When you use a credit card you aren't actually spending your own money; you are borrowing money. Its no surprise they are antsy about fraud detection; its they who stand to lose the most.
100% juice implies that none of the colors or flavors are added. But since it comes directly from a fruit, it's absolutely truthful and not misleading to call it 'juice'. If someone can't tell from the sweetness of a pineapple or orange juice that it has sugar, then one is a certifiable moron!
I do sometimes see juice thats labelled as "Not made from concentrate", those are hopefully the only actual juice one can buy. The rest are effectively cordials (or squash) which should be diluted.
Most fruit juices have a lot of sugar. Fruit contains a lot of fructose, water, and fiber. So squeeze out the water that contains the fructose, the fiber gets left behind, and you have something that is by volume and weight a tons of sugar.
Apple juice is a good example. If you go and have a look at the Simply Apple stuff at a grocer you can see easily. It really is 100% pure apple juice. They don't add any sweetener or anything else, they just squeeze the juice out of apple and bottle that shit up... and it is as high calorie as soda. 180 calories per 12 oz (355ml). For comparison Pepsi is 150 and Mountain Dew is 170.
I love apple juice, it tastes fantastic, but you can't fool yourself in to thinking that because it is juice it is magically good.
In NZ back in the 1980s I literally could not buy orange juice in the shops. It was *all* apple and orange juice. All juices in the shops were apple based. They probably still are but can get away without saying it, just saying "Orange juice. Made with 100% real juice!!!" Its true and false at the same time:)
that cranberry or pomegranate "100% juice" drink is probably mostly a bunch of super-sweet grape or apple juice or whatever with a sprinkling of the juice that's too sour for most people to find palatable.)
So true.
Most people, if they had a mouthful of 100% cranberry juice would immediately spit it out!!
However, in Australia there is a push to ban bottled water too, because it's just tap water and the bottles are harmful. The alternative is paying more for an empty bottle (which you reuse) and basically nothing for water refills. Some municipalities have already banned the sale of bottled water.
Reminds me of that Mario brothers movie, where their van has overheated and one is coming out of a shop with armfuls of bottled water because the shopkeeper had claimed not to have a tap...
Not actually. In the movies, the wire rigs have been edited out, but it's not real.
In traditional martial arts, a lot of those "tosses" you'll see between people similarly trained are just because the alternative to being thrown is to be injured in a very bad way. Newton's laws still apply, and no 5 year old is going to throw me across the room. Maybe knock me on my ass, though.
You have to understand the context for things... like kendo makes sense only when you realize it is a sport developed for training combat between samurai that are both wearing armor.
I've seen, well ok not 5 year olds but 7 year olds literally throw a man across a room with aikido. It does work like that. But the man has to put some energy in, has to have a go at them. It doesn't work if the man is stationary.
A UK submariner once told me that they checked for the BBC world service every day. If they couldn't receive BBC world service they were to assume that UK had been nuked and to launch their nukes. Sounds like a plan!
I disagree with your short-term interest argument. Law enforcement does not have your best interest in mind. You do not know what is or is not legal. (Almost) anything can be construed as being illegal. Just shut up and ask for an attorney to be present while they question you.
The whole point of the law is to ensure that everyone is guilty of something, whether they know it or not.
So you've done nothing wrong, you are totally innocent. You have $500 in cash in your car. You get pulled over and the nice cops would like to have a look inside your car. You won't mind being $500 out of pocket, thats a small price to pay for cooperating?
Your comment is mostly redundant. Almost everything that goes on in America today in courts, politics and enforcement is 'un-American'.
Got cash in your car? Get pulled over by the cops? Lose the cash. The police are bandits and the courts serve the politicians who are the bandit lords.
I was going to ask how many pilots in the whole US Air force weigh less than 135 lbs, and then it occurred to me that this was just a way of keeping women out of their "no girls allowed" fighter jock club.
Isn't your comment sexist in itself because you're making assumption about the weight of someone based on their gender? It's like assuming a woman is weaker physically than a man just because she is a woman, even if statistically men develop more muscle mass that does not mean a man automatically has more physical strength.
Absolutely. There are TONS of fat chicks out there.
My son is weighs 120 and is in the 9th grade. He is about 5'4". He is by no means fat. He is quite skinny actually. Any grown man(18 and up) that weighs around that area is probably a woman acting as a man. Are you a woman?
Even if they aren't a woman they can just get their dick surgically removed and become a real woman. Right?
I'm pretty sure I've known some rather tough four foot eight men who could toss you across the room. But no, it's not far fetched that it affects some of their pilots.
A 5 year old could toss you across the room with some aikido or judo training.
Um, if it's just a matter of weight or mass, just ask the pilots to sew weights into their flight jackets to make up the difference, or wrap lead weights around their bodies.
