This has the potential to be as life changing as anti-biotics were. Just hope we do a better job with gene therap than with anti-biotics. (Can't believe we let shmucks put it animal feed and soap. Just asking for resistant bacteria.)
Hopefully we don't end up doing stupid things like letting people add human genes to non-human life forms.
And bus's are among the first that will benefit. Speed is less relevant, the routes are pre-planned, the state can install special radio signs for dangerous areas, and most importantly, the government that chooses to do this can pass legislation to deal with any legal or insurance matters as part of the authorization. About the only better use is garbage trucks (they can get rid of the driver but keep the other garbage men, so they have a back up in an emergency driving situation.)
AI cars can defeat all of our current traffic congestion. But this, combined with AI cars allowing for easier travel, will invite new uses for the road. We will have more people and more miles traveled per person, creating new congestion.
For example, I would expect a huge increase in road trips. Why spend extra money on a 4 hour flight from Philadelphia to Florida , with an extra 3 hours prep time traveling to the airport + waiting on lines, when you can get in your car at 11 PM, sleep 8 hours, then watch a movie or two, eat breakfast, and get to a beach in Florida by 11 AM. Currently a bus does that, but it is a different when you can do it in a car you already own, without driving.
If the prison pays for all outgoing and incoming calls, then they may block cellphone calls.
Prisons have instituted ridiculously expensive phone plans to help pay for their costs.
This is wrong, placing an undue burden on both the families and the prisoners. Wealthy prisoners should not be allowed to buy a better prison experience, which means you can not overcharge prisoners for so called luxuries.
1) Apple. 2) Small time thieves (Mafia and their ilk) 3) Big time thieves (NSA, Mossad, KGB, ISIS, etc.)
The later two want the bugs to be cheap. But Apple should want the bugs to be expensive. And they can make it so.
Apple can raise the price enough that thieves can't afford to outbid them. Granted, Apple can't outbid NSA and the other such global organizations. But they can outbid the small time thieves.
Right now Apple is being cheap and letting common thieves outbid them. That is stupid. They should at least up the ante to the point that only the big time thieves, including terrorists and spy agencies to purchase the bugs.
The reason why we don't let any immigrant in to work is we want to protect American jobs. On average, most H1B1 visa holders get paid about 10% less than American workers. I suggest a simple solution. 10% foreign worker tax on employers.
3 Steps: 1) Offer a new visa that lets you work in America, but your employer must pay an additional 10% tax beyond all normal taxes. If the employer fails to pay this tax, it is treated as if they themselves cheated on their personal taxes.
2) These visas last for up to 7 months, and then you have to leave the country for at least 3 months before you apply again. You can't get one if you are sick or pregnant at the time of application.
3) These visas are unlimited. We would give out 500 million of them if that many people asked.
This solves most of the immigration problems. It lets employers hire people if they can't find Americans willing to do the job, but won't let foreigners take our jobs willy-nilly. It kills the industry supporting illegal immigration by removing their customers, negating the need for a fence, let alone a wall. It gives our country a nice extra boost of cash to pay for any additional expenses, or (more likely) reduce the deficit.
No, I spoke with massive information. Having some list of SOME guns is not relevant, the question was did people that banned guns first past laws to license them with the intent to ban them. The answer was no - when Australia decided to ban guns they did not pass any new laws to license/find them first.
Everything else you said was focusing on irrelevant side points. But since you insist:
1) The death rate was already off topic, so you went cherry picking data and found Crime rates. Autism rates also rose, you going to blame that on gun laws too? We are discussing guns, not crimes. If you at least checked "gun crime rates" rather than general crime rates you would have argument, but you failed to do that.
2) You admitted guns were a poor hunting weapon, the rest of that argument was irrelevant. So one guy couldn't use a rifle, then that particular man can get a license, no need to let every idiot use them for hunting. Thank you for admitting I was correct.
3) They are NOT prime defense weapons, they are prime VIGILANTE weapons. Man walks down the street with an AR15 on his back, mugger turns away and looks for someone else. Same man walks down the street with a pistol, mugger attacks and the "hero" gets to shoot him. That is not self defense, that is someone hoping to ambush a criminal. The problem is maybe he gets road rage. Or maybe he sees a black teenager in the wrong neighborhood and both he and kid get aggressive, but the kid gets shot.
