Really? Most generic takeaways in the UK deliver burgers. There are no specialised burger places like that, but the general pizza/kebab/burger takeaways will deliver.
People who buy based on quality rather than price would probably want to actually see the food before they buy it. Delivery is a good way of getting rid of all the greying meat and wilted lettuces. Walmart shoppers probably wouldn't notice the difference.
If you've gone all the way to the store, you may as well actually go and get the stuff yourself, so you know what you're getting. Otherwise surely they've just give you the stuff closest to its expiry date.
Re:"Processed" vs. "Natural" is Magical Thinking
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Orange juice is an unnatural, processed product. Unprocessed orange juice is an orange.
As long as your post is what passes for mature political debate in America, you'll always be fucked.
I could write a list of reasons as to why your scheme isn't particularly viable, but I very much doubt you're the sort of person who is open to reason. You have your opinion, based on ideology more than what actually might work or not, and nothing in the world will change it.
Yet Germany has a much healthier economy than the US. Inventing things means very little unless you have the manufacturing to back it up. If a dozen Americans design a product, and a thousand Chinese make it, China will benefit more than America. Just look at the balances of trade.
If a McDonald's outlet is opened somewhere in the world, most of the money will go to the people growing the corn to make the burgers and drinks, and the people running the actual operation. America at most will receive a small brand royalty.
In that case, if tertiary and secondary industries have the same value, why do countries which emphasise secondary, such as Germany, enjoy large trade surpluses, whilst countries which gave up their manufacturing in favour of services, like Britain, have ever-growing trade deficits?
Big-spending developing nations seem to have much more need for threaded rods than they do financial derivatives and tall skinny mocha lattes.
Primary industries are more valuable than secondary, which are more valuable than tertiary. If a country has a platinum mine, a semiconductor fab, and a fast-food chain, which do you think you'd have the best chance of replicating?
No, the main problem will be that Peter Jackson has no sense of pacing or editing, so the film will be twelve hours long even though there's only a couple of hours worth of plot.
Using up millions of years worth of stored energy and water in a few decades isn't what I'd call efficient. What happens when you've used up the oil and drained the aquifers?
I'm not sure it's even that land efficient, that central-pivot irrigation seems to waste nearly a quarter of the land straight out.
Wow, you must be an economic genius. Please tell me how you fix the budget by throwing millions of people out of work and crashing the economy, thus sending tax revenues through the floor?
What a great idea, cut funding from struggling schools atteneded by poor kids. That's going to help them! Of course it's just a coincidence that it also subsidises the private schools attended by the children of politicians.
The voucher system has been a disaster everywhere it's been tried, why is there no willingness to emulate more successful systems?
This is true as long as by 'learning' you mean 'memorisation'. In some cases, knowing the subject may actually mean performing worse in the test.
The main thing testing culture teaches kids is that nothing's worth learning unless you can get a grade for it. Never mind learning extra material to expand your mind, you're better off studying the same shit over and over again so you're sure you can regurgitate it onto the exam paper and get the grades.
Of course. A coal power station in the sticks doesn't expose millions of people to a thick smog. Not only do they have better emission control, but the pollution disperses before anyone gets to breathe it.
Actually in the UK if you do fail to put anything away, the government will shower you with means-tested handouts. Its the savers who get screwed out of everything.
End to end? Right to the end of your driveway? I really don't think that will be more efficient. How would it save money? On top of the cost of building and maintaining the roads, they'll need profit margins, executive bonuses, private jets, lavish shareholder meetings, and so on and so forth.
Don't expect low prices, private industry only does that when they absolutely have to because of competition. When a company owns the road outside of your house, unless you can open up a wormhole into four dimensional space, you're paying whatever he wants to charge.
No offence, but you're a big fucking baby. The roads you use are heavily subsidised, the miniscule fuel taxes you pay only contributing a tithe towards them, not even mentioning the externalities of your pollution. Yet you cry like a bitch at the prospect of actually having to pay your own way.
