And I just love how others make wildly inaccurate assumptions about my views on agriculture in general based solely on my misgivings about one technique.
So knowing that organic food does cause actual harm and plenty of evidence to back it up, with zero evidence that GMO food causes any actual harm, what prompted you to throw out a warning call for the potential damages of GMO food, as opposed to making a warning call about organic food?
We've already had countless cases of people dying and getting sick from organic, and not a single case of anybody dying or getting sick from GMO, in spite of GMO already being consumed in bigger numbers than organic. Meanwhile we're supposed to listen to the food religion about the dangers of GMO.
Coincidentally, there are 116M housing units in the US, median size say 4-5 rooms. If you had one person per room in every house, we could house everyone easily--318 million people in the US vs. 464M rooms. But the market isn't doing that.
I know why I'm not: Roommates suck. I have a spare bedroom, but no immediate desire to put somebody in it.
2. DO require developers who are building non-housing buildings (office, retail, industrial) to build a certain amount of housing as well
Well you have to remember that an investment has to be profitable enough to be worth doing. Nobody anywhere ever is going to throw money into a money losing venture.
A subsidy isn't the same as a price control. A price control says "thou shall not bill more than X" and/or "thou shall bill at least Y". The later is even lesser used, however the former often makes it very non-lucrative to either build new housing or to rent out property you own, hence it creates a supply problem (i.e. there are fewer places to live in because nobody wants to invest in it if they aren't going to make any money on it.)
A subsidy however is where you're just going to build property for a billing price cheaper than what it costs to actually build it. That would increase supply and lower property prices, if the taxpayers are willing to do so.
The US ended in a slightly better position than it started. Prior to the war of 1812, the US was susceptible to British press gangs and other routine harassment and skirmishes (which is basically what lead up to that war.) After it was over, it basically stopped.
This place didn't ask for that, they just said it's a policy for everybody. (Besides, I wouldn't care if they did, I went for pre-approval for a mortgage and found I had an 822 credit rating, just decided not to buy right now because I *think* real estate prices are going to decline somewhat in the next year.)
I love how the government recommends this, but then does absolutely nothing to make sure affordable housing actually exists for most people so that they can follow this advice.
I think a lot of people would go homeless if they did. Price controls tend to create supply problems. I know at least that in New York when the city started issuing price controls, a lot of the property owners converted it into office space.
That's common in Florida and Texas from what I understand. I'm not sure why California costs so much for the same thing, especially given that California beaches look like trash compared to Texas and Florida.
Namely, just about everywhere you go in those places the water actually looks blue and is clear enough to see to the bottom, and the beach has real beach sand.
California beaches on the other hand are usually rocky, have a dead waterflora scum line (akin to a toilet that doesn't get cleaned enough,) the water color varies anywhere from green to dark brown (dark blue if you're lucky,) cold as shit, and has a visibility of maybe a few inches at best.
One where I'm able to build up a savings, I guess? The federal government themselves recommend that your rent and/or mortgage doesn't exceed 36% of your monthly income.
They actually let you do that? I'm about to rent a luxury apartment (resort style, costs about $1100 a month, has gym, two large pools, tons of other amenities) and one of their requirements is that your income has to be at least 3 times what the rent costs. This is my first time renting though, so I don't know what the norm is.
Sugar (sucrose) feeds you equal amounts of glucose and fructose. HFCS used in sodas is 55% fructose and 41% glucose.
Nice cherry picking, but actually HFCS varies between 42% fructose and 55% fructose, so depending on the source it may have less than 50%.
Human body has NO sensors for fructose. You can eat or drink it all day and never feel you had enough.
I don't know where you're getting this from, but it's wrong. The 'sensors' you're referring to come in the form of leptin, and fructose does raise your leptins, just not by as much as glucose. However fructose is commonly found in fruit, and your liver uses it as an intermediary to produce...guess what? Glucose.
Anyways don't let me interrupt your food religion rant, go ahead and quote more scripture.
Almost all food tastes and looks pretty good when it's first harvested or slaughtered. If it's been processed to the point where the colour and taste need to be enhanced in some way, or if it's going to hang around in a warehouse for long enough to need preservatives
That's almost never why. If you've ever had a fruit tree in your back yard, or seen actual corn in a field before, you'd know that not all food ends up the same color. Some people misinterpret it as exactly what you're doing now (assuming it's just outdated) when in reality it's perfectly fine (i.e. the taste isn't impacted, nor is the nutritional content.) That's where coloring comes in.