There has to be more to it than this.
Or just get them to eat their daily quota of steroid and hormone laced cheeseburgers like normal Murcans.
So you agree that it is free-riding (not boycott), but it's just that you feel justified in free-riding because you feel the cost is too high and therefore they should be punished.
I wonder if you suggest we should apply the same logic to other transactions in life. So, I don't like that CostCo charges membership, then checks a membership card at the entrance and then at checkout. I hate all this tracking and how its slows down my shopping experience. Should I feel justified to break in to get the goods/benefits and not pay the costs?
As the example should illustrate, such position is a perversion of common-sense morality.
Another example to show how such a position is absurd: your would-be girlfriend makes high demands (you need to get a job, clean the house, etc) which you think are too high (she's just a regular girl, you already work hard and pay the rent), so you decide to take the goods without accepting her conditions (that ought to teach her to make more acceptable demands). Well, that's called rape.
If you don't like the deal, don't take it (that's boycott and that is an acceptable choice). But you don't take half of the deal, by taking the goods and not paying, to "impose a cost" (ie punish).
Its more like CostCo demands that you let them infect you with influenza virus.
Seriously, STOP trying to make everybody a programmer. It's not going to happen, and it shouldn't happen.
Why not make everyone a plumber or a mechanic or an insurance agent? BECAUSE IT'S STUPID, just like trying to make everyone a programmer.
You make a good point. On that topic, schools (rather than trying to make all kids into programmers) should give kids enough programming literacy so that they can interact thoughtfully with real programmers. Additionally, teaching kids to think like programmers (logic, process, systems, etc) would be a benefit generally for many future professions.
It'll be interesting to see if the drive to turn all children into programmers will increase the incidence of aspergers.
Me, I hate programming. Sometimes I do it when I absolutely have to but afterward I feel like I'm being turned into a robot by the process of having to 'think like a programmer'.
Do you think that the cost of visiting the sites with ads should include slowing down page loads and getting infected with malware?
A question is not an argument. But if I read between the lines, you're implying that you don't like the costs (slowness, risk of foreign javascript, etc) compared the benefits. That's fine, then choose to boycott those websites.
That means you should avoid them, just like you avoid restaurants that don't offer a worthwhile trade-off in your view. Boycott is a perfectly valid choice and I encourage it.
Just don't pretend that getting the benefits while dodging the costs is "boycott", when it is free-riding.
Nope, because the 'cost' thats being imposed is egregious and harmful to the public perception of advertising. It needs more push than just avoiding the websites; we the public need to impose a 'cost' on them to get them to change their ways.
Advertising is, in itself, not an evil. The way it has been implemented on the web is.
Ad blocking is not boycott, it is free-riding: using the service (getting the benefits) and refusing to pay (accepting the costs).
Do you think that the cost of visiting the sites with ads should include slowing down page loads and getting infected with malware?
Thats why we block ads, thats why there is a boycott; because people don't feel that this offensive behaviour from ad brokers is an appropriate payment for visiting the sites.
It's how entertainment and media companies survive. What's your alternative model? I don't mind "normal" ads, it's the pop-ups, flash, and JavaScript-dancy crap that cause most the grief. Serve up only HTML and static image ads that don't show gross stuff like rotting toenails, and few will complain.
The main purpose of advertising is to overcome the effect of dissatisfied customers who spread their dissatisfaction through 'word of mouth'.
So companies that have to advertise a lot have a lot of dissatisfied customers.
Back when I was a kid in Russia we had a big garbage container outside our kindergarden filled to the brim with worms. We threw in the foam that was lying around near by and watched it disolve. Good times.
Would you prefer they shit diamonds? Being serious here, but you do know that polystyrene foam is made from refined oil, yes? Once the oil is extracted, you can either A) leave it in a tank. B: make it into something and bury it into the ground. C) Covert it back into CO2 via burning or organic methods.
What would you prefer is done with the existing polystyrene foam out there?
The obvious answer is leave it buried in the ground. Anthropogenic global warming is caused by us taking carbons that have been locked away underground in the form of fossil fuels and releasing them into the atmosphere. If we use those fossil fuels but keep the carbon locked up or re-entered into the ground instead of the atmosphere, we wouldn't have nearly as much trouble with all the greenhouse effects. We'd have another problem in the form of mountains of waste we don't know what to do with, but that's a different discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing you know this, but the the only countries that don't are the USA, Liberia, and Myanmar, formerly known as Burma.
To the 'Murcan 'freedom' units are 'Imperial units', the other units are 'surrender monkey units' and their simple base 10 system is beneath 'Murca.
I wonder if it was something as embarrassing as an imperial/metric conversion gone wrong? :)
This is Russia, surely they don't use freedom units!!!??
