars, and if you were to consume the same amount of calories found in juice as you would otherwise get from a smaller amount of soda (which it seems that this is what most people do) then there's no effective difference.
Yes I did. "Check inside the threads to see what is working/nonworking."
That rarely if ever covers that though. Take for example the HD Voice and voice recording features. None of the roms mention that those don't work, you just have to find out after installing it.
Well no, the beverage industry likely doesn't think of it the same way. If you have a proprietary recipe, then you're the only source of that drink, which means you can charge more for it and/or profit the most from it. Meanwhile just anybody can make bottled water, so it's not exactly lucrative.
Along with that, I think somebody should point out that fuit juice is almost as bad as soda. Sure it contains a small dose of nourishment absent from soda, but the amount of sugar in it just isn't worth it and can contribute to obesidy, fatty liver, cholesterol, and other problems just as bad as soda does.