Anyways as for the food religion's common complaint about processing and not being fresh, I just have the following two points to make:
- If you ever cook, grind, or otherwise modify food in any way prior to eating, congratulations, it's processed. - Thanks to refrigeration and other preservation inventions of the 19th century and later, most people eat more fresh food now than they ever have.
Oh and you mocked unions again, even though they're the only reason for child labor laws, the 40hr work week, the weekend, holidays off, overtime pay, and a host of other worker rights. But again, your stupidity is nothing new. Leave it to a moron like you to act as though these are bad things.
Actually no, the 8 hour day 5 hour week thing started with Henry Ford:
Prior to that, it was common to work 48 hours 6 days a week. Ford did this because he wanted to attract permanent employees rather than people who would leave on a whim.
Holidays long predate unions, so no, that's not a union thing.
Overtime wasn't established to reward employees for working longer hours, rather it was established by Congress in 1938 because they believed that if they punished employers for having you work more hours, then they'd not only have you work fewer hours, but hire more people instead. The goal was to reduce the unemployment rate, and had nothing to do with worker abuse.
Anyways don't let me get in the way of you enamoring unions and rewriting history in their favor.
The US doesn't even make the top 10. Whoever wrote that article decided to (whether deliberately or not) cherry pick and say "ok, let's just filter among the largest grossing economies" and not necessarily the highest GDP per capita or even population. I don't know what number the US is, but I have a feeling we aren't even top 15, because I know Japan and China should probably fit somewhere closely after 10th.
In fact China may very well be higher ranked than all of these, just it's hard to tell because a lot of Chinese workers like to work very long hours for a year or two and save their money the whole time, and after that is done they'll live off of their savings for an extended period (up to a year.) These are usually people who live in rural areas and get factory jobs far away from home, and then go back home once they've had enough. They'll do something like 16 hours a day for a year solid, with very few days off. A lot of the ultraleft union types call it worker abuse, but it's not, the laborers actually like doing it this way, and it actually pisses the laborers off when western media puts pressure on them to not do what they want to do. The way they circumvent that is to help their employer conceal how many hours they actually work to the western companies that ask, which makes getting actual useful data about it practically impossible.
It doesn't sound like anybody paid Google, rather this was some automatic process based on trademark registration, or something to that effect.
Which IMO that would be okay if they had that policy posted before he created his account to begin with, but they didn't. So yeah, definitely evil, but at least they're paying his costs to change it.
In the 00's you needed Windows for a lot of stuff...not so much anymore. IMO they ought to just move to xen or vsphere, and try to code a lot of that shit for minimal OSes (CoreOS is looking good) that way when shit needs to be replaced:
- Very little concern for long-term hardware obsolescence - Can continue using all of the same software - Only minimal changes will need to be made should your hypervisor stop being supported (mainly just drivers in the guest OS.) - Sandboxing for better security (which it seems the US government has been lacking lately) even if they fail to patch something.
Hyper-V works as well, however personally I don't like it because it's not only bloated, but it's known to BSOD during e.g. VM migration even with a Windows guest, (this is widely blamed on Microsoft attempting to use better hardware compatibility as a selling point, because they frequently rely on drivers that are often meant for consumer type uses and aren't tested for this kind of thing by their vendors) and it always seems to be several steps behind the competition.
The most toxic things in these cereals are the fact that most servings that most people pour into their bowl have twice the amount of carbohydrates that you should have in a day.
If you wanted a filling portion of that size that doesn't have too many carb based calories, then you wouldn't ever eat cereal.
I haven't been demanding it. I don't know anybody else who has either. Most people I know understand the concept of food coloring (like what you buy for cake decorating) and aren't bothered by it.
The only people that are rabidly opposed to it are the natural food religious zealots. They don't really give a shit if science has found it safe, they just hate seeing chemical names on their food labels and assume that because it doesn't sound like the name of a plant or a vitamin, why then without a doubt it must be bad for you because it's not as gaia intended.
So for example, you can't use the word "ascorbic acid" on a food label, because a religious nut will flip out and think it's an evil chemical. So instead you have to use the colloquial name for the same molecule, which is vitamin c.
Slashdot Mirror
And I just love how others make wildly inaccurate assumptions about my views on agriculture in general based solely on my misgivings about one technique.
So knowing that organic food does cause actual harm and plenty of evidence to back it up, with zero evidence that GMO food causes any actual harm, what prompted you to throw out a warning call for the potential damages of GMO food, as opposed to making a warning call about organic food?
Let's hear it.