Rifle = self dense. Pistol = vigilante looking to shoot a mugger.
3) Regarding safety, check the actual record, rather than the theory. The safety steps you mention are not effective. Number of accidental hand gun shooting in US in 2010 = 606. Number of deaths involving a rifle is less than 50. The problem is that regardless of safety measures, hand guns are easy to mistakenly aim at someone, particularly by children. If a young kid can fire a rifle, chances are it is aimed at the floor, not at a person. The same toddler can shoot his best friend or mother. Even if you train your kids, you can't train all their friends.
4) Hand guns are issued in the military as BACK UP WEAPONS. No one issues hand guns as their primary offensive weapon against enemy soldiers. Penetration, stopping power, range, accuracy, ROF are all way too low.
5\) States doing country wide concealed licenses is a horrible idea, obviously pushed by partisan people. My idea works far better. Flaws: a) not all states will agree. Fantastic, now my Glock is legal in Maryland, Texas, Virginia, NJ and Vermont, but not in NY and I have to pray the NY cops are reasonable when go hunting - good luck with that., b) some states by definition will have looser laws than others, encouraging forum shopping and "immigrant" guns. c) local governments are ALWAYS more corrupt as compared to federal governments - smaller talent pool and less money - ensuring that criminals will end up with concealed gun licenses.
Hand guns are well designed for two purposes: 1) Concealed weapon to let you ambush people (i.e. commit a mugging or be a vigilante - both need to hide their weapon). 2) Back up weapon either for the military who have better weapons, or for police that should not need one in the normal course of their job, but have to have one just in case.
I speak with massive knowledge, you speak only of propaganda, with out ever thinking about your opponent's point of view.
Look, most people do jobs they are talented at. A few (less than 1%) do jobs they LOVE.
Business prefer to hire people that love their job. If you love your job, you don't get burnout no matter how hard you work. Get one person in the company that loves their job and that person sets a standard that everyone else feels they have to live up to.
In those circumstances, the only way to get ahead is to work your job as if you would rather do it then participate in a three-some with supermodels.
If you do love your job, you get ahead. If not, you get burnout.
Cause we rounded up all the taxis, liquor stores, etc.
Lets take a look at a country that really did round up all the guns - Australia.
Did they license them first? Nope. They just rounded them up. (Side fact, gun deaths plummeted after they did it, not that you care.)
Licensing guns does not help you round them up. It is simply propaganda by the NRA to stop reasonable laws.
Note I do not advocate gun licenses for long guns. They simply are not involved in gun deaths. No need to regulate shot guns, rifles, (assault or otherwise).
Hand guns on the other have NO legitimate civilian use. They are poor hunting weapons, offer minimal deterrence (when compared with a big ass shot gun) against crime, and can't do shit against a modern military. They also are prone to accidental shootings, ideal for suicide, are easy for criminals to conceal, and police can't tell the difference between reaching for your pistol and reaching for your ID. No one should be allowed to posses a hand gun without a federal concealed carry license (so you can easily carry it across state lines, we should change the laws so they issue them, not the states).
Ever question why there are constantly so many versions, updates, patches and problems? Because the hardware keeps getting updated, which gives us new potential features and introduce new problems.
Old phones keep slowing down, and losing battery life because of this.
With consistent hardware, we can:
a) Take more time and develop software WITHOUT bugs. Yes, I know this sounds ridiculous, because no one can take years to develop software when their competitors do it weeks. No longer a problem once the hardware becomes consistent.
b) Build electronics to last, rather than with planned obsolescence.
Not cost effective on a large scale. Needs way too much storage capacity. Worse, the state often has droughts so fresh water is EXPENSIVE, while salt water has huge corrosion problems when making hydrogen.
Basically, storing electricity is hard. It's why their has been so much investment in batteries. Its the major technological issue holding us back.
It's why electric cars are still rare, the reason why planes need fuel, and the reason why cellphones get hot and need to be recharged every freakin day.
Read it. Makes lots of really bad assumptions, all designed to push a specific political agenda.
1) Assumes they have a really short lifespan. Basically they are using manufacturer's estimated lifespan of 25 years, when in truth, these things do not stop working. No moving parts, hermetically sealed so no water, insects, or even air gets in, low electrical voltage. The most common cause of destruction is something hitting them - lightning bolts, hail, baseballs. They can theoretically last for centuries, not 25 years. NASA's Voyagers 1 and 2 are both going strong after 37 years exposure to micrometeorites in space.
