I find it odd that violent gun crimes are at a record low while at the same time the US actually has fewer mass shootings per capita than Europe, yet somehow these mass shootings in the US are being called epidemic by the media.
So we are left with vegetarianism possibly being responsible for iron deficiency and too much weight. Both are easily solved by a well thought out vegetarian diet.
I wouldn't say easily. I myself found weight loss considerably easier by having meat (or at least egg) products in the morning. The reason why is because I can limit to around ~300 calories and not feel hungry until much later (~5 hours) in the day, whereas if I eat anything carb based with 300 calories then I'll feel hungrier much sooner (about ~3 hours.)
I wouldn't be surprised if many vegetarians, such as GP, run into the same problem. I recall meeting this one girl once who was overweight and she said it's not her fault because she eats nothing salads all the time. I asked her how many calories she consumed, and she had no idea, but mentioned something like 6 salads a day. Even at 300 calories per salad, that's on the upper end of how many calories a female should consume in a day, so being overweight wouldn't be surprising.
They wouldn't have this problem if the baker's union didn't decide to be dickholes back in 2012. The management wasn't bluffing; there was a big consumer craze at the time for weight loss so their sales tanked. Other pastry makers ran into similar problems but they didn't have a union making unreasonable demands that they had no choice but to follow. (Krispy Kreme had to close a lot of their restaurants, Dunkin Donuts has turned more into a coffee shop than a donut shop.)
Remember, the teamster's union saw what was going on with the market in general and chose to accept the terms offered by the management, which was a wise decision because, remember, if you price yourself out of the market, then you won't be in it anymore. But the baker's union leadership really didn't give a fuck about the jobs of their employees, and Frank Hurt, a very rich union boss (with one of those "Cadillac" health insurance plans that Obama granted special exemptions to just because he wanted to favor unions) effectively spun it as "it's all the management's fault" while he could go home still having a job while the people he supposedly represents lost theirs, all because he refused to budge in light of an obviously changing consumer mindset, and the management doesn't have the ability to change that.
People just don't buy twinkies and donuts like they did in the 90's, and it's not likely they ever will again because now people have a lot more access to information than they once did, which means they're going to make different decisions than they once did as well.
What is sad is the fruit pies are complete garbage now, in fact the cheap generic fruit pies actually have more fruit in them than a Hostess does.
Even if a "fruit pie" has actual fruit in it, there's like what, 10% fruit and 90% sugar? That's effectively not having a difference from what Hostess sells. The only fruit pies of theirs that I liked were the lemon ones and the vanilla pudding ones they used to sell in the 80's. The later was apparently very unpopular though so they didn't last into the 90's.
Welcome to the modern era of cost-cutting, shortcuts and quick profits. Long-term strategies need not apply.
No they didn't, that was back in the 30's when the twinkie underwent a big change, and the reason they changed it was because the key ingredient of a twinkie no longer existed. They made twinkies out of actual bananas. The reason they stopped doing both bananas and cream was because both were rationed in WWII (partly due to the gross michel extinction, with the cavendish not making it to mass market quite yet, among other general supply problems that existed at the time caused them to switch to vanilla creme.) After that period, everybody's palate changed and they adapted to the new taste. Depressions tend to do that.
Even if they wanted to go back to the old taste, they couldn't. The gross michel banana is gone and it's not coming back; instead we have the cavendish now which is very bland in comparison, and even it is going to die soon because like their predecessor, all cavendish bananas are clones of one another. This MUST be the case though, because real bananas that can reproduce on their own don't have much actual fruit in them, and have seeds that are as hard as a rock and will break your teeth if you try to chew them. We might be able to resurrect the gross michel with GMO to make them more resilient to the fungus that killed them, but who knows because we can't even have golden rice because Greenpeace declared war on it.
At any rate, back in 2011 Hostess reintroduced the original twinkie (as best they could; remember, no more gross michel, so it's literally impossible for them to reproduce the original taste without adding sugar and other stuff) only nobody really bought it. People got used to the post-depression twinkie as its taste had already become so iconic over the years, and so that's what people want.
Where are the modern day BeOS's and Amigas and Matroxes? Do you remember when the Parhelia was released? And it had a bunch of interesting features like edge antialiasing? Gone.
