Sometimes I think we'd all be better off if we removed the word "natural" from the English language. Then some people wouldn't go around thinking that anything that is natural is good, and others wouldn't use this misconception to blindly support the opposite stance (not saying that's what you were doing).
You mean like alcohol, saturated fats, or tobacco?
They're only recent additions to the humans' menu. And all know they can cause health issues -- some of us refrain completely from all but the saturated fats, and many at least consume alcohol in moderation. These things also became common before there was such a thing as food science. GM food, OTOH, is very new.
As for the 3rd world: What these counties need is infrastructure, not just food drops or special crops.
I think it's pretty clear that the original commenter was talking about the many big GM food companies that rake in the $$$ because of increased crop yield, reduced costs, and winnings from intellectual property rights lawsuits. Any health benefits that these companies purport are just the marketing department doing their job. Health benefits certainly aren't in their motto, and because of that, they're only going to tell you the good side of things.
GE researches using proper ethical guidelines to help cure diseases are something else all together.
I mean, if the big GM food companies really cared about the third world, they'd use their big profits to by over-priced medicine from the big pharmaceutical companies and donate it to these poorer places.
GE will probably benefit all of us greatly at some point in the future, but I think the original commenter is right about the attitudes towards GE and organic food and many of the big corporations -- they're just in it for the money. If you want a good example of what that does to industries in terms of innovation, just look at the IT industry -- new tech for many of the big companies just means more ways to exploit loopholes in the new laws they create.
Your argument sounds very similar to that "[famous person or relative] smoked|drank|both [large amount of units] a day, and lived to [some old age] with no health problems" mantra.
These things are all about levels and thresholds, and that what once person does may effect another differently. For you, obviously, bad diets don't seem to have much of an effect. But what if you contracted a disease, or there was some other event or process that started to cause harm to your body. How do you know how far away from the poor-health threshold you are, or how it works?
Also, how you feel isn't really a comprehensive way to gauge your heath. Perhaps if you were a High Lama it might be. Some people feel fine, then die of an early heart attack. Some people even tell others they feel fine, even if they don't.
Yeah, but whenever you eat something bad for you, even only in moderation, you're still giving in to the craving...feeding your desire for it. If junk food had some other advantages, then there may be a case for it, but generally, junk food is more unhealthy, expensive, worse for the environment. If you can not only give up the habit of eating it, but also give up the habit of desire, then you'll be even better off for it.
There is a reason you often hear people say things like "I don't even want [something] anymore..." especially in relation to habits and cravings: Because it's true, even if it does sound like denial, or circular thinking (which it's not). It's so true that similar concepts are core parts of many philosophical and logic-based religions.
I think the posters point was that after a while, you need to stop playing the blame game and move on with your life (not saying it's easy). The problem with the blame game is that even the criminal can be a victim, and it can keep going back, and back into history. The past can be useful for determining what to do, but the future is more important than what happened, overall.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but didn't the author imply that there was a difference between security features and systems, and the current security industry that basically deals with the flaws of these such things?
And your bad reasoning is that since something isn't perfect or ideal, that there is no a system can be considered "good enough, most of the time" -- where, for all practical purposes, it takes care of the problem.
As long as I live, there is a possibility that I will be killed from a blow to the head by a meteorite. But do you think that an entire industry needs to be dedicated to this?
The security industry doesn't depend on the possibility of exploits alone, some threshold of severity must first be past. I mean, if Windows was never invented, and we were all using user-friendly Unix-based systems, do you really thing there would be a dedicated anti-virus industry?
There is a reason most buglers rob homes (or warehouses, old and cheap office buildings) rather than commercial office buildings: because most modern commercial office buildings are pretty-much secure out of the box. IE. If you rent space in an average office building where I live, a good security system is already there and managed by professionals. If you moved into an average modern home, it might have a basic alarm, but chances are that no one will be monitoring it, let alone enforcing it.
I think, from what I've read in the summary above, that the author has a good point. It's the same reason that Mac OS X is often regarded as being more secure out of the box compared to windows, and why you can connect to the net without a firewall without fear that something is going to come along an own your box within a few seconds, and why I haven't yet installed anti-virus software on Mac but make sure my dad's copy of AVG is running OK.
There's a difference between an industry that has problems to the extent that it has generated a new sub-industy to deal with them, and where solutions and services are available to deal with problems within an industry.
