No, the problem is that sugar tariffs mean the price of other sugars are artificially priced high. Most countries use sugar where the US uses HFCS, even in poorer countries, because sugar isn't artificially priced higher.
I wish HFCS would be removed from most products because it's overused, generally unnecessary, and only economically makes sense because of stupid corn subsidies
It actually has a bit of a tangier taste to it. Compare for example regular mountain dew to the throwback version in the white can. Basically the only difference is one uses hfcs and the other uses cane sugar. They're both equally bad for you, but the taste is distinctively different.
Oh and by the way, both kinds of sugars come from very closely related plants, and both use a refining process to extract the sugar from the plant in its purest form. HFCS just goes by a chemical name rather than a colloquial name because its use started coming about quite some time after chemistry became an actual science.
The naturalist food religion basically bashes anything with a chemical name, forgetting entirely that just about everything you eat has a chemical name associated with it.
The sad thing is that just when you thought old religions were reaching their tipping point, here comes the food religion to try to derail science.
Bingo. It's popular to attack HFCS because naturalist religion is afraid of the name (i.e. they have this stupid belief that any chemical name means unnatural and therefore evil,) but the reality is that all refined sugars are equally bad
Your liver is perhaps the most resilient organ in your body. In fact it is one of few that is not only highly redundant (you can lose 50-80% of it before getting any ill effects) but you can even physically loser huge portions of it and it will fully grow back within weeks.
You'd have to seriously abuse the shit out of Tylenol to do permanent damage to your liver. It's also only recommended to avoid Tylenol if you have chronic liver disease (e.g. hepatitis) or already have severe liver damage from alcoholism. If any of that applies to you, then you've likely already done much worse things to your body.
I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.
Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.
Also, I can't help but wonder if wikileaks currently has any dirt on Ecuador but doesn't release it for fear of what might happen to Assange. If so, it says quite a bit about their intentions.
I don't see anything wrong. It's already illegal to discriminate based on this, so I can't see why an employer would dare touch that information to begin with.
It would be a time saver for me, because I have to manually take my own blood pressure and journal it twice a day.
Besides, I openly told my employer that I need a kidney transplant and they still hired me anyways.
I highly doubt gmail is going anywhere soon. Next to search, it's their most profitable business. It would almost be like saying "Google search may not be around much longer."
Add to it the fact that it will probably not work - to those using it as "medicine" it's only the real deal or nothing.
That's the point, they're trying to make it so that you can't tell the difference between real and fake. The idea is that you make it so cheap that poaching becomes economically unfeasible.
If the fake is good enough, then the only way to detect counterfeits is to have a traceable source. If there's a traceable source, the poachers are liable to get caught.
consumers are informed that the medical industry does NOT believe it serves any useful purpose
I think that alone won't do much. Most people I know who buy this shit already seem to think that either the medical industry is out to rip you off, or think that western medicine doesn't work, and only "natural" medicine does. Either way they won't trust something because the FDA or any person with a medical degree says otherwise. They'll only ever trust somebody who espouses "natural remedies" because they have the foolish notion that natural is always better.
That's just the thing actually, medical science could have done very well for him. When his physicians first found he had liver cancer, they thought for sure it would be untreatable. However he lucked out and got a rare form that grows very slowly and is easily removed with surgery.
So you know what he did? He went straight to a naturopathic "doctor" who recommended a juicing to fix it.
Needless to say, that didn't work, and by the time he actually decided to do anything about it (which was years later) it had already metastasized, and also destroying his liver in the process. Not much more details are known to the public other than that he went to something like 9 separate liver transplant centers in order to increase his chance of receiving a graft quickly (something that most people can't do because you have to be able to physically get to the clinic within an hour of them finding a donor, but he could anyways because he owned a private jet.)
Apparently he got his liver (hence when his health was declining he didn't have any visible signs of jaundice) but still died anyways, my guess is that the cancer had already spread to too many other places. We do know however that he admitted to a few people that not going with the surgery all those years later was a huge mistake.
Anyways it's funny to read naturopathic and homeopathic websites and forums who defend their beliefs in spite of this (Jobs was a well known "natural medicine" and "natural food" fanatic) by saying he didn't properly follow one of their stupid religious rules (which one he supposedly didn't follow varies from site to site.)
That makes no sense at all. The over the counter painkillers are NSAIDs, and they're also proven effective for that purpose (being anti-inflamatory.)