You're blaming competition on consumer behavior. If BeOS and Amiga was really that awesome, people would have bought them instead of Windows based PCs. But they didn't; for whatever reason they chose, they preferred Windows. Windows PCs were also cheaper than Amigas. The same thing is currently happening with Android as well. What the fuck good is an iPhone if you can't afford to own one? Or better yet, if you're not a tech enthusiast and your phone is more of a phone to you before anything else it does, then you aren't going to want to spend a whole lot on it. You can't just assume that people want to throw their money at the most expensive thing on the market just because, in your opinion, it's better. In my opinion, the BEST product is something that does what you want at a price that you can afford, not something that does more than you want for more than you're willing to spend.
And Parhelia? Seriously? Matrox ALWAYS had shit performance on their GPUs compared to their competitors. Parhelia was aimed at gamers, who at the end of the day, want more FPS above all else. Not only that, but few people could afford 3 monitors at the time anyways (they were a lot more expensive then than now; even in work environments few people had more than one monitor, whereas nowadays it's common in most places to have two monitors, which I'll add have much better picture quality and resolution than the ones of even that time while costing less. How is that for your race to the bottom?)
As for edge anti-aliasing (actually called spatial-AA); remember that the target audience, gamers, want FPS. Nobody uses spatial AA because it's too fucking slow. Meanwhile AMD and Nvidia have come up with arithmetically less complex means of AA that achieve basically the same result; the only way you'd tell the difference is if you literally examined it with a magnifying glass on a frame-by-frame basis, which no gamer is going to do. So guess what? They don't care. Oh but wait, you want to render professional graphics because you're trying to create the next pixar movie? Great, but even for its time, Parhelia didn't have the processing power you needed.
You know what all of this meant? Nobody wanted the damn thing. Seriously, there was no consumer segment that favored it; just a few dweebs who REALLY wanted the novelty of three monitors while also having enough disposable income for that and also willing to put up with a lower frame rate. As you can see, that eliminates most people.
Also, Matrox ruined their own reputation far before Parhelia was even a thing. I remember getting burned on the Matrox Mystique when they promised a big list of game developers who were on board to support it, and only about 1% of them actually ended up supporting it, meaning most of your games were software rendered. I never wanted to touch Matrox after that, and neither did many other gamers.
Home computers are not a great example of increasing innovation. They have gotten more capable over time, but they have also consolidated greatly:
You 100% missed the point. It's not the computers themselves that were the innovation, rather its the things that we can do with them that enabled innovation. And because more and more of them are in the hands of everyday people, more people have been able to do more things.
It's not that innovation is completely dead, Nvidia and AMD still compete with each other to push out the same features at cheaper prices... Oh, wait. Wasn't that what we were talking about? A race to the bottom?
Remember how during the noughties Intel produced that crap Netburst architecture that perpetuated the megahertz myth (more megahertz means a faster cpu!) only they ran into a dead end when the things got so god damn hot. You know who forced them out of that? AMD. They were losing their ass because AMD, who they considered way below them, was producing much better products at a much better price. It was AMD who came up with things like x64, and on-die memory controller. Things that could still push the performance boundary where Intel was literally at a dead end. It was only after that when Intel decided to stop marketing CPUs based on megahertz.
Without having two competitors in this area, GPUs would most likely be in the same place that CPUs were when Intel felt that they had no competition. And in case you haven't noticed, GPUs are still getting MUCH faster while also consuming less power.
Race to the bottom my ass. Go throw out all of your computers and other post-industrial goods and party like it's 1699 you Luddite.
"The bottom" is moving production to countries with regimes that either don't have or don't enforce basic human rights or have any kind of effective worker protections. People in those regimes have no choice but to work long hours in dangerous conditions under constant threat of violence and dismissal. Is that what you want to compete with? How about people working under those conditions starting to undercut your job?
In case you haven't noticed, this isn't a new thing by any stretch; it's almost as old as the industrial revolution, before which 90% of the population were all farmers. After manufacturing of petty goods in the US matured (and remember, we had things like child labor) then it moved to Japan, then Korea, then Hong Kong, then Taiwan, then mainland China, and now that China is getting more expensive it's starting to move to Vietnam.
Because it stifles innovation and R&D or worse, puts the company out of business and people out of jobs.
You're going to have to be more specific about what "it" is and how "it" does that, otherwise you're just handwaving.