Yes, and the iPod is a failure, too. People don't want to be tied to iTunes, and also prefer to copy their music across manually, rather than sync it with their desktop.
Most of the phones on the market are restrictive and proprietary, so how will this be a big problem for Apple? And I want to sync with my desktop. Sync with a network service? Sounds like another restrictive expense. Stop assuming everyone has the same needs as you.
As a Westerner and a Buddhist, when I think of China, I think of Tibet. They really are out to destroy that country and everything it stands for. China doesn't just want the land, they want to eradicate the culture, its leader, and its religion. They've tortchered monks, destroyed monasteries, spread propaganda, and are even trying to install their own fake Lamas -- this is how seriously they take eradicating such people as the Nobel Peace Prize winning Dalai Lama. China's policies are truly arrogant and dehumanizing.
What a load of bullshit. Did you even read the article? Google says they will only remove the racist blogs if asked to do so by an Australian court. How the hell does this crap get marked as insightful when it shows such an obvious misunderstanding of the issue? They are being consistent. Perhaps not in other cases, but they sure are if you're comparing this issue with the Chinese censorship.
Forget the iTunes store songs. Just the fact that user already has, and is familiar with, an iPod is enough to get them to stick with it. If the iPod is serving them well, and there's no obvious advantage to switching to a Zune (and there aren't any for most people), then they're not going be motivated to switch. Power users are a bit different, of course, but even then the same things can still apply.
My thoughts exactly. Perhaps there was a bit of a mixup in the submission and what they really meant to say was "What if Microsoft made an digital music player and no one cared?"
Now, I want to see the hands-on with this Apple cellphone!
What right does adding speakers to CCTV cameras erode? The right to walk down a road in peaceful quietness? Now, if it was microphones, that would be a different story. Still, as long as it's all kept in public places, and not hidden from plain sight, I don't have a problem with it.
The hell it's not important. Power in batteries often works both ways; fast discharge compared to another battery often implies a faster charge rate. And this looks to also be the case here.
Also, it doesn't have double the capacity of an an alkaline battery, but double the capacity of an electric double-layer capacitor. So, it may infact even have less then the capacity of an alkaline battery. But there isn't much info on the density of the material, so I'm not sure why you think it would be a good idea to compare them, anyway.
And if I could charge up my laptop in 10 mins, then I wouldn't really care if it only lasted a day, as I'd always have the opportunity to charge it up sometime during the day.
Voltage fluctuations may be a problem, but it might be possible to use a voltage regulator/switching PSU and still end up with more engery per mass.
Yes, because slowly leaking flamable liquids all over the place sounds much better. If the battery/cap goes off like a bomb, then that event can only happen once, and it's a short duration with more predicatable results. I'm sure they can design it in such away that it doesn't sent shrapnel flying in random directions.
Don't be so sure. For many people it's still easier for them to stop by a CD store, browse around a bit, and buy few CDs than it is to download them off the net. Some people simply enjoy the RL experience more, too.
And how do vortex rings fit into this? AFAIK, dolphins don't use the vortex rings to herd schools of fish together or for any other practical reason. If course, it's possible there is a reason for it, but I don't think there is anything documented.
I see your point, but much playing of mammals is play fighting, or something related to something they naturally do. Dogs aren't a good comparison because they have been domesticated, breed, and trained. I'm not sure about rabbits playing tag -- perhaps you could provide some evidence? Either way, even if playing tag isn't really a good sign, blowing vortex rings is a better example.
Dolphins get trapped in nets because they can't detect them, not because they're too stupid to know what to do. Aside from the obvious fact, as someone else has already pointed out, that a goldfish that jumps out of it's bowl and dies isn't nessearily very smart, there are could also be complex psychological factors at play as to why dolphins might not attempt to escape.
Dolphins are one of the few creatures that play games, such as playing tag with a peice of seaweed, or blowing bubble rings. This type of behaviour is often an indicator of high intelligence. To say that a Dolphin isn't much smarter than a Goldfish is an insult to both Dolphins and any human with half a brain to realise this article is a crock.
I can assure you that those sites are not broken, merely that you are just a tad anal about such things. Some of us like that fact that the web is diverse -- that it doesn't look like every site is a variation of a select few official templates. And this is OK, as there are good browsers that let you have things your way if you don't give a crap about any of this.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes I think we'd all be better off if we removed the word "natural" from the English language. Then some people wouldn't go around thinking that anything that is natural is good, and others wouldn't use this misconception to blindly support the opposite stance (not saying that's what you were doing).