Granted they aren't going to work if you just cut your thumb off and it hurts really bad, but they'll absolutely help for mild pain like headaches, arthritis, etc, and that is NOT placebo, in fact it's even measurable.
E.g. at Whole Foods, which IMO that store is a huge ripoff to begin with, not even counting the homeopathic medicine section. For starters, they have a "bad foods" blacklist that doesn't even make any sense, and worse is that they sell a crapload of junk food. Meanwhile the hippies that shop there, and pay two to three times what the food should cost, just blindly assume that everything there is healthy.
I don't think Microsoft is giving 10 away to appease users of 8. I think they want to avoid 7 turning into another XP where a crapload of users stick with it so it is hard for them to ditch it, and they end up having to support it for 14 years. That will ROYALLY screw up their "Windows 10 is the final Windows" plan, which I *think* means they plan to charge an annual fee for it (the other shoe for Windows' future licensing model has yet to drop, and I think they expect that most people will hate it, but that they'll hate it only after it's already too late.)
However it would be silly to give it to users of Windows 7 but not users of Windows 8, so they're just giving it to both.
The point of employment should be that it is social and you feed and give job to the workers.
Nice pipe dream, but no, it's just not a realistic expectation, nor should it be. When you start a business, which is the most likely thing on your mind:
- "I'd like to pay a lot of people to do stuff" - "I've got an idea that could revolutionize the way we do X, and make me a lot of money in the process"
If it's the first one (i.e, owning a business just for the sake of owning a business) then you're basically guaranteed to fail. The purpose of running a business is to create a product or service that people actually need enough to pay you money for.
The purpose of running a business is never just to give people jobs, and the only "businesses" that exist for the sole purpose of giving people jobs are scams (ask Google about "network marketing" "multi-level marketing" or "affiliate marketing" jobs. The only "product" they truly put out is to tell people that they have work for them, but they fail to mention that this work actually costs the "employee" more than what the "employee" actually gets paid.)
How complex is a retirement plan? Most of the problems with Social Security are coded in law. But for a retirement fund, investing in "cash equivalent" like government bonds, the SSA is an order of magnatude more efficient than the private sector
Not only does this have nothing to do with anything I just said, (Social Security isn't a means of production) but it's also wrong. Social Security is basically intended as a gamble that you're going to live long enough to actually benefit off of it, and assuming you do, you'll probably receive less than you paid into it. I'm also not going to even get into the fact that SSA spends some $9 billion a year just to run their offices.
Meanwhile if I throw the same amount of money into a long term investment account, I'm basically guaranteed to get a higher return than I started with, and even if I never spend it I can always bequeath it to a relative.
And sorry, but I don't buy the bullshit line that the government has the right to dip into 25% of your assets when you die. I myself make a LOT less money than almost everybody I know who is cash starved, and I (and/or my descendants) shouldn't be punished for saving instead of spending myself into a lifetime of debt (which is basically the only way you can die without the government taking a pound of flesh.)
And what you say may well be, however you're creating the same stupid as shit argument that dipshits made about the ACA being a government takeover of healthcare.
No, I didn't. The government doesn't own the means of production in that case, making it VERY FAR removed from anything I suggested. And I'm not going to read any further into your post if you're going use straw man logical fallacies right out the gate.
And there's a long history of governmnet run utiities that do well. Dallas Water Utilities is a surprisingly good operation. And TXU was much better before "deregulation" and privatization.
Running a water utility isn't anywhere near as complex as running a telecom service. How often do you have to call their tech support because your faucet isn't working? Oh that's right, you call a plumber.
Like everything else, as good as we want it to be.
And you base that on what? The people just vote how they think it should be, so that's exactly what it becomes?
Wrong.
There's actually a long established history of why it's wrong too. If history teaches anything, it's that when private industries become nationalized, the service quickly turns to shit. The reason for that is simple: It becomes a monopoly so the people who provide the service don't have to worry about competing with anybody else. Worse than that, politicians often hold it for ransom so that they can promise to fix it later if they get re-elected.
Considering how much success other countries have had switching, I'm always surprised at America's feeble efforts to do so. I think it is just something to do with Americans natural paranoia about as you say a "New World Order" or whatever else that prevents it.
Government organizations have for the most part already switched. However the government doesn't have the power to mandate that the private sector switch. And the private sector tends to stick to what its customers know.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the problem is that sugar tariffs mean the price of other sugars are artificially priced high. Most countries use sugar where the US uses HFCS, even in poorer countries, because sugar isn't artificially priced higher.
