For example Amethyst used to included in the list of cardinal gems, (i.e. diamond
I assume cardinal gems are gems whch have value because they are naturally rare? If so, diamonds do not qualify as a cardinal gem, despite popular myth. Diamonds are both common and easy to make by man. The only thing making diamonds scarce is the maket manipulations by the like of the De Beers cartel. In other words, diamonds are artificially made scare to maintain their value.
Insurance companies have to assume the absolute worst can and will happen...otherwise they'll get caught with their pants down. Insurance, while largely based on statistics is also, somewhat driven by emotion. Add to that, if you have few numbers of X and you must insure X, statistically, it's very difficult to figure out exactly what the risks of covering X is. As such, the premium must be extreemly high.
Here's an example. More new piston planes are now being built than have been built since the 70s. When a new model comes out, no one has any idea what kind of safety record it will have. So they compare it against what they do know and emotion covers the last several yards. The result is very expensive insurance for plane X until two things happen. One, the fleet reaches a statistically significant number of flying hours, and two, the fleet reaches a statistically significant number of planes. Only then is emotion further removed from the equation. Having said that, notice I didn't say completely removed. As an example, if you have 2000 planes of make X and two crash within a week, yet despite the statistics indicating the plane is safe, some insurance companies will attempt to raise their rates because the are afriad it might be a new trend which is not reflected in the overall statistics.
Knowing the above, now we must figure what's the worst case damage, should something really, really bad happen. Imagine an insurance company being expected to pay tens of billions?, hundreds of billions? of dollars in damages AND CLEANUP. Now, realize the number of different models of nuclear plants and how few of model X there are. With few plants of a specific model, it's difficult to determine the failure rate without lots and lots of time going by. As such, lots of emotion comes into play...especially when you talk about nuclear anything. The liability perspective for any insurance company would becomes excessive. As such, the government must play some role to stimulate things. Now, if we had a lot more nuclear reactors...which had been running for thirty plus years, all of the same model design...things might be different.
Now then, let's say a reactor has a minor problem...something close to three mile island type accident, but not as bad. Someone (insurance) has to pay for studies to confirm nothing bad happened. Now then, the information was made available to the press and everyone within 50-miles suddenly claims their cancer is a result of the accident for the next decade or two. Who is going to pay for the lengthy court costs? This too has significant liabilty whereby, lawyers would stand in line to try to get their bite. Again, while emotion is a bad business partner, emotion plays a significant part in anything nuclear. Take for example, the poster to whom I replied...
That's because the reactor design that Iran wants is A, considered one of the least safe nuclear reactor technologies, B, is often used to make weapons grade material, C, not as cost effective as other, more modern designs. Now, add A+B+C+terrorist state+willingness to commit genocide (Israel), and only and idiot would let Iran get their reactor.
If all Iran wanted was nuclear power, A, B, and C, would not even be on the table for discussion. And frankly, the would wouldn't care nearly as much.
According to Mobil Oil, even if we assume Sadia Arabia is lying about how much oil they have, plus accounting for increased world demand, assuming no more oil is discovered, we easily have 60-100+ years of oil available. According to ALL of the big oil companies, the "Peak Oil" crap are nothing but fear mongering.
Fact, we have more *KNOWN* oil than has ever been known to mankind, in the history of man. Fact, there is zero, credible evidence we are running out of oil. Zero. To be clear, just because an oil field is known, does not mean drilling and extraction is currently taking place. In many, many cases, they are waiting for econmics to justify the expense of getting to much of the known oil. In other words, you are correct, we are running out of cheap, high grade, very, very, very easy to get at oil. This does not translate to mean, we are running out of oil.
As you rightly point out, what we are running out of is cheap, high grade oil. What most people don't understand, for less than half the price (typical market price), low grade, high sulfer oil can be purchased. The amount of accessible, low grade (high sulfer) oil, by far, out strips our known supply of high grade oil.
The only problem with low grade oil is few plants can process it. While the oil companies have purposely LOST prodcution capacity (contrary to popular myth; thereby increasing profits) over the last 30 years, they have not built a new refinery which can process high sulfer oil. Economically, the oil companies can make the same profits, or more, while working a little harder. Obviously, they don't have a desire to do this...plus, this would require new refineries be built which can process high sulfer oils; forcing a significant capital investiment by the oil companies.