They're only recent additions to the humans' menu. And all know they can cause health issues -- some of us refrain completely from all but the saturated fats, and many at least consume alcohol in moderation. These things also became common before there was such a thing as food science. GM food, OTOH, is very new.
As for the 3rd world: What these counties need is infrastructure, not just food drops or special crops.
I think it's pretty clear that the original commenter was talking about the many big GM food companies that rake in the $$$ because of increased crop yield, reduced costs, and winnings from intellectual property rights lawsuits. Any health benefits that these companies purport are just the marketing department doing their job. Health benefits certainly aren't in their motto, and because of that, they're only going to tell you the good side of things.
GE researches using proper ethical guidelines to help cure diseases are something else all together.
I mean, if the big GM food companies really cared about the third world, they'd use their big profits to by over-priced medicine from the big pharmaceutical companies and donate it to these poorer places.
GE will probably benefit all of us greatly at some point in the future, but I think the original commenter is right about the attitudes towards GE and organic food and many of the big corporations -- they're just in it for the money. If you want a good example of what that does to industries in terms of innovation, just look at the IT industry -- new tech for many of the big companies just means more ways to exploit loopholes in the new laws they create.
Your argument sounds very similar to that "[famous person or relative] smoked|drank|both [large amount of units] a day, and lived to [some old age] with no health problems" mantra. These things are all about levels and thresholds, and that what once person does may effect another differently. For you, obviously, bad diets don't seem to have much of an effect. But what if you contracted a disease, or there was some other event or process that started to cause harm to your body. How do you know how far away from the poor-health threshold you are, or how it works? Also, how you feel isn't really a comprehensive way to gauge your heath. Perhaps if you were a High Lama it might be. Some people feel fine, then die of an early heart attack. Some people even tell others they feel fine, even if they don't.
Yeah, but whenever you eat something bad for you, even only in moderation, you're still giving in to the craving...feeding your desire for it. If junk food had some other advantages, then there may be a case for it, but generally, junk food is more unhealthy, expensive, worse for the environment. If you can not only give up the habit of eating it, but also give up the habit of desire, then you'll be even better off for it.
There is a reason you often hear people say things like "I don't even want [something] anymore..." especially in relation to habits and cravings: Because it's true, even if it does sound like denial, or circular thinking (which it's not). It's so true that similar concepts are core parts of many philosophical and logic-based religions.
I think the posters point was that after a while, you need to stop playing the blame game and move on with your life (not saying it's easy). The problem with the blame game is that even the criminal can be a victim, and it can keep going back, and back into history. The past can be useful for determining what to do, but the future is more important than what happened, overall.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but didn't the author imply that there was a difference between security features and systems, and the current security industry that basically deals with the flaws of these such things?
And your bad reasoning is that since something isn't perfect or ideal, that there is no a system can be considered "good enough, most of the time" -- where, for all practical purposes, it takes care of the problem.
As long as I live, there is a possibility that I will be killed from a blow to the head by a meteorite. But do you think that an entire industry needs to be dedicated to this? The security industry doesn't depend on the possibility of exploits alone, some threshold of severity must first be past. I mean, if Windows was never invented, and we were all using user-friendly Unix-based systems, do you really thing there would be a dedicated anti-virus industry?
There is a reason most buglers rob homes (or warehouses, old and cheap office buildings) rather than commercial office buildings: because most modern commercial office buildings are pretty-much secure out of the box. IE. If you rent space in an average office building where I live, a good security system is already there and managed by professionals. If you moved into an average modern home, it might have a basic alarm, but chances are that no one will be monitoring it, let alone enforcing it. I think, from what I've read in the summary above, that the author has a good point. It's the same reason that Mac OS X is often regarded as being more secure out of the box compared to windows, and why you can connect to the net without a firewall without fear that something is going to come along an own your box within a few seconds, and why I haven't yet installed anti-virus software on Mac but make sure my dad's copy of AVG is running OK. There's a difference between an industry that has problems to the extent that it has generated a new sub-industy to deal with them, and where solutions and services are available to deal with problems within an industry.
Those two idiots who can't even give a proper demonstration of the problem?