2) When they do stop working, it assumes they will be recycled, rather than land filled (not a guarantee), and that they will be recycled in the cheapest, most environmentally horrible method - burning. Yes, that is the most common method for ewaste, but we are more likely to bury than to recycle them
3) They compared it with nuclear rather than coal or petroleum. Nuclear creates a SMALL amount of toxic waste that people are unreasonably scared of, while coal and petroleum create massive amounts of toxic waste that people ignore.
1) Some services cost no money but are still a monopoly instead they cost other things, such as privacy. Prime example: Facebook.
2) When technology is advancing fast, prices drop. Or they do if their is competition. But a monopoly could simply maintain their current price and claim "Hey, we aren't anti-competitive, our prices haven't changed. We still sell our phone with a 1 MP camera, 2 inch display, and 5 whole megabytes of memory for a mere $749, just like we did in 1999."
Do you know how valuable a plastic bottle is on a deserted island?
It lets you carry water. It lets you boil water (with care). It lets you ferment fruit juice (essential for medical as well as mental health reasons). You can make a shovel out of it.
You can make a float for fishing out of it.
These things are life savers.
So the fact that we can find plastic bottles on every deserted island is kind of a huge survival bonus.
They insist on teaching things in a very despotic manner, creating grammar nazis.
We need to teach people that it is ok to create a word, as long as you define it clearly. Spelling should explain legal variations and why they are accepted.
Keeping in mind that most grids have charge back systems where you can sell back excess electricity to the utility, and that the grid is already built, it may never be reasonable to leave the grid. Basically, the grid becomes your money maker plus back up supply.
For new housing, however, particularly in rural areas, simply having 48 hours worth of battery backup may make it viable to skip connecting to the grid. Instead add a back up generator connected to either the same natural gas pipeline you use for your stove, or your heating oil tank (obviously a different type of generator).
Basically, they took out the variant stories, leaving only their 'main' one, increased font size, put lager, annoying, pictures on what is basically an Index, and put silly squares all over the space, taking up sapce.
Look, if your business can reduce hours without significantly lowering the quality of customer service, then you should have done that BEFORE the wage increase. Otherwise you were wasting your money.
If your company was doing well, then you would increase hours regardless of the hourly wage. Anyone that is stupid enough to decrease hours when business is steady or going up will lose customers, assuming they had proper hours previously.
Most likely what was going on was a slight downturn in business that happened concurrently but not caused by the minimum wage increase.
At worst, some employers decided to be proactive and cut hours when they were on the fence, rather than totally sure they did not need the extra hours.
This article is as stupid as any that claim that business owners 'create' jobs, or that capitalists are evil. Business is not an art that lets the owner do what they want. Instead it is a coldly logical set of bookkeeping equations. X sales = x inventory re-stockings, Y sales, z profit, etc. etc. etc.
1) You don't get to tell other people why they act the way they do. Different people are vegetarian for multiple reasons - health, moral, and simply taste preference are common reasons in addition to the incredibly smug reason you proclaimed. Your attitude is a stereotype that many vegans despise.
2) You are describing a minimalist stoicism, not vegetarianism.
3) Growing meet in a lab is still better for the environment than doing it on the hoof. Brains, bones, hooves, hair, organs, etc are all nutritionally expensive that labs avoid. We can do it in the middle of the city, avoiding transportation costs. We can grow it in steak sections, avoiding butchering costs.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the difference between Antibiotic and Antibacterial?
Antibiotics are used against both bacteria and fungi, but antibacterial compounds are used against bacteria only.
Antibiotics is a larger class of drugs of which antibacterial substances is a major subclass.
Source of quote
Antibacterials are a kind of antibiotics. There are antibiotics in soap.
This has the potential to be as life changing as anti-biotics were. Just hope we do a better job with gene therap than with anti-biotics. (Can't believe we let shmucks put it animal feed and soap. Just asking for resistant bacteria.)
Hopefully we don't end up doing stupid things like letting people add human genes to non-human life forms.
And bus's are among the first that will benefit. Speed is less relevant, the routes are pre-planned, the state can install special radio signs for dangerous areas, and most importantly, the government that chooses to do this can pass legislation to deal with any legal or insurance matters as part of the authorization. About the only better use is garbage trucks (they can get rid of the driver but keep the other garbage men, so they have a back up in an emergency driving situation.)