I realize I replied to you and we seem to be in agreence in the facts...I'm trying to bolster your position in that, you are one of the few people that actually has the facts.
Nuclear is safe. You're touting Chernobyl as an example of how unsafe nuclear power is? Get real. Chernobyl is an example of stuidity of mankind in its most extreme. Your argument makes as much sense as saying dynamite (the basis of most modern techonological infrastructure) should be banned because some idiot terrorist strapped it to himself and blew some people up. Simple fact is, dynamite is one of the safest explosives we have. And yes, idiots do blow themselves up with it. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
Fact, Chernobyl would have never been allowed to be built in the US (even in the 50s, or any other country in the world) as it failed to meet the most basic of safety standards. Fact, Russia suffers from penis envy (compared to te US) and considers its people to be disposible; thusly they knowingly created a very, very dangerous reactor. Fact, Russia has a long history of ignoring safety at the expense of their population (comparisons to civil terrorism would not be unwarrented). Fact, it had little to no containment shielding to begin with. Fact, what failsafes they had in place had been disabled. Fact, with a skeleton crew, making them unable to react to any emergency, they decided to operate their reactor outside known safe parameters to observe what happens. Guess what, they acted like terrorists strapping dynamite to themselves and the world is shocked. Gasp! Chernobyl is an condemnation of Russia, Russian politics, and Russia's complete disreguard for humanity; however, it is not a statement about nuclear power.
In the final analysis, only an absolute idiot would use Chernobyl as a posterboy for how unsafe nuclear power is. Why do I sound so harsh? Simple, because anyone that attempts to use Chernobyl for anti-nuclear reasons obviously doesn't know anything about the details and are running scared. If you insist on attempting to make an anti-nuclear, fear mongering position, please build a case based on facts rather than ignorance and stupidity. If you're using Chernobyl, obviously you have no facts and come off sounding like an absolute, raving, tree-hugging, loon. At best, you're simply ignorant, parroting fear.
Simple fact is, nuclear power, based on current designs, is very, very safe. Simple fact is, newer, modern nuclear designs are safer yet. One can certainly argue the economic merits and the finite duration nuclear power is an option. Nonetheless, nuclear is one of the safest sources of power on earth. Anyone with the slightest inkling of knowledge of the subject matter is forced to conclude, nuclear is safe. Period.
Nevermind the fact that there are now millions of Dish Network customers that are using DVR recievers, that will find out about this case, find that they've lost the functionality that they have been paying for every month - and place the blame squarely on - guess who? - Tivo.
I think you give the public too much credit...by far. Unless someone is spoon feeding them crap on the phone when they call to complain (..."it's Tivo's fault"...), John-Q is more likely to react like this.
"Maaa....the echostar recorder stopped work'n."
"Well call them to fix it."
"k"
"Echostar...my thing is broken. It needs a fix'n"
"I'm sorry, but we can no longer offer that service because we didn't have the right to offer it in the first place."
"Dang you. I want it fixed!"
"I'm sorry sir, we may have a solution for you in the near future, but by court order we're forced to discontinue the service."
*click*
In other words, John Q. isn't going to know squat unless phone support is feeding them a line of crap about how Tivo is evil because Echostar screwed their customers by stealing someone else's patent.
Hmmm. "while on the road" seems fairly limited as that requires wifi access. When I'm thinking "on the road", I know wifi access is not available to me. Perhaps if I'm driving around down town, or as I transit from one city to another, I might find a spot of support...heck, some cities provide free wifi..but that means spotty access unless I stay within that city. In other words, I see very limited value. On the other hand, if they supports wifi AND EDGE or other "G"-type technologies, then we have a real solution worth talking about. Until then, even the 770 seems to have limited value; aside from its geeky-coolness factor.
The music companies make it quite clear that you have no real right to the song itself, other than being able to play it from the original medium which you bought it on.