At any rate, things have been getting less and less expensive over the last 50 years, and I haven't seen any sign that innovation has been stifled; quite the opposite, actually. Computers for example used to be super expensive in the 80's, and now even homeless people carry around portable ones. Simple tasks that people used to do faded away over the years as people did them with computers instead, (or in some cases, those tasks became outright irrelevant, such as licking a stamp and sealing an envelope and walking to the mailbox merely for the purpose of sending somebody a message) which freed up their time and money to do other things. Take for example written spreadsheets vs electronic spreadsheets; the later being a MASSIVE time saver.
There is no such thing as a "race to the bottom". What is the 'bottom' exactly? Lower prices? What's wrong with that? At the end of the day that means people who make less money can be wealthier. Wealth after all is material goods, not money.
And if you want to argue that quality is decreasing, you're wrong there. There's often this mentality that "the older things lasted longer" but that's not actually true. Ever since manufacturing has been a thing, there have always been both good and bad quality products. You tend to notice the ones that were good quality because you still have them around for a long time, and when you see these older items still lasting you just assume that everything made "back then" was built to last, but that's just not the case, because what you don't have and don't see from "back then" are the things that didn't last.
You can file this in the same drawer as "the old days were better" or "we're living in the worst of times" that backwards people like to use.
That has to be one of the most retarded things I've read on slashdot. You're a total moron if you think the reason somebody commits suicide determines why their friends/relatives attend survivors of suicide after they're dead.
A few people I've known have committed suicide, (one of which I was present for) and I can't say a single one of them ever made sense. In talking with other people at Survivors of Suicide, all of the people who go to those meetings basically say to not bother asking yourself why they did it, because you'll most likely never know why. Based on Ian Murdoch's other circumstances, I think it's safe to say that his life was in a somewhat shitty state at the time (see the four reasons I listed in my post above) which is probably why, more than anything else.
- His girlfriend recently broke up with him, which was after already having been divorced. - He was within days of being evicted for routine noise and other disturbances. - He was a very habitual drinker and often had side effects from alcohol withdrawal, had Asperger's, and known psychological problems for the past 20 years. - The neighbor said he apologized to them about the noise and other disturbances he has made in the past at about 3:30PM the night he committed suicide. The neighbor commented that they though this was really odd.
This has all been corroborated by other witnesses and medical professionals.
It seems as though he was already in a really bad position and probably decided to commit suicide earlier in the day. When somebody is in such a state, it's happened many times that they try to make somebody else feel at fault, or otherwise try to push blame on somebody else, which could be a motivation for police involvement (and subsequent blame.) I've witnessed this before myself.
I'm of half of a mind to think that the police themselves had little to do with it, other than perhaps they were routinely called to his residence (probably for good reason, based on the neighbor's statements) which made him have a grudge against the police.
I don't know him so this is mainly speculation, but when it comes to suicide you often never know why somebody actually wanted to kill themselves. Even when they leave some kind of note, there's often a misdirection of blame (which I guess his twitter feed was his suicide note. Notice the repeated use of the N word, among other things.)
The assumption is the quality of their grocery isle matches teh quality of all the other isles.
It does. I used to work for a major food distributor in the southwest, and we sold walmart the same bag of doritos, m&m's, and produce that we sold to other stores in the region. There really is no difference.
But people who say otherwise actually believe organic food is magically better for you simply because it costs more, even though it isn't. And in some ways is worse, such as increased risk of foodborn pathogens from cow shit based fertilizer vs the synthetic fertilizer used in modern agriculture. Some produce is worse than others in this regard, such as raw organic alfalfa sprouts, which have such a high risk of contamination that walmart refuses to carry them. Whole Foods doesn't seem to mind the risk though.
Which is one documented problem with GMO's such as Round-Up-Ready. The changes pass to the weeds they are supposed to fight, (or the weeds naturally become immune to Round-Up) creating weeds that are harder to kill.
They're not harder to kill, just harder to kill with roundup.
Whether GMO or not, species strains should be labeled. If you read this particular/. story's summary, some GMO potatoes have less carcinogens than non-GMO. Some other kind of GMO potato may not have that benefit. The customers need to know.
I'm aware of that; I did write what you read there after all. Anyways, it doesn't need to be labeled as GMO or anything of the sort. I'm sure whoever is going to sell it will likely advertise the potatoes as Low Acrylamide in order to promote their product over their competitors. Whether or not GMO was used to get there is irrelevant.