That's because when all the middle-classes evacuate to the suburbs, the criminal classes are the ones left. It's a selection bias. Cities don't turn people into criminals, although a 'white flight', removing the entire middle class as well as the jobs created by the things they spend money on, might leave a lot of people with few economic opportunities other than drug dealing and theft.
You don't need to force people to move to the cities, it'd help just to get rid of road and utility subsidies and put an externality tax on fuels. Although you might not need to do this, once oil prices get high enough not quite so many people will be able to afford the wasteful suburban lifestyle.
You do realise that your precious 'economy' wouldn't be worth a wank if not for thousands of years of government spending?
Pretty much every modern industry is the direct result of massive government stimulus. Left to its own devices, the market wouldn't have anything to sell at all. Even Walmarts ability to sell you some plastic junk from China wouldn't be possible without centuries of state investment in military technology. And you can forget aviation...
Of course all this is meaningless as the point of particle accelerators is to discover the secrets of the universe, not to enrich shareholders.
I'm not sure that people in McMansions care about saving money, their entire lifestyle is about showing everyone how much money they have. They probably don't cook much either.
At any rate, most waste is before it gets to the home. Look at how much supermarkets throw out, and restaurants. Feeding meat on grains isn't particularly efficient either.
Even if you do have a pension, you need kids to join the bottom of the Ponzi scheme, buying into the stock market to prop up your investments. You'll also need them to do all the work when you're retired.
No kids, and your pensions collapse, and there won't even be anyone to help you to the toilet so you can wipe your arse with the stock certificate.
Increased productivity means less demand for labour. This means fewer jobs, and lower wages. The only people to benefit will be the owners of capital.
It's not like there's no historical precedent, the industrial revolution meant poverty and death for millions as their jobs were replaced by machines. It took centuries, as well as a strong trade union movement and government intervention for the benefits of growth to actually filter down to the masses.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Most generic takeaways in the UK deliver burgers. There are no specialised burger places like that, but the general pizza/kebab/burger takeaways will deliver.
People who buy based on quality rather than price would probably want to actually see the food before they buy it. Delivery is a good way of getting rid of all the greying meat and wilted lettuces. Walmart shoppers probably wouldn't notice the difference.
If you've gone all the way to the store, you may as well actually go and get the stuff yourself, so you know what you're getting. Otherwise surely they've just give you the stuff closest to its expiry date.
Orange juice is an unnatural, processed product. Unprocessed orange juice is an orange.
What makes you think IT workers are the brightest minds? Because your company that gives you free pizza keeps telling you that?
As long as your post is what passes for mature political debate in America, you'll always be fucked.
I could write a list of reasons as to why your scheme isn't particularly viable, but I very much doubt you're the sort of person who is open to reason. You have your opinion, based on ideology more than what actually might work or not, and nothing in the world will change it.
Yet Germany has a much healthier economy than the US. Inventing things means very little unless you have the manufacturing to back it up. If a dozen Americans design a product, and a thousand Chinese make it, China will benefit more than America. Just look at the balances of trade.
If a McDonald's outlet is opened somewhere in the world, most of the money will go to the people growing the corn to make the burgers and drinks, and the people running the actual operation. America at most will receive a small brand royalty.
In that case, if tertiary and secondary industries have the same value, why do countries which emphasise secondary, such as Germany, enjoy large trade surpluses, whilst countries which gave up their manufacturing in favour of services, like Britain, have ever-growing trade deficits?
Big-spending developing nations seem to have much more need for threaded rods than they do financial derivatives and tall skinny mocha lattes.
Primary industries are more valuable than secondary, which are more valuable than tertiary. If a country has a platinum mine, a semiconductor fab, and a fast-food chain, which do you think you'd have the best chance of replicating?
No, the main problem will be that Peter Jackson has no sense of pacing or editing, so the film will be twelve hours long even though there's only a couple of hours worth of plot.
Using up millions of years worth of stored energy and water in a few decades isn't what I'd call efficient. What happens when you've used up the oil and drained the aquifers?
I'm not sure it's even that land efficient, that central-pivot irrigation seems to waste nearly a quarter of the land straight out.