I like how the anti-GMO crowd comes out and speaks about potential damages, but then ignores the real damages (and deaths) caused by organic food:
http://www.cgfi.org/2002/06/th...
http://www.realclearscience.co...
http://www.americanthinker.com...
http://www.science20.com/chall...
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~a...
We've already had countless cases of people dying and getting sick from organic, and not a single case of anybody dying or getting sick from GMO, in spite of GMO already being consumed in bigger numbers than organic. Meanwhile we're supposed to listen to the food religion about the dangers of GMO.
Coincidentally, there are 116M housing units in the US, median size say 4-5 rooms. If you had one person per room in every house, we could house everyone easily--318 million people in the US vs. 464M rooms. But the market isn't doing that.
I know why I'm not: Roommates suck. I have a spare bedroom, but no immediate desire to put somebody in it.
2. DO require developers who are building non-housing buildings (office, retail, industrial) to build a certain amount of housing as well
Well you have to remember that an investment has to be profitable enough to be worth doing. Nobody anywhere ever is going to throw money into a money losing venture.
A subsidy isn't the same as a price control. A price control says "thou shall not bill more than X" and/or "thou shall bill at least Y". The later is even lesser used, however the former often makes it very non-lucrative to either build new housing or to rent out property you own, hence it creates a supply problem (i.e. there are fewer places to live in because nobody wants to invest in it if they aren't going to make any money on it.)
A subsidy however is where you're just going to build property for a billing price cheaper than what it costs to actually build it. That would increase supply and lower property prices, if the taxpayers are willing to do so.
I think the end of being subject to impressment would be a change.
The US ended in a slightly better position than it started. Prior to the war of 1812, the US was susceptible to British press gangs and other routine harassment and skirmishes (which is basically what lead up to that war.) After it was over, it basically stopped.
This place didn't ask for that, they just said it's a policy for everybody. (Besides, I wouldn't care if they did, I went for pre-approval for a mortgage and found I had an 822 credit rating, just decided not to buy right now because I *think* real estate prices are going to decline somewhat in the next year.)
I love how the government recommends this, but then does absolutely nothing to make sure affordable housing actually exists for most people so that they can follow this advice.
I think a lot of people would go homeless if they did. Price controls tend to create supply problems. I know at least that in New York when the city started issuing price controls, a lot of the property owners converted it into office space.
That's common in Florida and Texas from what I understand. I'm not sure why California costs so much for the same thing, especially given that California beaches look like trash compared to Texas and Florida.
Namely, just about everywhere you go in those places the water actually looks blue and is clear enough to see to the bottom, and the beach has real beach sand.
California beaches on the other hand are usually rocky, have a dead waterflora scum line (akin to a toilet that doesn't get cleaned enough,) the water color varies anywhere from green to dark brown (dark blue if you're lucky,) cold as shit, and has a visibility of maybe a few inches at best.
The area is called Ahwatukee, but it's part of Phoenix, Arizona.
The banks already own literally multiple homes for every homeless man, woman, and child in the USA
Interesting figure. Where'd you get it?
WTF police state third world shithole YOU in?
One where I'm able to build up a savings, I guess? The federal government themselves recommend that your rent and/or mortgage doesn't exceed 36% of your monthly income.
I'm spending 60% of my monthly income on rent
They actually let you do that? I'm about to rent a luxury apartment (resort style, costs about $1100 a month, has gym, two large pools, tons of other amenities) and one of their requirements is that your income has to be at least 3 times what the rent costs. This is my first time renting though, so I don't know what the norm is.
Sugar (sucrose) feeds you equal amounts of glucose and fructose.
HFCS used in sodas is 55% fructose and 41% glucose.
Nice cherry picking, but actually HFCS varies between 42% fructose and 55% fructose, so depending on the source it may have less than 50%.
Human body has NO sensors for fructose. You can eat or drink it all day and never feel you had enough.
I don't know where you're getting this from, but it's wrong. The 'sensors' you're referring to come in the form of leptin, and fructose does raise your leptins, just not by as much as glucose. However fructose is commonly found in fruit, and your liver uses it as an intermediary to produce...guess what? Glucose.
Anyways don't let me interrupt your food religion rant, go ahead and quote more scripture.
Almost all food tastes and looks pretty good when it's first harvested or slaughtered. If it's been processed to the point where the colour and taste need to be enhanced in some way, or if it's going to hang around in a warehouse for long enough to need preservatives
That's almost never why. If you've ever had a fruit tree in your back yard, or seen actual corn in a field before, you'd know that not all food ends up the same color. Some people misinterpret it as exactly what you're doing now (assuming it's just outdated) when in reality it's perfectly fine (i.e. the taste isn't impacted, nor is the nutritional content.) That's where coloring comes in.