The Russian station, MIR, was almost over-run by fungus. http://rense.com/general8/mir....
It was mutated by radiation and almost un-killable. Note that MIR was de-orbited and not all pieces burned up completely.
Yes, that's right, somewhere in the world, there might exist a colony of mutant space fungus that the Russians tried and failed to kill.
Great example of a true but totally irrelevant comment. It demonstrates honesty but ignorance.
Here, let me explain.
1) You reference jamming being illegal. This is due to the FCC regulations.
2) So the only way to legally jam would be for the FCC to pass a new regulation.
3) My article is about having the FCC pass a new regulation.
Hence, your comment is totally true, and has no relevant content.
AI cars can defeat all of our current traffic congestion. But this, combined with AI cars allowing for easier travel, will invite new uses for the road. We will have more people and more miles traveled per person, creating new congestion.
For example, I would expect a huge increase in road trips. Why spend extra money on a 4 hour flight from Philadelphia to Florida , with an extra 3 hours prep time traveling to the airport + waiting on lines, when you can get in your car at 11 PM, sleep 8 hours, then watch a movie or two, eat breakfast, and get to a beach in Florida by 11 AM. Currently a bus does that, but it is a different when you can do it in a car you already own, without driving.
If the prison pays for all outgoing and incoming calls, then they may block cellphone calls.
Prisons have instituted ridiculously expensive phone plans to help pay for their costs.
This is wrong, placing an undue burden on both the families and the prisoners. Wealthy prisoners should not be allowed to buy a better prison experience, which means you can not overcharge prisoners for so called luxuries.
Not true.
There are three markets for the bugs..
1) Apple.
2) Small time thieves (Mafia and their ilk)
3) Big time thieves (NSA, Mossad, KGB, ISIS, etc.)
The later two want the bugs to be cheap. But Apple should want the bugs to be expensive. And they can make it so.
Apple can raise the price enough that thieves can't afford to outbid them. Granted, Apple can't outbid NSA and the other such global organizations. But they can outbid the small time thieves.
Right now Apple is being cheap and letting common thieves outbid them. That is stupid. They should at least up the ante to the point that only the big time thieves, including terrorists and spy agencies to purchase the bugs.
The reason why we don't let any immigrant in to work is we want to protect American jobs. On average, most H1B1 visa holders get paid about 10% less than American workers. I suggest a simple solution. 10% foreign worker tax on employers.
3 Steps:
1) Offer a new visa that lets you work in America, but your employer must pay an additional 10% tax beyond all normal taxes. If the employer fails to pay this tax, it is treated as if they themselves cheated on their personal taxes.
2) These visas last for up to 7 months, and then you have to leave the country for at least 3 months before you apply again. You can't get one if you are sick or pregnant at the time of application.
3) These visas are unlimited. We would give out 500 million of them if that many people asked.
This solves most of the immigration problems. It lets employers hire people if they can't find Americans willing to do the job, but won't let foreigners take our jobs willy-nilly. It kills the industry supporting illegal immigration by removing their customers, negating the need for a fence, let alone a wall. It gives our country a nice extra boost of cash to pay for any additional expenses, or (more likely) reduce the deficit.
Called the Khan Academy.
Great site with lots of topics.
No, I spoke with massive information. Having some list of SOME guns is not relevant, the question was did people that banned guns first past laws to license them with the intent to ban them. The answer was no - when Australia decided to ban guns they did not pass any new laws to license/find them first.
Everything else you said was focusing on irrelevant side points. But since you insist:
1) The death rate was already off topic, so you went cherry picking data and found Crime rates. Autism rates also rose, you going to blame that on gun laws too? We are discussing guns, not crimes. If you at least checked "gun crime rates" rather than general crime rates you would have argument, but you failed to do that.
2) You admitted guns were a poor hunting weapon, the rest of that argument was irrelevant. So one guy couldn't use a rifle, then that particular man can get a license, no need to let every idiot use them for hunting. Thank you for admitting I was correct.
