"Obesity inversely correlated with income" has more to do with cheap food being high in fat and sodium, and education being negatively correlated with poverty. To the point that "The rich stay healthy, the sick stay poor".
The chicken price is about the same, but cheap hamburger is under $1/lb. Not sure why you would say, I'm on a budget, so I buy the more expensive item. That seems contradictory, or I'm unclear on your intended meaning.
You could go to whatever is left of the arctic, or join perhaps the rain forests. There are still indeginous peoples living the life you allege to crave.
Who said anything about motivation? I suggest "refuse to work or be productive" is a straw man attack, a logical fallacy. That isn't insightful, that is irrational.
Quart of milk or orange juice cost more than a quart of soda. Canned vegetables (high sodium) cost more than frozen. Where I live, high-fat hamburger is much cheaper than chicken. I know a disabled veteran who is diabetic. He can't afford to eat the meals the VA nutritionist recommends.
But "cheap good food" doesn't exist. You and I are paying the health and food bill. Difference is, you'd rather pay more money (in the case were they are hurt,) than let them be fed (and thus not sick, at a lower total cost to us both).
The causative factors for the increase, and a benefit ratio analysis, including projections for diabetes alone. Hence, our demographics in the USA most certainly is germane to "a food stamp issue".
Our analysis found that based on current rates of diabetes in relation to poverty in U.S. communities, this increase in poverty could translate to a growth in government and private-sector medical costs for diabetes alone of nearly $15 billion over 10 years
"No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still" is a lie. It is not in accord with the Laws of Physics. Whenever you state "Please explain to us all where the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law is in error", you either are confused or lying "about why most AGW models are in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics", when they aren't. The problem I have is with the argument you are making. Don't put responsibility for your faulty posts off on someone you are quoting who is wrong, after having facts refute your bizarre position. Accept that you were taken in my psuedo-science and learn how and why. And please stop spreading such quakery.
Hell, even I took stat thermo in grad school. The Stefan-Boltzman law is not in error, and neither is the greenhouse effect. Nor is there a connection between the two such that they can't both be true. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Seriously. I reading your comment, which is below the line, sure. But its not at the bottom hiding in an area and style that usually means "small print", & "go away, nothing here". So your comment, while below the fold, has nothing in common with the way apple is trying to hide their apology.
You confuse a dissatisfaction with your logic for a stance. Nowhere in my post do I say I support Apple or Google. Rather, I make fun of your "they are all the same" comment. Saying, for instance, "politicians are all the same, they are all crooks", is usually said by someone whose favorite politician just got caught. "But mom, everybody [does drugs|has sex|steals|pollutes] now!" My point was that abstracting, as you're attempting to do, to the point where you can say they are exhibiting the same behavior is ludicrous. In my sarcastic comment they both use guns, sure, but the context of the use of guns as a tool are different. Likewise, the use of patents. Both are using patents, sure. And the use is about as similar a use as the cops 'n robbers. A tool is just a tool. Can't say that using a hammer to pound a nail is exactly the same as using a hammer to pound your spouse's head. Unless you abstract to ridiculous levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil
"Don't be evil" is the informal corporate motto (or slogan) of Google,[1] originally suggested by Google employees Paul Buchheit[2] and Amit Patel[3] at a meeting. Buchheit, the creator of Gmail, said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out", adding that the slogan was "also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent." While the official corporate philosophy of Google[4] does not contain the words "Don't be evil", they were included in the prospectus (aka "S-1") of Google's 2004 IPO (a letter from Google's founders, later called the "'Don't Be Evil' manifesto"): "Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains."[5] The sixth point of the 10-point corporate philosophy of Google says "You can make money without doing evil."[4] The motto is sometimes incorrectly stated as Do no evil.[6][7]
If she left a sealed, stamped letter to her lawyer I would expect them NOT to open it. If she talked to her lawyer and the company overheard the conversation, I would expect their knowledge gained to be like unto "fruit of the poisoned tree", and disallowed. There is a big difference between what you CAN do and what you are ALLOWED to do. People who do what isn't ALLOWED because they realize they CAN, in a country under the rule of law, should expect to be punished when they are caught.
Slashdot Mirror
"Obesity inversely correlated with income" has more to do with cheap food being high in fat and sodium, and education being negatively correlated with poverty. To the point that "The rich stay healthy, the sick stay poor".
The chicken price is about the same, but cheap hamburger is under $1/lb. Not sure why you would say, I'm on a budget, so I buy the more expensive item. That seems contradictory, or I'm unclear on your intended meaning.
People I know on food stamps can not afford to buy fruit. Oatmeal is bought, and Mac n' Cheese...