You confused reality with what is sprewed by companies. You have no ownership of the song but you do have right to access the song, period. Tying access to the song with the original medium is strictly an artifact of the DCMA (which is part of the reason they wanted the DCMA) and is contrary to fair use. Now the courts have ruled fair use does not mean you always have access to the song via the latest technology but that is completely different than saying you can only access song x on media y. Fair use clearly includes accessing the song without the use of the original media. Please do not confuse the two.
Now you know why Apache pilots call them Fag-Hawks pilots.;)
I'm not sure about Blackhawks, but Apache pilots can not use GPS as their primary navigation device. They are forced to fly by VFR chart and only use GPS for validation.
Plus it gives you Mac and Linux. Not supporting OpenGL game development is pretty stupid unless the desire is to simply exclude Linux, Mac, and common gaming platforms.
What tard. Talk about dumb and ignornat. So you walk around in real life with bookmarks to everything you've ever possibly read or heard reported. What a lying fucktard you are! But we all know since you don't do that, you look very dumb and ignorant!
What an idiot. On top of that, next, you're going to tell me just because it's on the internet, it must be true. What a fuck tard.
Grow a brain...learn to use a search engine. Feel a little pride in learning to think for your self. If you don't want to believe me, that's absolutely no sweat off my back. Want to dismiss it...that's you're stupidity not mine. Educating you is not the reason I get out of bed in the morning. Holy shit....do I have to chew your food and wipe your ass too before you believe people actually eat and crap too?
I was asking for a citation that proved or supported your assertion that fast or snack food companies cynically alter their products to create or encourage a dependency.
If my response was over the top it's because I'm tired of the tards that frequent here implying, "if it's not on the net, it can't possibly be true." Use of the word, "cynical" is almost always relative.
I also found no information regarding adjusting the nature of the processed food to make it 'addictive', to alter neurochemisty, or anything remotely similar.
Keep an eye out and you'll find news articles, etc on the topic. Articles were especially common between the release of the "docudrama", Super Size Me, and the suit filed against McD's. As were news segments. Accordingly, several books and research papers were released somewhere in the that time frame too. I don't think you'll find the cynical spin you're hoping for. At least not in vivid color. Most of what I've seen along these lines clearly spell it out, allow you to easily connect the dots. Parallels with tobacco are not uncommon; including mentioning undertones of leasons learned. Which brings us full circle. This tanget started because someone insisted such comparisons were wholely unfit. My assertion is that they are not so far fetched. Obviously we're not talking about the same levels of copability here nor a huge conspiracy to sneak foreign chemicals into food. We are, however, talking about research which specifically targets mood, neurochemical reactions to food, and how to improve the processing of said food to enhance those attributes. In effect, making food more "addictive."
To be clear, I made absolutely no extraordinary claim. I never claimed conspiricy. Period. It was others that span it as such. Froma business perspective, it's called good business. I would be hard pressed to find any *reasonable* person that believes food research and its effect on body chemistry is anything near extraordinary. Thusly, the response you can surely understand the response I generated.
It's actually in many books and documentaries. Some of this information even came out in the Super Size Me movie. Since then, many articles have been pubished. This is common street knowledge. What crack pipe are you on? This isn't some secret, hide the drugs in the food conspiracy, as your crappy, delusional tone implies. Straight and simple, it's how can be increase chemical-x in the brain from eating food. What chemistry can be apply to food to acheive this result? Simple question to ask...why do they want those reactions in the brain? Only an idiot doesn't know the answer to that question. I'm sure the tobacco companies will be happy to help if you're really stuck out in left field.
If you have not at least heard of this stuff, or read an article on this...then why in the hell are you responding like you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about...oh ya...this is/., the ignorant often post the loudest.
Come on...are you for real? If so, nuff said...go bother to educate your self...and then form your own opinion. If you've not at least heard of this stuff, then you're certainly not in a position to be posting anything on the topic...to boot, certainly not with your crappy tone. I mean holy crap! I don't have a link to post on the Avian Flu either, but you're going to tell me that's BS too? Get real.