Wow, you must be an economic genius. Please tell me how you fix the budget by throwing millions of people out of work and crashing the economy, thus sending tax revenues through the floor?
What a great idea, cut funding from struggling schools atteneded by poor kids. That's going to help them! Of course it's just a coincidence that it also subsidises the private schools attended by the children of politicians.
The voucher system has been a disaster everywhere it's been tried, why is there no willingness to emulate more successful systems?
Yes, those crafty Italians, using Italian courts to enforce Italian law. Whatever next?
Here are the reasons Americans don't want to fly Airbus:
1. It's not American
2. They've spent decades throwing tax-payer's money at their own aeronautics industry and don't want it to be wasted.
The rest of us however can carry on happily flying them.
This is true as long as by 'learning' you mean 'memorisation'. In some cases, knowing the subject may actually mean performing worse in the test.
The main thing testing culture teaches kids is that nothing's worth learning unless you can get a grade for it. Never mind learning extra material to expand your mind, you're better off studying the same shit over and over again so you're sure you can regurgitate it onto the exam paper and get the grades.
You do realise that quote was totally made up in the 20th century? And I'm still waiting for Japan to turn into a dictatorship.
Of course. A coal power station in the sticks doesn't expose millions of people to a thick smog. Not only do they have better emission control, but the pollution disperses before anyone gets to breathe it.
Actually in the UK if you do fail to put anything away, the government will shower you with means-tested handouts. Its the savers who get screwed out of everything.
End to end? Right to the end of your driveway? I really don't think that will be more efficient. How would it save money? On top of the cost of building and maintaining the roads, they'll need profit margins, executive bonuses, private jets, lavish shareholder meetings, and so on and so forth.
Don't expect low prices, private industry only does that when they absolutely have to because of competition. When a company owns the road outside of your house, unless you can open up a wormhole into four dimensional space, you're paying whatever he wants to charge.
No offence, but you're a big fucking baby. The roads you use are heavily subsidised, the miniscule fuel taxes you pay only contributing a tithe towards them, not even mentioning the externalities of your pollution. Yet you cry like a bitch at the prospect of actually having to pay your own way.
That's because when all the middle-classes evacuate to the suburbs, the criminal classes are the ones left. It's a selection bias. Cities don't turn people into criminals, although a 'white flight', removing the entire middle class as well as the jobs created by the things they spend money on, might leave a lot of people with few economic opportunities other than drug dealing and theft.
You don't need to force people to move to the cities, it'd help just to get rid of road and utility subsidies and put an externality tax on fuels. Although you might not need to do this, once oil prices get high enough not quite so many people will be able to afford the wasteful suburban lifestyle.
You do realise that your precious 'economy' wouldn't be worth a wank if not for thousands of years of government spending?
Pretty much every modern industry is the direct result of massive government stimulus. Left to its own devices, the market wouldn't have anything to sell at all. Even Walmarts ability to sell you some plastic junk from China wouldn't be possible without centuries of state investment in military technology. And you can forget aviation...
Of course all this is meaningless as the point of particle accelerators is to discover the secrets of the universe, not to enrich shareholders.
I'm not sure that people in McMansions care about saving money, their entire lifestyle is about showing everyone how much money they have. They probably don't cook much either.
At any rate, most waste is before it gets to the home. Look at how much supermarkets throw out, and restaurants. Feeding meat on grains isn't particularly efficient either.
Ever heard of a freezer?
Even if you do have a pension, you need kids to join the bottom of the Ponzi scheme, buying into the stock market to prop up your investments. You'll also need them to do all the work when you're retired.
No kids, and your pensions collapse, and there won't even be anyone to help you to the toilet so you can wipe your arse with the stock certificate.
Increased productivity means less demand for labour. This means fewer jobs, and lower wages. The only people to benefit will be the owners of capital.
It's not like there's no historical precedent, the industrial revolution meant poverty and death for millions as their jobs were replaced by machines. It took centuries, as well as a strong trade union movement and government intervention for the benefits of growth to actually filter down to the masses.