3) They are NOT prime defense weapons, they are prime VIGILANTE weapons. Man walks down the street with an AR15 on his back, mugger turns away and looks for someone else. Same man walks down the street with a pistol, mugger attacks and the "hero" gets to shoot him. That is not self defense, that is someone hoping to ambush a criminal. The problem is maybe he gets road rage. Or maybe he sees a black teenager in the wrong neighborhood and both he and kid get aggressive, but the kid gets shot.
Rifle = self dense. Pistol = vigilante looking to shoot a mugger.
3) Regarding safety, check the actual record, rather than the theory. The safety steps you mention are not effective. Number of accidental hand gun shooting in US in 2010 = 606. Number of deaths involving a rifle is less than 50. The problem is that regardless of safety measures, hand guns are easy to mistakenly aim at someone, particularly by children. If a young kid can fire a rifle, chances are it is aimed at the floor, not at a person. The same toddler can shoot his best friend or mother. Even if you train your kids, you can't train all their friends.
4) Hand guns are issued in the military as BACK UP WEAPONS. No one issues hand guns as their primary offensive weapon against enemy soldiers. Penetration, stopping power, range, accuracy, ROF are all way too low.
5\) States doing country wide concealed licenses is a horrible idea, obviously pushed by partisan people. My idea works far better. Flaws: a) not all states will agree. Fantastic, now my Glock is legal in Maryland, Texas, Virginia, NJ and Vermont, but not in NY and I have to pray the NY cops are reasonable when go hunting - good luck with that., b) some states by definition will have looser laws than others, encouraging forum shopping and "immigrant" guns. c) local governments are ALWAYS more corrupt as compared to federal governments - smaller talent pool and less money - ensuring that criminals will end up with concealed gun licenses.
Hand guns are well designed for two purposes:
1) Concealed weapon to let you ambush people (i.e. commit a mugging or be a vigilante - both need to hide their weapon).
2) Back up weapon either for the military who have better weapons, or for police that should not need one in the normal course of their job, but have to have one just in case.
I speak with massive knowledge, you speak only of propaganda, with out ever thinking about your opponent's point of view.
For those of us that live in USA, Americans call Parrafin Kerosene.
And is shocking to me that people in Norway heat their homes with camping equipment. At least get a wood stove.
Look, most people do jobs they are talented at. A few (less than 1%) do jobs they LOVE.
Business prefer to hire people that love their job. If you love your job, you don't get burnout no matter how hard you work. Get one person in the company that loves their job and that person sets a standard that everyone else feels they have to live up to.
In those circumstances, the only way to get ahead is to work your job as if you would rather do it then participate in a three-some with supermodels.
If you do love your job, you get ahead. If not, you get burnout.
First, you use a freaking blank in the gun for something as inconsequential as a Youtube video. This isn't a Mythbusters tv show.
Second, if it were something more important than a Youtube, then you do a TEST fire first.
Third, you still freaking use a blank. There is no media police checking to see if you used a real bullet.
Cause we rounded up all the taxis, liquor stores, etc.
Lets take a look at a country that really did round up all the guns - Australia.
Did they license them first? Nope. They just rounded them up. (Side fact, gun deaths plummeted after they did it, not that you care.)
Licensing guns does not help you round them up. It is simply propaganda by the NRA to stop reasonable laws.
Note I do not advocate gun licenses for long guns. They simply are not involved in gun deaths. No need to regulate shot guns, rifles, (assault or otherwise).
Hand guns on the other have NO legitimate civilian use. They are poor hunting weapons, offer minimal deterrence (when compared with a big ass shot gun) against crime, and can't do shit against a modern military. They also are prone to accidental shootings, ideal for suicide, are easy for criminals to conceal, and police can't tell the difference between reaching for your pistol and reaching for your ID. No one should be allowed to posses a hand gun without a federal concealed carry license (so you can easily carry it across state lines, we should change the laws so they issue them, not the states).
Ever question why there are constantly so many versions, updates, patches and problems? Because the hardware keeps getting updated, which gives us new potential features and introduce new problems.
Old phones keep slowing down, and losing battery life because of this.
With consistent hardware, we can:
a) Take more time and develop software WITHOUT bugs. Yes, I know this sounds ridiculous, because no one can take years to develop software when their competitors do it weeks. No longer a problem once the hardware becomes consistent.
b) Build electronics to last, rather than with planned obsolescence.
Not cost effective on a large scale. Needs way too much storage capacity. Worse, the state often has droughts so fresh water is EXPENSIVE, while salt water has huge corrosion problems when making hydrogen.