I can not spell this out enough! Use of ethanol means 7% - 10% worse mileage for every car using it. This in turn means higher consumption! This means higher demand. In turn, we already don't have enough ethanol to go around. This in turn means lower supply. Put it all together and we are now all paying even more for fuel! To make matters worse, ethanol from corn is stupid. The only people this helps are corn growers. We are paying two or three times for ethanol from corn. On top of that, I believe we are also importing it from Brazil, which is based on sugar cane rather than corn. At least that part makes sense!
AFAIK, the only currently viable sources for ethanol is sugar cane, sugar beats, and hemp. The later or which, Canada is currently testing. AFAIK, the other, often touted sources are very research intensive and experimental at best.
Unless you enjoy paying lots more per gallon, always say no to ethanol from corn! For now, we should all say no to ethanol, period. Ideally, we'll shift to hemp based ethanol! And note, hemp is not pot! If you smoke hemp, you get a killer headache, but not high. Pot can be used as hemp, but not the other way around. But wait, hemp is illegal in the US because it competes with oil, petrochecmial, and cotton industries. That's a short list of powerful enemies.
Actually, gas or kerosene is usually added (with what, no more than 10%?) to prevent that problem. Likewise, fuel additives are already available (have been for a very long time) which serve the same purpose. These additives are common place for certain categories of planes where their cold operating environments may cause freezing and gel concern.
God forbid someone sells food that makes you satisfied!
Yes, how dare tobacco companies sell a product which satifies! *rolling eyes*
No one is saying don't sell tasty food. But McD's (and others) is specifically using research to find formulas which are as addictive as possible, by means of chemistry. In no, way, shape, or form, am I saying the patron is not ultimately responsible. All I'm saying is that their research and intentions are VERY comparible to what the tobacco industry has done. Which was my entire point. Something you seemingly went out of your way to ignore. Arguing otherwise is just plain ignorant of the facts and the reality of the world we live in. While they may not be crossing the line today, it is certainly spitting distance from crossing the line tomorrow. When (and I do believe it's a question of when, not if) that happens, I believe some of the social burderns should shift accordingly; as has been done with tobacco.
Actually...much of the food researched used by fast food companies are performed for exactly the same reasons. For example, the cheese used on McD's produces the same results drug users get...for a very short time. The end result, while not addictive, results in the direct association between feeling good and eating their food. Thusly, it becomes an emotional crutch, much like an addiction.
So yes, you can compare the actions of fast food companies with the likes of tobacco companies. To the same degree? No.
Actually, IT consultants often do come in to code/design/mentor. Likewise, they are often required to help implement their own recommendations. Not surprisingly, many shops which require a consultant to come in, also lack the inhouse knowledge to implement the resulting recommendation. This may be from a lack of industry knowledge or because their in house talent can only tackle 95% of the problem domain and need help with the last 5%. And yes, sometimes that last 5% can take many, many months. On the other hand, there are shops where you come in, analyze for a week, document it, generate a recommendation, and our job is done. Sometimes additional work comes from that, sometimes not. Fees are often skillset related. So you may bill x for the "consulting" part and 1/2x for the other. Some places you can change x for both.
So the long of the short, yes, consultats often code, design, review, lead, hold hands, and mentor in house staff. Thinking otherwise is simply ignorance or trolling. I'll let your profess which is your case.
No, that's absoluetely NOT what it is saying...contrary to the misleading/. submission. This does NOT give carte blanche to border officials to search your private information in your laptop. What it's saying is, if the border police want to search your laptop, you must clearly indicate, NO! Likewise, if the border authorities do violate your constitutional rights (searching after you clearly indicate NO!) and it goes to court, it must be brought up as an issue up front, stating it was a violation of privacy...not as an after thought...and especially not as an after thought in an attempt to get an appeal.
To be clear, it IS an invasion of privacy but this judge elected not to consider the argument as it was ONLY being used as contention for an appeal. To be clear, this dos NOT strip you of your right to privacy just because you cross a border!
Slashdot Mirror
You suck...because you're probably right. Damn you! No off with you to find some candy and babies... ;)
For example Amethyst used to included in the list of cardinal gems, (i.e. diamond
I assume cardinal gems are gems whch have value because they are naturally rare? If so, diamonds do not qualify as a cardinal gem, despite popular myth. Diamonds are both common and easy to make by man. The only thing making diamonds scarce is the maket manipulations by the like of the De Beers cartel. In other words, diamonds are artificially made scare to maintain their value.