Every single problem they are designed to alleviate can be dealt with in conventional ways without putting global ecosystems at risk.
Please define conventional. As I've mentioned in the past, this happens in nature all the time, and in fact your genome contains at least 100,000 genes spliced in from other organisms.
At any rate, I care not for Monsanto, nor do I care what you think my motivations are for. I only have one message: GMO is good.
I haven't had any reliability problems with newer cars. As has always been the case, it really depends on the car. My previous car was a 2005 Buick Regal which I sold to my brother, and it still runs fine.
I'm seeing most of these cars you're buying are Dodge, and Dodge are somewhat known for making junky cars. The Neon in particular is a complete turd that's made about as cheaply as a car can possibly be made, and so is its 4 door cousin, the Intrepid. As for that Sebring of yours, I had to drive a brand new 2011 Sebring once after some derp did an improper lane change and crunched my right fender, and while it was getting repaired, the insurance company gave me the Sebring as a rental, which was basically brand new. My Regal, 6 years older, was such a nicer car than that, and the reason why is because Sebring is a cheapo car whose only selling point is that it's roomy. I don't know much about Caliber, but it IS a Dodge so... From what I understand, the only decent cars Dodge makes these days are trucks.
But, if you want a sedan that isn't going to be a perpetual fixer upper, your choices are pretty much anything GM or anything Toyota, with some exceptions for other manufacturers.
Yeah, and a lot more people should probably go that route of they can't afford a car. My income is ~80k/yr and I've never owned a new car in my life. The newest car I've ever had is a 2013 Camry that I bought in 2015 for less than half of its msrp, and I just paid cash for it. In fact I've never had to borrow money to buy a car, even in the days when my income was shit.
That is by far the best approach to this. However this silliness of trying to ban GMO just because of patents needs to go away because it's very counterproductive.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it odd that violent gun crimes are at a record low while at the same time the US actually has fewer mass shootings per capita than Europe, yet somehow these mass shootings in the US are being called epidemic by the media.
Or, as I stated, consumer tastes changed. The teamsters union acknowledged that, so why didn't the baker's union acknowledge the same?
Probably because the seedless bananas you eat can't reproduce on their own, which means they inherently must be clones of one another.
So we are left with vegetarianism possibly being responsible for iron deficiency and too much weight. Both are easily solved by a well thought out vegetarian diet.
I wouldn't say easily. I myself found weight loss considerably easier by having meat (or at least egg) products in the morning. The reason why is because I can limit to around ~300 calories and not feel hungry until much later (~5 hours) in the day, whereas if I eat anything carb based with 300 calories then I'll feel hungrier much sooner (about ~3 hours.)
I wouldn't be surprised if many vegetarians, such as GP, run into the same problem. I recall meeting this one girl once who was overweight and she said it's not her fault because she eats nothing salads all the time. I asked her how many calories she consumed, and she had no idea, but mentioned something like 6 salads a day. Even at 300 calories per salad, that's on the upper end of how many calories a female should consume in a day, so being overweight wouldn't be surprising.
They wouldn't have this problem if the baker's union didn't decide to be dickholes back in 2012. The management wasn't bluffing; there was a big consumer craze at the time for weight loss so their sales tanked. Other pastry makers ran into similar problems but they didn't have a union making unreasonable demands that they had no choice but to follow. (Krispy Kreme had to close a lot of their restaurants, Dunkin Donuts has turned more into a coffee shop than a donut shop.)
Remember, the teamster's union saw what was going on with the market in general and chose to accept the terms offered by the management, which was a wise decision because, remember, if you price yourself out of the market, then you won't be in it anymore. But the baker's union leadership really didn't give a fuck about the jobs of their employees, and Frank Hurt, a very rich union boss (with one of those "Cadillac" health insurance plans that Obama granted special exemptions to just because he wanted to favor unions) effectively spun it as "it's all the management's fault" while he could go home still having a job while the people he supposedly represents lost theirs, all because he refused to budge in light of an obviously changing consumer mindset, and the management doesn't have the ability to change that.
People just don't buy twinkies and donuts like they did in the 90's, and it's not likely they ever will again because now people have a lot more access to information than they once did, which means they're going to make different decisions than they once did as well.
What is sad is the fruit pies are complete garbage now, in fact the cheap generic fruit pies actually have more fruit in them than a Hostess does.