I wish HFCS would be removed from most products because it's overused, generally unnecessary, and only economically makes sense because of stupid corn subsidies
It actually has a bit of a tangier taste to it. Compare for example regular mountain dew to the throwback version in the white can. Basically the only difference is one uses hfcs and the other uses cane sugar. They're both equally bad for you, but the taste is distinctively different.
Oh and by the way, both kinds of sugars come from very closely related plants, and both use a refining process to extract the sugar from the plant in its purest form. HFCS just goes by a chemical name rather than a colloquial name because its use started coming about quite some time after chemistry became an actual science.
The naturalist food religion basically bashes anything with a chemical name, forgetting entirely that just about everything you eat has a chemical name associated with it.
The sad thing is that just when you thought old religions were reaching their tipping point, here comes the food religion to try to derail science.
Bingo. It's popular to attack HFCS because naturalist religion is afraid of the name (i.e. they have this stupid belief that any chemical name means unnatural and therefore evil,) but the reality is that all refined sugars are equally bad
Your liver is perhaps the most resilient organ in your body. In fact it is one of few that is not only highly redundant (you can lose 50-80% of it before getting any ill effects) but you can even physically loser huge portions of it and it will fully grow back within weeks.
You'd have to seriously abuse the shit out of Tylenol to do permanent damage to your liver. It's also only recommended to avoid Tylenol if you have chronic liver disease (e.g. hepatitis) or already have severe liver damage from alcoholism. If any of that applies to you, then you've likely already done much worse things to your body.
I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.
Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.
Also, I can't help but wonder if wikileaks currently has any dirt on Ecuador but doesn't release it for fear of what might happen to Assange. If so, it says quite a bit about their intentions.
I don't see anything wrong. It's already illegal to discriminate based on this, so I can't see why an employer would dare touch that information to begin with.
It would be a time saver for me, because I have to manually take my own blood pressure and journal it twice a day.
Besides, I openly told my employer that I need a kidney transplant and they still hired me anyways.
I highly doubt gmail is going anywhere soon. Next to search, it's their most profitable business. It would almost be like saying "Google search may not be around much longer."
The fact that meth is cheap to produce doesn't mean it's cheap to distribute.
Add to it the fact that it will probably not work - to those using it as "medicine" it's only the real deal or nothing.
That's the point, they're trying to make it so that you can't tell the difference between real and fake. The idea is that you make it so cheap that poaching becomes economically unfeasible.
If the fake is good enough, then the only way to detect counterfeits is to have a traceable source. If there's a traceable source, the poachers are liable to get caught.
consumers are informed that the medical industry does NOT believe it serves any useful purpose
I think that alone won't do much. Most people I know who buy this shit already seem to think that either the medical industry is out to rip you off, or think that western medicine doesn't work, and only "natural" medicine does. Either way they won't trust something because the FDA or any person with a medical degree says otherwise. They'll only ever trust somebody who espouses "natural remedies" because they have the foolish notion that natural is always better.
That's just the thing actually, medical science could have done very well for him. When his physicians first found he had liver cancer, they thought for sure it would be untreatable. However he lucked out and got a rare form that grows very slowly and is easily removed with surgery.
So you know what he did? He went straight to a naturopathic "doctor" who recommended a juicing to fix it.
Needless to say, that didn't work, and by the time he actually decided to do anything about it (which was years later) it had already metastasized, and also destroying his liver in the process. Not much more details are known to the public other than that he went to something like 9 separate liver transplant centers in order to increase his chance of receiving a graft quickly (something that most people can't do because you have to be able to physically get to the clinic within an hour of them finding a donor, but he could anyways because he owned a private jet.)
Apparently he got his liver (hence when his health was declining he didn't have any visible signs of jaundice) but still died anyways, my guess is that the cancer had already spread to too many other places. We do know however that he admitted to a few people that not going with the surgery all those years later was a huge mistake.
Anyways it's funny to read naturopathic and homeopathic websites and forums who defend their beliefs in spite of this (Jobs was a well known "natural medicine" and "natural food" fanatic) by saying he didn't properly follow one of their stupid religious rules (which one he supposedly didn't follow varies from site to site.)
That makes no sense at all. The over the counter painkillers are NSAIDs, and they're also proven effective for that purpose (being anti-inflamatory.)
Granted they aren't going to work if you just cut your thumb off and it hurts really bad, but they'll absolutely help for mild pain like headaches, arthritis, etc, and that is NOT placebo, in fact it's even measurable.