Yes, and the iPod is a failure, too. People don't want to be tied to iTunes, and also prefer to copy their music across manually, rather than sync it with their desktop.
Most of the phones on the market are restrictive and proprietary, so how will this be a big problem for Apple? And I want to sync with my desktop. Sync with a network service? Sounds like another restrictive expense. Stop assuming everyone has the same needs as you.
As a Westerner and a Buddhist, when I think of China, I think of Tibet. They really are out to destroy that country and everything it stands for. China doesn't just want the land, they want to eradicate the culture, its leader, and its religion. They've tortchered monks, destroyed monasteries, spread propaganda, and are even trying to install their own fake Lamas -- this is how seriously they take eradicating such people as the Nobel Peace Prize winning Dalai Lama. China's policies are truly arrogant and dehumanizing.
What a load of bullshit. Did you even read the article? Google says they will only remove the racist blogs if asked to do so by an Australian court. How the hell does this crap get marked as insightful when it shows such an obvious misunderstanding of the issue? They are being consistent. Perhaps not in other cases, but they sure are if you're comparing this issue with the Chinese censorship.
Forget the iTunes store songs. Just the fact that user already has, and is familiar with, an iPod is enough to get them to stick with it. If the iPod is serving them well, and there's no obvious advantage to switching to a Zune (and there aren't any for most people), then they're not going be motivated to switch. Power users are a bit different, of course, but even then the same things can still apply.
My thoughts exactly. Perhaps there was a bit of a mixup in the submission and what they really meant to say was "What if Microsoft made an digital music player and no one cared?"
Now, I want to see the hands-on with this Apple cellphone!
What right does adding speakers to CCTV cameras erode? The right to walk down a road in peaceful quietness? Now, if it was microphones, that would be a different story. Still, as long as it's all kept in public places, and not hidden from plain sight, I don't have a problem with it.
The hell it's not important. Power in batteries often works both ways; fast discharge compared to another battery often implies a faster charge rate. And this looks to also be the case here.
Also, it doesn't have double the capacity of an an alkaline battery, but double the capacity of an electric double-layer capacitor. So, it may infact even have less then the capacity of an alkaline battery. But there isn't much info on the density of the material, so I'm not sure why you think it would be a good idea to compare them, anyway.
And if I could charge up my laptop in 10 mins, then I wouldn't really care if it only lasted a day, as I'd always have the opportunity to charge it up sometime during the day.
Voltage fluctuations may be a problem, but it might be possible to use a voltage regulator/switching PSU and still end up with more engery per mass.
Yes, because slowly leaking flamable liquids all over the place sounds much better. If the battery/cap goes off like a bomb, then that event can only happen once, and it's a short duration with more predicatable results. I'm sure they can design it in such away that it doesn't sent shrapnel flying in random directions.
Don't be so sure. For many people it's still easier for them to stop by a CD store, browse around a bit, and buy few CDs than it is to download them off the net. Some people simply enjoy the RL experience more, too.
And how do vortex rings fit into this? AFAIK, dolphins don't use the vortex rings to herd schools of fish together or for any other practical reason. If course, it's possible there is a reason for it, but I don't think there is anything documented.
I see your point, but much playing of mammals is play fighting, or something related to something they naturally do. Dogs aren't a good comparison because they have been domesticated, breed, and trained. I'm not sure about rabbits playing tag -- perhaps you could provide some evidence? Either way, even if playing tag isn't really a good sign, blowing vortex rings is a better example.
Dolphins get trapped in nets because they can't detect them, not because they're too stupid to know what to do. Aside from the obvious fact, as someone else has already pointed out, that a goldfish that jumps out of it's bowl and dies isn't nessearily very smart, there are could also be complex psychological factors at play as to why dolphins might not attempt to escape.
Dolphins are one of the few creatures that play games, such as playing tag with a peice of seaweed, or blowing bubble rings. This type of behaviour is often an indicator of high intelligence. To say that a Dolphin isn't much smarter than a Goldfish is an insult to both Dolphins and any human with half a brain to realise this article is a crock.
I can assure you that those sites are not broken, merely that you are just a tad anal about such things. Some of us like that fact that the web is diverse -- that it doesn't look like every site is a variation of a select few official templates. And this is OK, as there are good browsers that let you have things your way if you don't give a crap about any of this.