Insurance companies have to assume the absolute worst can and will happen...otherwise they'll get caught with their pants down. Insurance, while largely based on statistics is also, somewhat driven by emotion. Add to that, if you have few numbers of X and you must insure X, statistically, it's very difficult to figure out exactly what the risks of covering X is. As such, the premium must be extreemly high.
Here's an example. More new piston planes are now being built than have been built since the 70s. When a new model comes out, no one has any idea what kind of safety record it will have. So they compare it against what they do know and emotion covers the last several yards. The result is very expensive insurance for plane X until two things happen. One, the fleet reaches a statistically significant number of flying hours, and two, the fleet reaches a statistically significant number of planes. Only then is emotion further removed from the equation. Having said that, notice I didn't say completely removed. As an example, if you have 2000 planes of make X and two crash within a week, yet despite the statistics indicating the plane is safe, some insurance companies will attempt to raise their rates because the are afriad it might be a new trend which is not reflected in the overall statistics.
Knowing the above, now we must figure what's the worst case damage, should something really, really bad happen. Imagine an insurance company being expected to pay tens of billions?, hundreds of billions? of dollars in damages AND CLEANUP. Now, realize the number of different models of nuclear plants and how few of model X there are. With few plants of a specific model, it's difficult to determine the failure rate without lots and lots of time going by. As such, lots of emotion comes into play...especially when you talk about nuclear anything. The liability perspective for any insurance company would becomes excessive. As such, the government must play some role to stimulate things. Now, if we had a lot more nuclear reactors...which had been running for thirty plus years, all of the same model design...things might be different.
Now then, let's say a reactor has a minor problem...something close to three mile island type accident, but not as bad. Someone (insurance) has to pay for studies to confirm nothing bad happened. Now then, the information was made available to the press and everyone within 50-miles suddenly claims their cancer is a result of the accident for the next decade or two. Who is going to pay for the lengthy court costs? This too has significant liabilty whereby, lawyers would stand in line to try to get their bite. Again, while emotion is a bad business partner, emotion plays a significant part in anything nuclear. Take for example, the poster to whom I replied...
This help?
At least the US has a plan.
That's because the reactor design that Iran wants is A, considered one of the least safe nuclear reactor technologies, B, is often used to make weapons grade material, C, not as cost effective as other, more modern designs. Now, add A+B+C+terrorist state+willingness to commit genocide (Israel), and only and idiot would let Iran get their reactor.
If all Iran wanted was nuclear power, A, B, and C, would not even be on the table for discussion. And frankly, the would wouldn't care nearly as much.
I couldn't agree more!
According to Mobil Oil, even if we assume Sadia Arabia is lying about how much oil they have, plus accounting for increased world demand, assuming no more oil is discovered, we easily have 60-100+ years of oil available. According to ALL of the big oil companies, the "Peak Oil" crap are nothing but fear mongering.
Fact, we have more *KNOWN* oil than has ever been known to mankind, in the history of man. Fact, there is zero, credible evidence we are running out of oil. Zero. To be clear, just because an oil field is known, does not mean drilling and extraction is currently taking place. In many, many cases, they are waiting for econmics to justify the expense of getting to much of the known oil. In other words, you are correct, we are running out of cheap, high grade, very, very, very easy to get at oil. This does not translate to mean, we are running out of oil.
As you rightly point out, what we are running out of is cheap, high grade oil. What most people don't understand, for less than half the price (typical market price), low grade, high sulfer oil can be purchased. The amount of accessible, low grade (high sulfer) oil, by far, out strips our known supply of high grade oil.
The only problem with low grade oil is few plants can process it. While the oil companies have purposely LOST prodcution capacity (contrary to popular myth; thereby increasing profits) over the last 30 years, they have not built a new refinery which can process high sulfer oil. Economically, the oil companies can make the same profits, or more, while working a little harder. Obviously, they don't have a desire to do this...plus, this would require new refineries be built which can process high sulfer oils; forcing a significant capital investiment by the oil companies.
