> People don't buy organic for nutrition. That's
> what people buy vitamins for.
Barring treatment for specific deficiencies, adding vitamins to your diet does nothing. Another thing that's coming up in study after study.
The daily multivitamin is a waste of money.
So you think that everyone gets enough Vitamin D even if they never go outside in the sun, or enough vitamin C if they never eat fresh fruit or vegetables?
While it is true that there should be no need for multivitamins if you have an even moderately healthy lifestyle and balanced diet, the sad fact is that a lot of people have neither.
There are detectable levels of arsenic and cyanide from natural sources in most of our bodies already.
That is a variation on the old "there is already natural backgrond radiation around us, so a little bit of radioactive waste can't do any harm" argument used by the more rabid pro-nuclear power fanboys to handwave away Chernobyl.
I'd point out that qualities such as selfishness and greed are at the very root of life itself.
Yes, it's a pity that there is no such thing as civilisation, deferred gratification, altruism, forward planning, ethics, morality, social pressure or anything else that differentiates us from animals.
Nightshade is very organic. So is e. coli, and most of the nastier parasites around.
And that is why I won't eat organic.
This message brought to you by Monsanto.
If you're not a paid shill for the food industry, then you're just a fucking moron.
It's much healthier to have an earth-covered potato which you wash yourself, rather than some shiny plastic perfectly spheroid piece of tasteless shit in a plastic bag.
I defy anyone to take a blind taste test on eggs from your local mega-mart and tell me they can tell the difference between organic and non-organic
If you buy cheap eggs from your local mega-mart, they will probably will all have been produced at the same battery-type farms, but with small variations in what crap they are drip fed.
The real difference is if you go and get some fresh eggs from a farm (or some fresh carrots, or whatever).
Personally, I would rather have food and animals that haven't been force-injected with chemicals for any reason, especially if the reason is just to make them look shiny on supermarket shelves.
No it is not. If you can't tell the difference in quality and taste between a prime rib eye steak from a well treated animal and the shit they squash together into a Big Mac, there is something wrong with you.
Of course, they never show the ones that picked Coke.
Doesn't matter. The point is that not everybody picks Coke. Some people do prefer Pepsi.
They are both equally vile, and are as far removed from natural food as you can imagine.
If you prefer (say) battery farmed eggs that have pale yokes, watery whites and thin shells over organically produced free range eggs that are tastier but harder to crack., it just shows that your views on what is tasty or not are irrelevant, because you are stupid.
Blind taste tests have shown that the 'tastier' food thing is psychological.
Bullshit. I take it you are a paid shill for one of the vast corporations churning out coloured, preserved tasteless-apart-from salt-and-sugar microwaveable pap?
It's getting decent ingredients and buying proper equipment and spending enough time that makes the end product work.
I'm more of a cider man, and the recipe there's even simpler: chuck a ton of rotten apples in a barrel, add a couple of rats, then strain off the liquid when it starts bubbling. Something like that anyway.
I was diagnosed with Asperger and though some problems I have with the world may be linked to it, I strongly object to any implication of an illness or a state of health that needs to be treated or cured.
cb
Fine, if it's not an illness, fucking deal with it. In fact, fucking deal with it anyway. The rest of us are imperfect too, you know. Just don't use it as a handy excuse like some people do.
I had very bad social problems as a kid but I've sort of adapted to "act" like everyone else. It's like training a robot to act human
You do realise that this is what every human being has to do? You don't come out of the womb as a fully formed social being, you have to learn it as you go along. Some people are more naturally social in the same way that some people are more naturally athletic or artistic. They're still just human beings.
I can conceptualize things that most people can't imagine exist. I can find solutions to problems from disparate sources that other people don't see as relevant to each other.
Like a lot of (clever) people.
there are situations that I don't deal well in (like crowded rooms, loud environments, or very bright environments)
Like a lot of us.