When you use a credit card you aren't actually spending your own money; you are borrowing money. Its no surprise they are antsy about fraud detection; its they who stand to lose the most.
100% juice implies that none of the colors or flavors are added. But since it comes directly from a fruit, it's absolutely truthful and not misleading to call it 'juice'. If someone can't tell from the sweetness of a pineapple or orange juice that it has sugar, then one is a certifiable moron!
I do sometimes see juice thats labelled as "Not made from concentrate", those are hopefully the only actual juice one can buy. The rest are effectively cordials (or squash) which should be diluted.
Most fruit juices have a lot of sugar. Fruit contains a lot of fructose, water, and fiber. So squeeze out the water that contains the fructose, the fiber gets left behind, and you have something that is by volume and weight a tons of sugar.
Apple juice is a good example. If you go and have a look at the Simply Apple stuff at a grocer you can see easily. It really is 100% pure apple juice. They don't add any sweetener or anything else, they just squeeze the juice out of apple and bottle that shit up... and it is as high calorie as soda. 180 calories per 12 oz (355ml). For comparison Pepsi is 150 and Mountain Dew is 170.
I love apple juice, it tastes fantastic, but you can't fool yourself in to thinking that because it is juice it is magically good.
In NZ back in the 1980s I literally could not buy orange juice in the shops. It was *all* apple and orange juice. All juices in the shops were apple based. :)
They probably still are but can get away without saying it, just saying "Orange juice. Made with 100% real juice!!!" Its true and false at the same time
that cranberry or pomegranate "100% juice" drink is probably mostly a bunch of super-sweet grape or apple juice or whatever with a sprinkling of the juice that's too sour for most people to find palatable.)
So true.
Most people, if they had a mouthful of 100% cranberry juice would immediately spit it out!!
And those companies pay about the same amount per megalitre of water as you do per bottle!
Source:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/...
However, in Australia there is a push to ban bottled water too, because it's just tap water and the bottles are harmful. The alternative is paying more for an empty bottle (which you reuse) and basically nothing for water refills.
Some municipalities have already banned the sale of bottled water.
Reminds me of that Mario brothers movie, where their van has overheated and one is coming out of a shop with armfuls of bottled water because the shopkeeper had claimed not to have a tap...
Not actually. In the movies, the wire rigs have been edited out, but it's not real.
In traditional martial arts, a lot of those "tosses" you'll see between people similarly trained are just because the alternative to being thrown is to be injured in a very bad way. Newton's laws still apply, and no 5 year old is going to throw me across the room. Maybe knock me on my ass, though.
You have to understand the context for things... like kendo makes sense only when you realize it is a sport developed for training combat between samurai that are both wearing armor.
I've seen, well ok not 5 year olds but 7 year olds literally throw a man across a room with aikido. It does work like that. But the man has to put some energy in, has to have a go at them. It doesn't work if the man is stationary.
A UK submariner once told me that they checked for the BBC world service every day. If they couldn't receive BBC world service they were to assume that UK had been nuked and to launch their nukes. Sounds like a plan!
I disagree with your short-term interest argument. Law enforcement does not have your best interest in mind. You do not know what is or is not legal. (Almost) anything can be construed as being illegal. Just shut up and ask for an attorney to be present while they question you.
The whole point of the law is to ensure that everyone is guilty of something, whether they know it or not.
So you've done nothing wrong, you are totally innocent. You have $500 in cash in your car. You get pulled over and the nice cops would like to have a look inside your car. You won't mind being $500 out of pocket, thats a small price to pay for cooperating?
Your comment is mostly redundant. Almost everything that goes on in America today in courts, politics and enforcement is 'un-American'.
Got cash in your car? Get pulled over by the cops? Lose the cash. The police are bandits and the courts serve the politicians who are the bandit lords.
I was going to ask how many pilots in the whole US Air force weigh less than 135 lbs, and then it occurred to me that this was just a way of keeping women out of their "no girls allowed" fighter jock club.
Isn't your comment sexist in itself because you're making assumption about the weight of someone based on their gender? It's like assuming a woman is weaker physically than a man just because she is a woman, even if statistically men develop more muscle mass that does not mean a man automatically has more physical strength.
Absolutely. There are TONS of fat chicks out there.
My son is weighs 120 and is in the 9th grade. He is about 5'4". He is by no means fat. He is quite skinny actually. Any grown man(18 and up) that weighs around that area is probably a woman acting as a man. Are you a woman?
Even if they aren't a woman they can just get their dick surgically removed and become a real woman. Right?
I'm pretty sure I've known some rather tough four foot eight men who could toss you across the room. But no, it's not far fetched that it affects some of their pilots.
A 5 year old could toss you across the room with some aikido or judo training.
Um, if it's just a matter of weight or mass, just ask the pilots to sew weights into their flight jackets to make up the difference, or wrap lead weights around their bodies.