Covering kids' entire upbring on welfare? Your sense of what is real reeks of a dream world.
Indeed, isn't there a requirement that if able, you must be willing and able to work and actively seeking employment? In my state there is.
You could go to whatever is left of the arctic, or join perhaps the rain forests. There are still indeginous peoples living the life you allege to crave.
Who said anything about motivation? I suggest "refuse to work or be productive" is a straw man attack, a logical fallacy. That isn't insightful, that is irrational.
Sounds like you want the government to step in and eliminate private sector grocery stores. Not sure that would fly with the right wing.
$6.66 dollars a day is the maximum allowance in the state of california for food stamps. $200 limit / 30 day month...
Quart of milk or orange juice cost more than a quart of soda.
Canned vegetables (high sodium) cost more than frozen.
Where I live, high-fat hamburger is much cheaper than chicken.
I know a disabled veteran who is diabetic. He can't afford to eat the meals the VA nutritionist recommends.
But "cheap good food" doesn't exist.
You and I are paying the health and food bill.
Difference is, you'd rather pay more money (in the case were they are hurt,) than let them be fed (and thus not sick, at a lower total cost to us both).
Actually the health, education, and welfare programs are all funded by tax dollars. Its corporate welfare that is requires debt.
;-)
What about high IQ ex-athletes with advanced degrees who are on food stamps due to the economy. I know of such...
The causative factors for the increase, and a benefit ratio analysis, including projections for diabetes alone. Hence, our demographics in the USA most certainly is germane to "a food stamp issue".
How about the Chrome Web Store? https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/apps?utm_source=chrome-ntp-icon I run Angry Birds under linux in google chrome. Which apps did you want?
Perhaps the lock-in occurs at the app market? B&N tried that with Nook originally.
"No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still" is a lie. It is not in accord with the Laws of Physics. Whenever you state "Please explain to us all where the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law is in error", you either are confused or lying "about why most AGW models are in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics", when they aren't. The problem I have is with the argument you are making. Don't put responsibility for your faulty posts off on someone you are quoting who is wrong, after having facts refute your bizarre position. Accept that you were taken in my psuedo-science and learn how and why. And please stop spreading such quakery.
Hell, even I took stat thermo in grad school. The Stefan-Boltzman law is not in error, and neither is the greenhouse effect. Nor is there a connection between the two such that they can't both be true. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Seriously. I reading your comment, which is below the line, sure. But its not at the bottom hiding in an area and style that usually means "small print", & "go away, nothing here". So your comment, while below the fold, has nothing in common with the way apple is trying to hide their apology.
You confuse a dissatisfaction with your logic for a stance. Nowhere in my post do I say I support Apple or Google. Rather, I make fun of your "they are all the same" comment. Saying, for instance, "politicians are all the same, they are all crooks", is usually said by someone whose favorite politician just got caught. "But mom, everybody [does drugs|has sex|steals|pollutes] now!" My point was that abstracting, as you're attempting to do, to the point where you can say they are exhibiting the same behavior is ludicrous. In my sarcastic comment they both use guns, sure, but the context of the use of guns as a tool are different. Likewise, the use of patents. Both are using patents, sure. And the use is about as similar a use as the cops 'n robbers. A tool is just a tool. Can't say that using a hammer to pound a nail is exactly the same as using a hammer to pound your spouse's head. Unless you abstract to ridiculous levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil "Don't be evil" is the informal corporate motto (or slogan) of Google,[1] originally suggested by Google employees Paul Buchheit[2] and Amit Patel[3] at a meeting. Buchheit, the creator of Gmail, said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out", adding that the slogan was "also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent." While the official corporate philosophy of Google[4] does not contain the words "Don't be evil", they were included in the prospectus (aka "S-1") of Google's 2004 IPO (a letter from Google's founders, later called the "'Don't Be Evil' manifesto"): "Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains."[5] The sixth point of the 10-point corporate philosophy of Google says "You can make money without doing evil."[4] The motto is sometimes incorrectly stated as Do no evil.[6][7]
Yeah right. And bank robbers and policemen are both "using guns" to protect their way of life. Like its exactly the same thing.
If she left a sealed, stamped letter to her lawyer I would expect them NOT to open it. If she talked to her lawyer and the company overheard the conversation, I would expect their knowledge gained to be like unto "fruit of the poisoned tree", and disallowed. There is a big difference between what you CAN do and what you are ALLOWED to do. People who do what isn't ALLOWED because they realize they CAN, in a country under the rule of law, should expect to be punished when they are caught.
"But using the company resources opens up their right to see what you are doing. "
Well but if they can't listen to your personal phone call even though its a company phone, why should email be different?