Even if a "fruit pie" has actual fruit in it, there's like what, 10% fruit and 90% sugar? That's effectively not having a difference from what Hostess sells. The only fruit pies of theirs that I liked were the lemon ones and the vanilla pudding ones they used to sell in the 80's. The later was apparently very unpopular though so they didn't last into the 90's.
They used real cream back in the 1960's.
Welcome to the modern era of cost-cutting, shortcuts and quick profits. Long-term strategies need not apply.
No they didn't, that was back in the 30's when the twinkie underwent a big change, and the reason they changed it was because the key ingredient of a twinkie no longer existed. They made twinkies out of actual bananas. The reason they stopped doing both bananas and cream was because both were rationed in WWII (partly due to the gross michel extinction, with the cavendish not making it to mass market quite yet, among other general supply problems that existed at the time caused them to switch to vanilla creme.) After that period, everybody's palate changed and they adapted to the new taste. Depressions tend to do that.
Even if they wanted to go back to the old taste, they couldn't. The gross michel banana is gone and it's not coming back; instead we have the cavendish now which is very bland in comparison, and even it is going to die soon because like their predecessor, all cavendish bananas are clones of one another. This MUST be the case though, because real bananas that can reproduce on their own don't have much actual fruit in them, and have seeds that are as hard as a rock and will break your teeth if you try to chew them. We might be able to resurrect the gross michel with GMO to make them more resilient to the fungus that killed them, but who knows because we can't even have golden rice because Greenpeace declared war on it.
At any rate, back in 2011 Hostess reintroduced the original twinkie (as best they could; remember, no more gross michel, so it's literally impossible for them to reproduce the original taste without adding sugar and other stuff) only nobody really bought it. People got used to the post-depression twinkie as its taste had already become so iconic over the years, and so that's what people want.
And by the way,
Where are the modern day BeOS's and Amigas and Matroxes? Do you remember when the Parhelia was released? And it had a bunch of interesting features like edge antialiasing? Gone.
You're blaming competition on consumer behavior. If BeOS and Amiga was really that awesome, people would have bought them instead of Windows based PCs. But they didn't; for whatever reason they chose, they preferred Windows. Windows PCs were also cheaper than Amigas. The same thing is currently happening with Android as well. What the fuck good is an iPhone if you can't afford to own one? Or better yet, if you're not a tech enthusiast and your phone is more of a phone to you before anything else it does, then you aren't going to want to spend a whole lot on it. You can't just assume that people want to throw their money at the most expensive thing on the market just because, in your opinion, it's better. In my opinion, the BEST product is something that does what you want at a price that you can afford, not something that does more than you want for more than you're willing to spend.
And Parhelia? Seriously? Matrox ALWAYS had shit performance on their GPUs compared to their competitors. Parhelia was aimed at gamers, who at the end of the day, want more FPS above all else. Not only that, but few people could afford 3 monitors at the time anyways (they were a lot more expensive then than now; even in work environments few people had more than one monitor, whereas nowadays it's common in most places to have two monitors, which I'll add have much better picture quality and resolution than the ones of even that time while costing less. How is that for your race to the bottom?)
As for edge anti-aliasing (actually called spatial-AA); remember that the target audience, gamers, want FPS. Nobody uses spatial AA because it's too fucking slow. Meanwhile AMD and Nvidia have come up with arithmetically less complex means of AA that achieve basically the same result; the only way you'd tell the difference is if you literally examined it with a magnifying glass on a frame-by-frame basis, which no gamer is going to do. So guess what? They don't care. Oh but wait, you want to render professional graphics because you're trying to create the next pixar movie? Great, but even for its time, Parhelia didn't have the processing power you needed.
You know what all of this meant? Nobody wanted the damn thing. Seriously, there was no consumer segment that favored it; just a few dweebs who REALLY wanted the novelty of three monitors while also having enough disposable income for that and also willing to put up with a lower frame rate. As you can see, that eliminates most people.
Also, Matrox ruined their own reputation far before Parhelia was even a thing. I remember getting burned on the Matrox Mystique when they promised a big list of game developers who were on board to support it, and only about 1% of them actually ended up supporting it, meaning most of your games were software rendered. I never wanted to touch Matrox after that, and neither did many other gamers.