There has to be more to it than this.
Or just get them to eat their daily quota of steroid and hormone laced cheeseburgers like normal Murcans.
I could put drugs in a HDD! They're already adding Helium. You know breathing Helium is a gateway drug to breathing Pure Oxygen!
In the UK helium is about to become a controlled substance because some people have used it to commit suicide.
So I guess these HDD's are going to become contraband and subject to seizure on the basis that they contain a controlled substance.
So you agree that it is free-riding (not boycott), but it's just that you feel justified in free-riding because you feel the cost is too high and therefore they should be punished.
I wonder if you suggest we should apply the same logic to other transactions in life. So, I don't like that CostCo charges membership, then checks a membership card at the entrance and then at checkout. I hate all this tracking and how its slows down my shopping experience. Should I feel justified to break in to get the goods/benefits and not pay the costs?
As the example should illustrate, such position is a perversion of common-sense morality.
Another example to show how such a position is absurd: your would-be girlfriend makes high demands (you need to get a job, clean the house, etc) which you think are too high (she's just a regular girl, you already work hard and pay the rent), so you decide to take the goods without accepting her conditions (that ought to teach her to make more acceptable demands). Well, that's called rape.
If you don't like the deal, don't take it (that's boycott and that is an acceptable choice). But you don't take half of the deal, by taking the goods and not paying, to "impose a cost" (ie punish).
Its more like CostCo demands that you let them infect you with influenza virus.
Seriously, STOP trying to make everybody a programmer. It's not going to happen, and it shouldn't happen.
Why not make everyone a plumber or a mechanic or an insurance agent? BECAUSE IT'S STUPID, just like trying to make everyone a programmer.
You make a good point. On that topic, schools (rather than trying to make all kids into programmers) should give kids enough programming literacy so that they can interact thoughtfully with real programmers. Additionally, teaching kids to think like programmers (logic, process, systems, etc) would be a benefit generally for many future professions.
It'll be interesting to see if the drive to turn all children into programmers will increase the incidence of aspergers.
Me, I hate programming. Sometimes I do it when I absolutely have to but afterward I feel like I'm being turned into a robot by the process of having to 'think like a programmer'.
Do you think that the cost of visiting the sites with ads should include slowing down page loads and getting infected with malware?
A question is not an argument. But if I read between the lines, you're implying that you don't like the costs (slowness, risk of foreign javascript, etc) compared the benefits. That's fine, then choose to boycott those websites.
That means you should avoid them, just like you avoid restaurants that don't offer a worthwhile trade-off in your view. Boycott is a perfectly valid choice and I encourage it.
Just don't pretend that getting the benefits while dodging the costs is "boycott", when it is free-riding.
Nope, because the 'cost' thats being imposed is egregious and harmful to the public perception of advertising. It needs more push than just avoiding the websites; we the public need to impose a 'cost' on them to get them to change their ways.
Advertising is, in itself, not an evil. The way it has been implemented on the web is.
Ad blocking is not boycott, it is free-riding: using the service (getting the benefits) and refusing to pay (accepting the costs).
Do you think that the cost of visiting the sites with ads should include slowing down page loads and getting infected with malware?
Thats why we block ads, thats why there is a boycott; because people don't feel that this offensive behaviour from ad brokers is an appropriate payment for visiting the sites.
It's how entertainment and media companies survive. What's your alternative model? I don't mind "normal" ads, it's the pop-ups, flash, and JavaScript-dancy crap that cause most the grief. Serve up only HTML and static image ads that don't show gross stuff like rotting toenails, and few will complain.
The main purpose of advertising is to overcome the effect of dissatisfied customers who spread their dissatisfaction through 'word of mouth'.
So companies that have to advertise a lot have a lot of dissatisfied customers.
Back when I was a kid in Russia we had a big garbage container outside our kindergarden filled to the brim with worms. We threw in the foam that was lying around near by and watched it disolve. Good times.
In Soviet Russia worms garbage you?
I call em Graboids.
But don't ass-blasters release greenhouse gasses?
Would you prefer they shit diamonds? Being serious here, but you do know that polystyrene foam is made from refined oil, yes? Once the oil is extracted, you can either A) leave it in a tank. B: make it into something and bury it into the ground. C) Covert it back into CO2 via burning or organic methods.
What would you prefer is done with the existing polystyrene foam out there?
The obvious answer is leave it buried in the ground. Anthropogenic global warming is caused by us taking carbons that have been locked away underground in the form of fossil fuels and releasing them into the atmosphere. If we use those fossil fuels but keep the carbon locked up or re-entered into the ground instead of the atmosphere, we wouldn't have nearly as much trouble with all the greenhouse effects. We'd have another problem in the form of mountains of waste we don't know what to do with, but that's a different discussion.
So you like deserts?