E.g. at Whole Foods, which IMO that store is a huge ripoff to begin with, not even counting the homeopathic medicine section. For starters, they have a "bad foods" blacklist that doesn't even make any sense, and worse is that they sell a crapload of junk food. Meanwhile the hippies that shop there, and pay two to three times what the food should cost, just blindly assume that everything there is healthy.
I don't think Microsoft is giving 10 away to appease users of 8. I think they want to avoid 7 turning into another XP where a crapload of users stick with it so it is hard for them to ditch it, and they end up having to support it for 14 years. That will ROYALLY screw up their "Windows 10 is the final Windows" plan, which I *think* means they plan to charge an annual fee for it (the other shoe for Windows' future licensing model has yet to drop, and I think they expect that most people will hate it, but that they'll hate it only after it's already too late.)
However it would be silly to give it to users of Windows 7 but not users of Windows 8, so they're just giving it to both.
The point of employment should be that it is social and you feed and give job to the workers.
Nice pipe dream, but no, it's just not a realistic expectation, nor should it be. When you start a business, which is the most likely thing on your mind:
- "I'd like to pay a lot of people to do stuff"
- "I've got an idea that could revolutionize the way we do X, and make me a lot of money in the process"
If it's the first one (i.e, owning a business just for the sake of owning a business) then you're basically guaranteed to fail. The purpose of running a business is to create a product or service that people actually need enough to pay you money for.
The purpose of running a business is never just to give people jobs, and the only "businesses" that exist for the sole purpose of giving people jobs are scams (ask Google about "network marketing" "multi-level marketing" or "affiliate marketing" jobs. The only "product" they truly put out is to tell people that they have work for them, but they fail to mention that this work actually costs the "employee" more than what the "employee" actually gets paid.)
How complex is a retirement plan? Most of the problems with Social Security are coded in law. But for a retirement fund, investing in "cash equivalent" like government bonds, the SSA is an order of magnatude more efficient than the private sector
Not only does this have nothing to do with anything I just said, (Social Security isn't a means of production) but it's also wrong. Social Security is basically intended as a gamble that you're going to live long enough to actually benefit off of it, and assuming you do, you'll probably receive less than you paid into it. I'm also not going to even get into the fact that SSA spends some $9 billion a year just to run their offices.
Meanwhile if I throw the same amount of money into a long term investment account, I'm basically guaranteed to get a higher return than I started with, and even if I never spend it I can always bequeath it to a relative.
And sorry, but I don't buy the bullshit line that the government has the right to dip into 25% of your assets when you die. I myself make a LOT less money than almost everybody I know who is cash starved, and I (and/or my descendants) shouldn't be punished for saving instead of spending myself into a lifetime of debt (which is basically the only way you can die without the government taking a pound of flesh.)
And what you say may well be, however you're creating the same stupid as shit argument that dipshits made about the ACA being a government takeover of healthcare.
No, I didn't. The government doesn't own the means of production in that case, making it VERY FAR removed from anything I suggested. And I'm not going to read any further into your post if you're going use straw man logical fallacies right out the gate.
And there's a long history of governmnet run utiities that do well. Dallas Water Utilities is a surprisingly good operation. And TXU was much better before "deregulation" and privatization.
Running a water utility isn't anywhere near as complex as running a telecom service. How often do you have to call their tech support because your faucet isn't working? Oh that's right, you call a plumber.
Like everything else, as good as we want it to be.
And you base that on what? The people just vote how they think it should be, so that's exactly what it becomes?
Wrong.
There's actually a long established history of why it's wrong too. If history teaches anything, it's that when private industries become nationalized, the service quickly turns to shit. The reason for that is simple: It becomes a monopoly so the people who provide the service don't have to worry about competing with anybody else. Worse than that, politicians often hold it for ransom so that they can promise to fix it later if they get re-elected.
I'm at the normal zoom level. Same with IE and Firefox where it also does it.
Well apparently at least two moderators think the new layout that fucks things up is superior, because they downmodded me.
I can't for the life of me figure out why they thought it would be a good idea to make the icons cover up the headline so you can't read it.
By the way, is it just me, or does Slashdot's newly modified layout make it impossible for everybody else to read the end of the headline as well?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Considering how much success other countries have had switching, I'm always surprised at America's feeble efforts to do so. I think it is just something to do with Americans natural paranoia about as you say a "New World Order" or whatever else that prevents it.
Government organizations have for the most part already switched. However the government doesn't have the power to mandate that the private sector switch. And the private sector tends to stick to what its customers know.