Basically, storing electricity is hard. It's why their has been so much investment in batteries. Its the major technological issue holding us back.
It's why electric cars are still rare, the reason why planes need fuel, and the reason why cellphones get hot and need to be recharged every freakin day.
Read it. Makes lots of really bad assumptions, all designed to push a specific political agenda.
1) Assumes they have a really short lifespan. Basically they are using manufacturer's estimated lifespan of 25 years, when in truth, these things do not stop working. No moving parts, hermetically sealed so no water, insects, or even air gets in, low electrical voltage. The most common cause of destruction is something hitting them - lightning bolts, hail, baseballs. They can theoretically last for centuries, not 25 years. NASA's Voyagers 1 and 2 are both going strong after 37 years exposure to micrometeorites in space.
2) When they do stop working, it assumes they will be recycled, rather than land filled (not a guarantee), and that they will be recycled in the cheapest, most environmentally horrible method - burning. Yes, that is the most common method for ewaste, but we are more likely to bury than to recycle them
3) They compared it with nuclear rather than coal or petroleum. Nuclear creates a SMALL amount of toxic waste that people are unreasonably scared of, while coal and petroleum create massive amounts of toxic waste that people ignore.
Don't sell me bullshit and expect me to eat it.
1) Some services cost no money but are still a monopoly instead they cost other things, such as privacy. Prime example: Facebook.
2) When technology is advancing fast, prices drop. Or they do if their is competition. But a monopoly could simply maintain their current price and claim "Hey, we aren't anti-competitive, our prices haven't changed. We still sell our phone with a 1 MP camera, 2 inch display, and 5 whole megabytes of memory for a mere $749, just like we did in 1999."
Do you know how valuable a plastic bottle is on a deserted island?
It lets you carry water. It lets you boil water (with care). It lets you ferment fruit juice (essential for medical as well as mental health reasons). You can make a shovel out of it.
You can make a float for fishing out of it.
These things are life savers.
So the fact that we can find plastic bottles on every deserted island is kind of a huge survival bonus.
{ / end sarcasm
They insist on teaching things in a very despotic manner, creating grammar nazis.
We need to teach people that it is ok to create a word, as long as you define it clearly. Spelling should explain legal variations and why they are accepted.
Keeping in mind that most grids have charge back systems where you can sell back excess electricity to the utility, and that the grid is already built, it may never be reasonable to leave the grid. Basically, the grid becomes your money maker plus back up supply.
For new housing, however, particularly in rural areas, simply having 48 hours worth of battery backup may make it viable to skip connecting to the grid. Instead add a back up generator connected to either the same natural gas pipeline you use for your stove, or your heating oil tank (obviously a different type of generator).
Uncluttered = less information
Basically, they took out the variant stories, leaving only their 'main' one, increased font size, put lager, annoying, pictures on what is basically an Index, and put silly squares all over the space, taking up sapce.
Look, if your business can reduce hours without significantly lowering the quality of customer service, then you should have done that BEFORE the wage increase. Otherwise you were wasting your money.
If your company was doing well, then you would increase hours regardless of the hourly wage. Anyone that is stupid enough to decrease hours when business is steady or going up will lose customers, assuming they had proper hours previously.
Most likely what was going on was a slight downturn in business that happened concurrently but not caused by the minimum wage increase.
At worst, some employers decided to be proactive and cut hours when they were on the fence, rather than totally sure they did not need the extra hours.
This article is as stupid as any that claim that business owners 'create' jobs, or that capitalists are evil. Business is not an art that lets the owner do what they want. Instead it is a coldly logical set of bookkeeping equations. X sales = x inventory re-stockings, Y sales, z profit, etc. etc. etc.
1) You don't get to tell other people why they act the way they do. Different people are vegetarian for multiple reasons - health, moral, and simply taste preference are common reasons in addition to the incredibly smug reason you proclaimed. Your attitude is a stereotype that many vegans despise.
2) You are describing a minimalist stoicism, not vegetarianism.
3) Growing meet in a lab is still better for the environment than doing it on the hoof. Brains, bones, hooves, hair, organs, etc are all nutritionally expensive that labs avoid. We can do it in the middle of the city, avoiding transportation costs. We can grow it in steak sections, avoiding butchering costs.