Sorry, but you are just a gifted human being, not some uniquely blessed/cursed new species of being.
I'm gluten intolerant, and removing gluten from my food tremendously improved my life
Well, yes, it would wouldn't it? That's like saying that someone who would die of anaphylactic shock if stung by a bee has improved their quality of life remarkably by avoiding getting stung by bees.
You can generally use "they" as a gender neutral pronoun.
e.g. "if someone wants to perform fellatio on me, they are welcome to as I'm not fussy" as opposed to "if someone wants to perform fellatio on me he, she, or it is welcome to as I'm not fussy".
Benjamin Franklin didn't live in a time when everyone expected the government to protect them from crime.
Your approach assumes that the purpose of his statement was to minimize the amount of total harm. Not everyone wants to do that. Some us are fine with people having to pay for their own choices, and just don't want to have to pay for everyone else's mistakes.
Then you should fuck off and live on a desert island somewhere. Preferably one which will soon be swamped due to global warming.
Most of us prefer civilization, and the greatest good of the greatest number of people (or perhaps the least harm to the fewest number of people) is indeed the guiding principle. One individual being limited in his absolute freedom is a small price to pay for not having to live in constant fear of being murdered in your bed by someone with enough powerful friends.
But this is the very definition of a "fishing expedition", which is against some of the most very basic legal principles and Constitutional rights of the American people.
Scientists know -- and have been saying -- that DNA is far weaker evidence than prosecutors have tried to paint for the last few decades. But really more to the point: even if a conviction were made, it is not worth the loss of freedom and potential abuse this procedure involves.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.
But no innocent person is going to be convicted purely because of a basic DNA screening (if the odds are indeed only 1/7000 as posted above). And the "loss of freedom" in voluntarily donating a sample of your own DNA is trivial in relation to the benefits of catching the sort of person who rapes and murders a child.
Slashdot Mirror
> People don't buy organic for nutrition. That's > what people buy vitamins for.
Barring treatment for specific deficiencies, adding vitamins to your diet does nothing. Another thing that's coming up in study after study.
The daily multivitamin is a waste of money.
So you think that everyone gets enough Vitamin D even if they never go outside in the sun, or enough vitamin C if they never eat fresh fruit or vegetables?
While it is true that there should be no need for multivitamins if you have an even moderately healthy lifestyle and balanced diet, the sad fact is that a lot of people have neither.
There are detectable levels of arsenic and cyanide from natural sources in most of our bodies already.
That is a variation on the old "there is already natural backgrond radiation around us, so a little bit of radioactive waste can't do any harm" argument used by the more rabid pro-nuclear power fanboys to handwave away Chernobyl.
I'd point out that qualities such as selfishness and greed are at the very root of life itself.
Yes, it's a pity that there is no such thing as civilisation, deferred gratification, altruism, forward planning, ethics, morality, social pressure or anything else that differentiates us from animals.
You prove, yet again, that there is no bore like a chemistry bore, and no chemistry bore like an organic chemistry bore.
Hint: "organic" is not a word reserved for the exclusive use of chemists
Nightshade is very organic. So is e. coli, and most of the nastier parasites around.
And that is why I won't eat organic.
This message brought to you by Monsanto.
If you're not a paid shill for the food industry, then you're just a fucking moron.
It's much healthier to have an earth-covered potato which you wash yourself, rather than some shiny plastic perfectly spheroid piece of tasteless shit in a plastic bag.
I defy anyone to take a blind taste test on eggs from your local mega-mart and tell me they can tell the difference between organic and non-organic
If you buy cheap eggs from your local mega-mart, they will probably will all have been produced at the same battery-type farms, but with small variations in what crap they are drip fed.
The real difference is if you go and get some fresh eggs from a farm (or some fresh carrots, or whatever).