Home computers are not a great example of increasing innovation. They have gotten more capable over time, but they have also consolidated greatly:
You 100% missed the point. It's not the computers themselves that were the innovation, rather its the things that we can do with them that enabled innovation. And because more and more of them are in the hands of everyday people, more people have been able to do more things.
It's not that innovation is completely dead, Nvidia and AMD still compete with each other to push out the same features at cheaper prices... Oh, wait. Wasn't that what we were talking about? A race to the bottom?
Remember how during the noughties Intel produced that crap Netburst architecture that perpetuated the megahertz myth (more megahertz means a faster cpu!) only they ran into a dead end when the things got so god damn hot. You know who forced them out of that? AMD. They were losing their ass because AMD, who they considered way below them, was producing much better products at a much better price. It was AMD who came up with things like x64, and on-die memory controller. Things that could still push the performance boundary where Intel was literally at a dead end. It was only after that when Intel decided to stop marketing CPUs based on megahertz.
Without having two competitors in this area, GPUs would most likely be in the same place that CPUs were when Intel felt that they had no competition. And in case you haven't noticed, GPUs are still getting MUCH faster while also consuming less power.
Race to the bottom my ass. Go throw out all of your computers and other post-industrial goods and party like it's 1699 you Luddite.
"The bottom" is moving production to countries with regimes that either don't have or don't enforce basic human rights or have any kind of effective worker protections. People in those regimes have no choice but to work long hours in dangerous conditions under constant threat of violence and dismissal. Is that what you want to compete with? How about people working under those conditions starting to undercut your job?
In case you haven't noticed, this isn't a new thing by any stretch; it's almost as old as the industrial revolution, before which 90% of the population were all farmers. After manufacturing of petty goods in the US matured (and remember, we had things like child labor) then it moved to Japan, then Korea, then Hong Kong, then Taiwan, then mainland China, and now that China is getting more expensive it's starting to move to Vietnam.
Because it stifles innovation and R&D or worse, puts the company out of business and people out of jobs.
You're going to have to be more specific about what "it" is and how "it" does that, otherwise you're just handwaving.
At any rate, things have been getting less and less expensive over the last 50 years, and I haven't seen any sign that innovation has been stifled; quite the opposite, actually. Computers for example used to be super expensive in the 80's, and now even homeless people carry around portable ones. Simple tasks that people used to do faded away over the years as people did them with computers instead, (or in some cases, those tasks became outright irrelevant, such as licking a stamp and sealing an envelope and walking to the mailbox merely for the purpose of sending somebody a message) which freed up their time and money to do other things. Take for example written spreadsheets vs electronic spreadsheets; the later being a MASSIVE time saver.
There is no such thing as a "race to the bottom". What is the 'bottom' exactly? Lower prices? What's wrong with that? At the end of the day that means people who make less money can be wealthier. Wealth after all is material goods, not money.
And if you want to argue that quality is decreasing, you're wrong there. There's often this mentality that "the older things lasted longer" but that's not actually true. Ever since manufacturing has been a thing, there have always been both good and bad quality products. You tend to notice the ones that were good quality because you still have them around for a long time, and when you see these older items still lasting you just assume that everything made "back then" was built to last, but that's just not the case, because what you don't have and don't see from "back then" are the things that didn't last.
You can file this in the same drawer as "the old days were better" or "we're living in the worst of times" that backwards people like to use.
That has to be one of the most retarded things I've read on slashdot. You're a total moron if you think the reason somebody commits suicide determines why their friends/relatives attend survivors of suicide after they're dead.
Relevant video:
https://youtu.be/3rUCKKVGvFg?t...
A few people I've known have committed suicide, (one of which I was present for) and I can't say a single one of them ever made sense. In talking with other people at Survivors of Suicide, all of the people who go to those meetings basically say to not bother asking yourself why they did it, because you'll most likely never know why. Based on Ian Murdoch's other circumstances, I think it's safe to say that his life was in a somewhat shitty state at the time (see the four reasons I listed in my post above) which is probably why, more than anything else.
I think there was probably more to it than that:
- His girlfriend recently broke up with him, which was after already having been divorced.
- He was within days of being evicted for routine noise and other disturbances.
- He was a very habitual drinker and often had side effects from alcohol withdrawal, had Asperger's, and known psychological problems for the past 20 years.
- The neighbor said he apologized to them about the noise and other disturbances he has made in the past at about 3:30PM the night he committed suicide. The neighbor commented that they though this was really odd.