Anyways as for the food religion's common complaint about processing and not being fresh, I just have the following two points to make:
- If you ever cook, grind, or otherwise modify food in any way prior to eating, congratulations, it's processed.
- Thanks to refrigeration and other preservation inventions of the 19th century and later, most people eat more fresh food now than they ever have.
Except the suicide rates weren't statistically higher than many countries with more relaxed conditions.
Oh and you mocked unions again, even though they're the only reason for child labor laws, the 40hr work week, the weekend, holidays off, overtime pay, and a host of other worker rights. But again, your stupidity is nothing new. Leave it to a moron like you to act as though these are bad things.
Actually no, the 8 hour day 5 hour week thing started with Henry Ford:
http://www.history.com/this-da...
Prior to that, it was common to work 48 hours 6 days a week. Ford did this because he wanted to attract permanent employees rather than people who would leave on a whim.
Holidays long predate unions, so no, that's not a union thing.
Overtime wasn't established to reward employees for working longer hours, rather it was established by Congress in 1938 because they believed that if they punished employers for having you work more hours, then they'd not only have you work fewer hours, but hire more people instead. The goal was to reduce the unemployment rate, and had nothing to do with worker abuse.
Anyways don't let me get in the way of you enamoring unions and rewriting history in their favor.
Yeah it's a cultural difference for sure. In China, people do that all the time, and apparently employers don't care.
A lot of countries work longer hours:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
The US doesn't even make the top 10. Whoever wrote that article decided to (whether deliberately or not) cherry pick and say "ok, let's just filter among the largest grossing economies" and not necessarily the highest GDP per capita or even population. I don't know what number the US is, but I have a feeling we aren't even top 15, because I know Japan and China should probably fit somewhere closely after 10th.
In fact China may very well be higher ranked than all of these, just it's hard to tell because a lot of Chinese workers like to work very long hours for a year or two and save their money the whole time, and after that is done they'll live off of their savings for an extended period (up to a year.) These are usually people who live in rural areas and get factory jobs far away from home, and then go back home once they've had enough. They'll do something like 16 hours a day for a year solid, with very few days off. A lot of the ultraleft union types call it worker abuse, but it's not, the laborers actually like doing it this way, and it actually pisses the laborers off when western media puts pressure on them to not do what they want to do. The way they circumvent that is to help their employer conceal how many hours they actually work to the western companies that ask, which makes getting actual useful data about it practically impossible.
It doesn't sound like anybody paid Google, rather this was some automatic process based on trademark registration, or something to that effect.
Which IMO that would be okay if they had that policy posted before he created his account to begin with, but they didn't. So yeah, definitely evil, but at least they're paying his costs to change it.
Think of the alternative: Do you really want to maintain your own DNS and/or server that has to run 24/7 for 15 years?
In the 00's you needed Windows for a lot of stuff...not so much anymore. IMO they ought to just move to xen or vsphere, and try to code a lot of that shit for minimal OSes (CoreOS is looking good) that way when shit needs to be replaced:
- Very little concern for long-term hardware obsolescence
- Can continue using all of the same software
- Only minimal changes will need to be made should your hypervisor stop being supported (mainly just drivers in the guest OS.)
- Sandboxing for better security (which it seems the US government has been lacking lately) even if they fail to patch something.
Hyper-V works as well, however personally I don't like it because it's not only bloated, but it's known to BSOD during e.g. VM migration even with a Windows guest, (this is widely blamed on Microsoft attempting to use better hardware compatibility as a selling point, because they frequently rely on drivers that are often meant for consumer type uses and aren't tested for this kind of thing by their vendors) and it always seems to be several steps behind the competition.
The most toxic things in these cereals are the fact that most servings that most people pour into their bowl have twice the amount of carbohydrates that you should have in a day.
If you wanted a filling portion of that size that doesn't have too many carb based calories, then you wouldn't ever eat cereal.
I haven't been demanding it. I don't know anybody else who has either. Most people I know understand the concept of food coloring (like what you buy for cake decorating) and aren't bothered by it.
The only people that are rabidly opposed to it are the natural food religious zealots. They don't really give a shit if science has found it safe, they just hate seeing chemical names on their food labels and assume that because it doesn't sound like the name of a plant or a vitamin, why then without a doubt it must be bad for you because it's not as gaia intended.
So for example, you can't use the word "ascorbic acid" on a food label, because a religious nut will flip out and think it's an evil chemical. So instead you have to use the colloquial name for the same molecule, which is vitamin c.