Also, Doritos are basically corn and salt. Corn and salt are cheaper than fruit the day they're harvested/mined. Why wouldn't you expect them to be cheaper at the store?
The reason those people in "a developing nation" (as described above) are merely malnourished rather than hungry/starving is because they can get cheap food.
Have you ever read the ingredients of prepackaged food? Hint: it doesn't contain just one ingredient.
I think one of those chemicals keeps people from being preachy know-it-all douchebags. People without that chemical in their system spend their time annoying everyone around them with a weird sort of self-focused food-related righteousness, as if you think you discovered eating itself and everyone else around you needs to know how superior you are at it.
No, it's not possible for a person to eat 10000 calories of whole fruits in 1 day. Fruit has relatively low calorie density. 10000 calories is like 80 or 90 bananas or apples. It's impossible. This is why eating whole fruits and vegetables helps -- you get full on fewer calories.
If you eat only 500 calories of sugar a day and nothing else, you will also lose weight.
This reminds me of the episode of the Sopranos where Paully donated to the church fair. He thought donating money would partly make up for all the bad things he'd done and was planning to do in the future.
Yeah, government employees and office holders can't use government resources to campaign. Not because speech is a campaign contribution though. After work they can do all the campaigning they want, with any non-government resources they want, and they don't have to (and shouldn't) keep their position in the government a secret.
Citizens United made a movie. People seem to want that to be called a campaign contribution and regulated or prohibited or punished. How is a movie different than a Facebook post?
Perhaps we should all just agree to some law or something to protect free expression?
Regulation is supposed to be GOOD though. Slashdot people are big fans of it. They can't get enough regulation. If more and more regulation is good for every industry you can think of, then how can it be bad for schools?
Without all this regulation, something bad might happen. You don't want bad things to happen, do you?
How are we going to exploit this to divide people and get them to hate each other? And if problems get solved without government, how can we sell the idea that only government can solve problems?
Let's pretend it is and think it through. It becomes impossible to do an effective job, crime rises, people notice, want less crime, make changes to make it less impossible.
"What if" is a poor argument. Let's try going back to police acting as public servants and see if we miss police bullying. Perhaps you are right. Let's find out.
So? Try being professional then. Change your attitude to "serve the public" instead of "enforce laws" (upon the public). People can tell the difference between helping and bullying on a video, especially if there's sound.
And, while you're at it, run your own camera and make all the raw video publicly available so no one can release edited videos that take your actions out of context.
The combination of cheap gas and people who care about animals more than humans will prevent these from being built in the US. In more sensible countries with more expensive gas, these should be a good way to generate reliable power.
Which is not relevant to health care unless it is normalized to account for demographics, race, income, etc. Do Europeans who move to the US live longer or shorter lives than Europeans who stay in Europe?
But we pay something like double to triple for that privilege.
Who is this "we" you think are paying more? Lots of people pay zero. As a society, we borrow money so "we" don't pay the collective bill either.
The downside to this approach is that it encourages postponing small, cheap fixes until they become big, expensive problems.
Not really. Say you had a $400 health care bill. You'd postpone this until it became a $2000 health care bill? Or more? That would make sense at what level of income?
The flip side of the argument is that, when someone else is paying for it, people go to the doctor for cold medicine.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, Doritos are basically corn and salt. Corn and salt are cheaper than fruit the day they're harvested/mined. Why wouldn't you expect them to be cheaper at the store?
The reason those people in "a developing nation" (as described above) are merely malnourished rather than hungry/starving is because they can get cheap food.
This is just false. And, assuming you're not trolling, it's a really strange thing for anyone to believe.
No.
Not getting shot and killed in WW2 at the age of 22 causes cancer. Also not dying of smallpox before your 12th birthday.
Have you ever read the ingredients of prepackaged food? Hint: it doesn't contain just one ingredient.
I think one of those chemicals keeps people from being preachy know-it-all douchebags. People without that chemical in their system spend their time annoying everyone around them with a weird sort of self-focused food-related righteousness, as if you think you discovered eating itself and everyone else around you needs to know how superior you are at it.
Try buying actual "food" at the grocery store rather than prepackaged boxes of chemicals.
Will it make me talk like a complete douchebag? Is that what happened to you?
No, it's not possible for a person to eat 10000 calories of whole fruits in 1 day. Fruit has relatively low calorie density. 10000 calories is like 80 or 90 bananas or apples. It's impossible. This is why eating whole fruits and vegetables helps -- you get full on fewer calories.
If you eat only 500 calories of sugar a day and nothing else, you will also lose weight.
This reminds me of the episode of the Sopranos where Paully donated to the church fair. He thought donating money would partly make up for all the bad things he'd done and was planning to do in the future.
Oh no, exposure to marbles!
A $2 million house for every man woman and child. $68 B / 30,000 = $2.27 M
Yeah, government employees and office holders can't use government resources to campaign. Not because speech is a campaign contribution though. After work they can do all the campaigning they want, with any non-government resources they want, and they don't have to (and shouldn't) keep their position in the government a secret.
It's about *who*, not the medium. Wtf is wrong with you?
"Who" should be denied free expression?
Citizens United made a movie. People seem to want that to be called a campaign contribution and regulated or prohibited or punished. How is a movie different than a Facebook post?
Perhaps we should all just agree to some law or something to protect free expression?
Regulation is supposed to be GOOD though. Slashdot people are big fans of it. They can't get enough regulation. If more and more regulation is good for every industry you can think of, then how can it be bad for schools?
Without all this regulation, something bad might happen. You don't want bad things to happen, do you?
And how many of these people do you think are living under bridges? What number of housing units should be built for people living under bridges?
Just curious: Where do you think disabled and poor folks live now? Why do you think they need a huge amount of new housing?
How are we going to exploit this to divide people and get them to hate each other? And if problems get solved without government, how can we sell the idea that only government can solve problems?
Let's pretend it is and think it through. It becomes impossible to do an effective job, crime rises, people notice, want less crime, make changes to make it less impossible.
"What if" is a poor argument. Let's try going back to police acting as public servants and see if we miss police bullying. Perhaps you are right. Let's find out.
Here's how: be a public servant, not a bully.
Like having your actions clipped, cut, edited and put out of context just to make you look bad.
This is why we need police body cams, with all the raw video released to the public.
So? Try being professional then. Change your attitude to "serve the public" instead of "enforce laws" (upon the public). People can tell the difference between helping and bullying on a video, especially if there's sound.
And, while you're at it, run your own camera and make all the raw video publicly available so no one can release edited videos that take your actions out of context.
And natural gas is super cheap.
The combination of cheap gas and people who care about animals more than humans will prevent these from being built in the US. In more sensible countries with more expensive gas, these should be a good way to generate reliable power.
I'd like this fixed.
Why?
We live shorter lives than the Europeans though.
Which is not relevant to health care unless it is normalized to account for demographics, race, income, etc. Do Europeans who move to the US live longer or shorter lives than Europeans who stay in Europe?
But we pay something like double to triple for that privilege.
Who is this "we" you think are paying more? Lots of people pay zero. As a society, we borrow money so "we" don't pay the collective bill either.
The downside to this approach is that it encourages postponing small, cheap fixes until they become big, expensive problems.
Not really. Say you had a $400 health care bill. You'd postpone this until it became a $2000 health care bill? Or more? That would make sense at what level of income?
The flip side of the argument is that, when someone else is paying for it, people go to the doctor for cold medicine.