I realize I replied to you and we seem to be in agreence in the facts...I'm trying to bolster your position in that, you are one of the few people that actually has the facts.
LOL! You do realize you're a nut job, right?
Nuclear is safe. You're touting Chernobyl as an example of how unsafe nuclear power is? Get real. Chernobyl is an example of stuidity of mankind in its most extreme. Your argument makes as much sense as saying dynamite (the basis of most modern techonological infrastructure) should be banned because some idiot terrorist strapped it to himself and blew some people up. Simple fact is, dynamite is one of the safest explosives we have. And yes, idiots do blow themselves up with it. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
Fact, Chernobyl would have never been allowed to be built in the US (even in the 50s, or any other country in the world) as it failed to meet the most basic of safety standards. Fact, Russia suffers from penis envy (compared to te US) and considers its people to be disposible; thusly they knowingly created a very, very dangerous reactor. Fact, Russia has a long history of ignoring safety at the expense of their population (comparisons to civil terrorism would not be unwarrented). Fact, it had little to no containment shielding to begin with. Fact, what failsafes they had in place had been disabled. Fact, with a skeleton crew, making them unable to react to any emergency, they decided to operate their reactor outside known safe parameters to observe what happens. Guess what, they acted like terrorists strapping dynamite to themselves and the world is shocked. Gasp! Chernobyl is an condemnation of Russia, Russian politics, and Russia's complete disreguard for humanity; however, it is not a statement about nuclear power.
In the final analysis, only an absolute idiot would use Chernobyl as a posterboy for how unsafe nuclear power is. Why do I sound so harsh? Simple, because anyone that attempts to use Chernobyl for anti-nuclear reasons obviously doesn't know anything about the details and are running scared. If you insist on attempting to make an anti-nuclear, fear mongering position, please build a case based on facts rather than ignorance and stupidity. If you're using Chernobyl, obviously you have no facts and come off sounding like an absolute, raving, tree-hugging, loon. At best, you're simply ignorant, parroting fear.
Simple fact is, nuclear power, based on current designs, is very, very safe. Simple fact is, newer, modern nuclear designs are safer yet. One can certainly argue the economic merits and the finite duration nuclear power is an option. Nonetheless, nuclear is one of the safest sources of power on earth. Anyone with the slightest inkling of knowledge of the subject matter is forced to conclude, nuclear is safe. Period.
Nevermind the fact that there are now millions of Dish Network customers that are using DVR recievers, that will find out about this case, find that they've lost the functionality that they have been paying for every month - and place the blame squarely on - guess who? - Tivo.
I think you give the public too much credit...by far. Unless someone is spoon feeding them crap on the phone when they call to complain (..."it's Tivo's fault"...), John-Q is more likely to react like this.
"Maaa....the echostar recorder stopped work'n."
"Well call them to fix it."
"k"
"Echostar...my thing is broken. It needs a fix'n"
"I'm sorry, but we can no longer offer that service because we didn't have the right to offer it in the first place."
"Dang you. I want it fixed!"
"I'm sorry sir, we may have a solution for you in the near future, but by court order we're forced to discontinue the service."
*click*
In other words, John Q. isn't going to know squat unless phone support is feeding them a line of crap about how Tivo is evil because Echostar screwed their customers by stealing someone else's patent.
Hmmm. "while on the road" seems fairly limited as that requires wifi access. When I'm thinking "on the road", I know wifi access is not available to me. Perhaps if I'm driving around down town, or as I transit from one city to another, I might find a spot of support...heck, some cities provide free wifi..but that means spotty access unless I stay within that city. In other words, I see very limited value. On the other hand, if they supports wifi AND EDGE or other "G"-type technologies, then we have a real solution worth talking about. Until then, even the 770 seems to have limited value; aside from its geeky-coolness factor.
and only cost $100
Bzzz. $100/year! At least that's what I read.
The music companies make it quite clear that you have no real right to the song itself, other than being able to play it from the original medium which you bought it on.