This has all been corroborated by other witnesses and medical professionals.
It seems as though he was already in a really bad position and probably decided to commit suicide earlier in the day. When somebody is in such a state, it's happened many times that they try to make somebody else feel at fault, or otherwise try to push blame on somebody else, which could be a motivation for police involvement (and subsequent blame.) I've witnessed this before myself.
I'm of half of a mind to think that the police themselves had little to do with it, other than perhaps they were routinely called to his residence (probably for good reason, based on the neighbor's statements) which made him have a grudge against the police.
I don't know him so this is mainly speculation, but when it comes to suicide you often never know why somebody actually wanted to kill themselves. Even when they leave some kind of note, there's often a misdirection of blame (which I guess his twitter feed was his suicide note. Notice the repeated use of the N word, among other things.)
The assumption is the quality of their grocery isle matches teh quality of all the other isles.
It does. I used to work for a major food distributor in the southwest, and we sold walmart the same bag of doritos, m&m's, and produce that we sold to other stores in the region. There really is no difference.
But people who say otherwise actually believe organic food is magically better for you simply because it costs more, even though it isn't. And in some ways is worse, such as increased risk of foodborn pathogens from cow shit based fertilizer vs the synthetic fertilizer used in modern agriculture. Some produce is worse than others in this regard, such as raw organic alfalfa sprouts, which have such a high risk of contamination that walmart refuses to carry them. Whole Foods doesn't seem to mind the risk though.
It is plain misleading and genuinly make people mistrust usd when we try to "sell GMO" that people keep insisting that it is the same mechanism.
Nobody ever claimed it to be the same mechanism; however once the transfer is done, the means of getting there is irrelevant.
Which is one documented problem with GMO's such as Round-Up-Ready. The changes pass to the weeds they are supposed to fight, (or the weeds naturally become immune to Round-Up) creating weeds that are harder to kill.
They're not harder to kill, just harder to kill with roundup.
Whether GMO or not, species strains should be labeled. If you read this particular /. story's summary, some GMO potatoes have less carcinogens than non-GMO. Some other kind of GMO potato may not have that benefit. The customers need to know.
I'm aware of that; I did write what you read there after all. Anyways, it doesn't need to be labeled as GMO or anything of the sort. I'm sure whoever is going to sell it will likely advertise the potatoes as Low Acrylamide in order to promote their product over their competitors. Whether or not GMO was used to get there is irrelevant.
Every single problem they are designed to alleviate can be dealt with in conventional ways without putting global ecosystems at risk.
Please define conventional. As I've mentioned in the past, this happens in nature all the time, and in fact your genome contains at least 100,000 genes spliced in from other organisms.
At any rate, I care not for Monsanto, nor do I care what you think my motivations are for. I only have one message: GMO is good.
I haven't had any reliability problems with newer cars. As has always been the case, it really depends on the car. My previous car was a 2005 Buick Regal which I sold to my brother, and it still runs fine.
I'm seeing most of these cars you're buying are Dodge, and Dodge are somewhat known for making junky cars. The Neon in particular is a complete turd that's made about as cheaply as a car can possibly be made, and so is its 4 door cousin, the Intrepid. As for that Sebring of yours, I had to drive a brand new 2011 Sebring once after some derp did an improper lane change and crunched my right fender, and while it was getting repaired, the insurance company gave me the Sebring as a rental, which was basically brand new. My Regal, 6 years older, was such a nicer car than that, and the reason why is because Sebring is a cheapo car whose only selling point is that it's roomy. I don't know much about Caliber, but it IS a Dodge so... From what I understand, the only decent cars Dodge makes these days are trucks.
But, if you want a sedan that isn't going to be a perpetual fixer upper, your choices are pretty much anything GM or anything Toyota, with some exceptions for other manufacturers.
Yeah, and a lot more people should probably go that route of they can't afford a car. My income is ~80k/yr and I've never owned a new car in my life. The newest car I've ever had is a 2013 Camry that I bought in 2015 for less than half of its msrp, and I just paid cash for it. In fact I've never had to borrow money to buy a car, even in the days when my income was shit.
And wake up with your phone, wallet, and shoes missing.
That is by far the best approach to this. However this silliness of trying to ban GMO just because of patents needs to go away because it's very counterproductive.