You confused reality with what is sprewed by companies. You have no ownership of the song but you do have right to access the song, period. Tying access to the song with the original medium is strictly an artifact of the DCMA (which is part of the reason they wanted the DCMA) and is contrary to fair use. Now the courts have ruled fair use does not mean you always have access to the song via the latest technology but that is completely different than saying you can only access song x on media y. Fair use clearly includes accessing the song without the use of the original media. Please do not confuse the two.
Now you know why Apache pilots call them Fag-Hawks pilots. ;)
I'm not sure about Blackhawks, but Apache pilots can not use GPS as their primary navigation device. They are forced to fly by VFR chart and only use GPS for validation.
Plus it gives you Mac and Linux. Not supporting OpenGL game development is pretty stupid unless the desire is to simply exclude Linux, Mac, and common gaming platforms.
What tard. Talk about dumb and ignornat. So you walk around in real life with bookmarks to everything you've ever possibly read or heard reported. What a lying fucktard you are! But we all know since you don't do that, you look very dumb and ignorant!
What an idiot. On top of that, next, you're going to tell me just because it's on the internet, it must be true. What a fuck tard.
Grow a brain...learn to use a search engine. Feel a little pride in learning to think for your self. If you don't want to believe me, that's absolutely no sweat off my back. Want to dismiss it...that's you're stupidity not mine. Educating you is not the reason I get out of bed in the morning. Holy shit....do I have to chew your food and wipe your ass too before you believe people actually eat and crap too?
Nuff said.
I was asking for a citation that proved or supported your assertion that fast or snack food companies cynically alter their products to create or encourage a dependency.
If my response was over the top it's because I'm tired of the tards that frequent here implying, "if it's not on the net, it can't possibly be true." Use of the word, "cynical" is almost always relative.
I also found no information regarding adjusting the nature of the processed food to make it 'addictive', to alter neurochemisty, or anything remotely similar.
Keep an eye out and you'll find news articles, etc on the topic. Articles were especially common between the release of the "docudrama", Super Size Me, and the suit filed against McD's. As were news segments. Accordingly, several books and research papers were released somewhere in the that time frame too. I don't think you'll find the cynical spin you're hoping for. At least not in vivid color. Most of what I've seen along these lines clearly spell it out, allow you to easily connect the dots. Parallels with tobacco are not uncommon; including mentioning undertones of leasons learned. Which brings us full circle. This tanget started because someone insisted such comparisons were wholely unfit. My assertion is that they are not so far fetched. Obviously we're not talking about the same levels of copability here nor a huge conspiracy to sneak foreign chemicals into food. We are, however, talking about research which specifically targets mood, neurochemical reactions to food, and how to improve the processing of said food to enhance those attributes. In effect, making food more "addictive."
To be clear, I made absolutely no extraordinary claim. I never claimed conspiricy. Period. It was others that span it as such. Froma business perspective, it's called good business. I would be hard pressed to find any *reasonable* person that believes food research and its effect on body chemistry is anything near extraordinary. Thusly, the response you can surely understand the response I generated.
Can you read? How dumb are you? Both to re-read my post and then figure out why you sound like an idiot.
It's actually in many books and documentaries. Some of this information even came out in the Super Size Me movie. Since then, many articles have been pubished. This is common street knowledge. What crack pipe are you on? This isn't some secret, hide the drugs in the food conspiracy, as your crappy, delusional tone implies. Straight and simple, it's how can be increase chemical-x in the brain from eating food. What chemistry can be apply to food to acheive this result? Simple question to ask...why do they want those reactions in the brain? Only an idiot doesn't know the answer to that question. I'm sure the tobacco companies will be happy to help if you're really stuck out in left field.
/., the ignorant often post the loudest.
If you have not at least heard of this stuff, or read an article on this...then why in the hell are you responding like you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about...oh ya...this is
Come on...are you for real? If so, nuff said...go bother to educate your self...and then form your own opinion. If you've not at least heard of this stuff, then you're certainly not in a position to be posting anything on the topic...to boot, certainly not with your crappy tone. I mean holy crap! I don't have a link to post on the Avian Flu either, but you're going to tell me that's BS too? Get real.
Opps. I should add, that is 7% - 10% for worse mileage based on 10% ethanol mix! I believe the typical cost is 7%-8%.
I can not spell this out enough! Use of ethanol means 7% - 10% worse mileage for every car using it. This in turn means higher consumption! This means higher demand. In turn, we already don't have enough ethanol to go around. This in turn means lower supply. Put it all together and we are now all paying even more for fuel! To make matters worse, ethanol from corn is stupid. The only people this helps are corn growers. We are paying two or three times for ethanol from corn. On top of that, I believe we are also importing it from Brazil, which is based on sugar cane rather than corn. At least that part makes sense!
AFAIK, the only currently viable sources for ethanol is sugar cane, sugar beats, and hemp. The later or which, Canada is currently testing. AFAIK, the other, often touted sources are very research intensive and experimental at best.
Unless you enjoy paying lots more per gallon, always say no to ethanol from corn! For now, we should all say no to ethanol, period. Ideally, we'll shift to hemp based ethanol! And note, hemp is not pot! If you smoke hemp, you get a killer headache, but not high. Pot can be used as hemp, but not the other way around. But wait, hemp is illegal in the US because it competes with oil, petrochecmial, and cotton industries. That's a short list of powerful enemies.
Actually, gas or kerosene is usually added (with what, no more than 10%?) to prevent that problem. Likewise, fuel additives are already available (have been for a very long time) which serve the same purpose. These additives are common place for certain categories of planes where their cold operating environments may cause freezing and gel concern.
God forbid someone sells food that makes you satisfied!
Yes, how dare tobacco companies sell a product which satifies! *rolling eyes*
No one is saying don't sell tasty food. But McD's (and others) is specifically using research to find formulas which are as addictive as possible, by means of chemistry. In no, way, shape, or form, am I saying the patron is not ultimately responsible. All I'm saying is that their research and intentions are VERY comparible to what the tobacco industry has done. Which was my entire point. Something you seemingly went out of your way to ignore. Arguing otherwise is just plain ignorant of the facts and the reality of the world we live in. While they may not be crossing the line today, it is certainly spitting distance from crossing the line tomorrow. When (and I do believe it's a question of when, not if) that happens, I believe some of the social burderns should shift accordingly; as has been done with tobacco.
Actually...much of the food researched used by fast food companies are performed for exactly the same reasons. For example, the cheese used on McD's produces the same results drug users get...for a very short time. The end result, while not addictive, results in the direct association between feeling good and eating their food. Thusly, it becomes an emotional crutch, much like an addiction.
So yes, you can compare the actions of fast food companies with the likes of tobacco companies. To the same degree? No.
Talk about trolling....
Actually, IT consultants often do come in to code/design/mentor. Likewise, they are often required to help implement their own recommendations. Not surprisingly, many shops which require a consultant to come in, also lack the inhouse knowledge to implement the resulting recommendation. This may be from a lack of industry knowledge or because their in house talent can only tackle 95% of the problem domain and need help with the last 5%. And yes, sometimes that last 5% can take many, many months. On the other hand, there are shops where you come in, analyze for a week, document it, generate a recommendation, and our job is done. Sometimes additional work comes from that, sometimes not. Fees are often skillset related. So you may bill x for the "consulting" part and 1/2x for the other. Some places you can change x for both.
So the long of the short, yes, consultats often code, design, review, lead, hold hands, and mentor in house staff. Thinking otherwise is simply ignorance or trolling. I'll let your profess which is your case.
No, that's absoluetely NOT what it is saying...contrary to the misleading /. submission. This does NOT give carte blanche to border officials to search your private information in your laptop. What it's saying is, if the border police want to search your laptop, you must clearly indicate, NO! Likewise, if the border authorities do violate your constitutional rights (searching after you clearly indicate NO!) and it goes to court, it must be brought up as an issue up front, stating it was a violation of privacy...not as an after thought...and especially not as an after thought in an attempt to get an appeal.
To be clear, it IS an invasion of privacy but this judge elected not to consider the argument as it was ONLY being used as contention for an appeal. To be clear, this dos NOT strip you of your right to privacy just because you cross a border!
"IT'S ALIVE!", may be words emminating from hospitals around the world. 'Ol Marry may yet spin in her grave.