Personally, I would rather have food and animals that haven't been force-injected with chemicals for any reason, especially if the reason is just to make them look shiny on supermarket shelves.
taste is purely subjective
No it is not. If you can't tell the difference in quality and taste between a prime rib eye steak from a well treated animal and the shit they squash together into a Big Mac, there is something wrong with you.
Of course, they never show the ones that picked Coke.
Doesn't matter. The point is that not everybody picks Coke. Some people do prefer Pepsi.
They are both equally vile, and are as far removed from natural food as you can imagine.
If you prefer (say) battery farmed eggs that have pale yokes, watery whites and thin shells over organically produced free range eggs that are tastier but harder to crack., it just shows that your views on what is tasty or not are irrelevant, because you are stupid.
Blind taste tests have shown that the 'tastier' food thing is psychological.
Bullshit. I take it you are a paid shill for one of the vast corporations churning out coloured, preserved tasteless-apart-from salt-and-sugar microwaveable pap?
It's getting decent ingredients and buying proper equipment and spending enough time that makes the end product work.
I'm more of a cider man, and the recipe there's even simpler: chuck a ton of rotten apples in a barrel, add a couple of rats, then strain off the liquid when it starts bubbling. Something like that anyway.
Is that Free as in beer, or Free as in beer?
I came for that comment, and now I can leave.
I was diagnosed with Asperger and though some problems I have with the world may be linked to it, I strongly object to any implication of an illness or a state of health that needs to be treated or cured.
cb
Fine, if it's not an illness, fucking deal with it. In fact, fucking deal with it anyway. The rest of us are imperfect too, you know. Just don't use it as a handy excuse like some people do.
I had very bad social problems as a kid but I've sort of adapted to "act" like everyone else. It's like training a robot to act human
You do realise that this is what every human being has to do? You don't come out of the womb as a fully formed social being, you have to learn it as you go along. Some people are more naturally social in the same way that some people are more naturally athletic or artistic. They're still just human beings.
No offence, but you sound like some teenage girl who loves the cool vampires in Twilight.
I can conceptualize things that most people can't imagine exist. I can find solutions to problems from disparate sources that other people don't see as relevant to each other.
Like a lot of (clever) people.
there are situations that I don't deal well in (like crowded rooms, loud environments, or very bright environments)
Like a lot of us.
Sorry, but you are just a gifted human being, not some uniquely blessed/cursed new species of being.
I think that in some of the more moderate cases it may well be with in the range of normal (Unix admin) behavior
I think we call it Asperger's here. Luckily, it's easy to self-diagnose:
Inability to talk to other human beings, except about computers? CHECK.
Inability to talk to females about anything? CHECK.
Diregard for tedious social conventions like washing? CHECK.
Profound certainty in one's own uniquely superior intellect? CHECK.
Tendency to write "Microsoft" as "M$"? CHECK.
I find having a (metaphorical and maybe not correct) mechanistic way of understanding autistic bahaviours makes it a lot easier to deal with them.
Impressively, your metaphor is actually less comprehensible than the actual autistic behaviour.
I'm gluten intolerant, and removing gluten from my food tremendously improved my life
Well, yes, it would wouldn't it? That's like saying that someone who would die of anaphylactic shock if stung by a bee has improved their quality of life remarkably by avoiding getting stung by bees.
Vegetable soups and steamed vegetables are encouraged. Fibromyalgia patients routinely get well, and they get well quickly.
If I was told I faced a future diet of vegetable soups and steamed vegetables I'd pretty soon change my ways too.
I'm raising little Joey here on a vegan macrobiotic diet. Did I also mention he has autism, peanut allergies, and fibromyalgia?
I think it would be a trivially simple thing to show a correlation between autism and vegetarianism wouldn't it? If it existed.
Exactly. By the time that symptoms are showing it is too late. You can't 'cure' Autism once the developmental damage is done.
Anyway, autistics provide a useful social and economic function. Someone has to do computer programming, and at least this way it's voluntary.
You can generally use "they" as a gender neutral pronoun.
e.g. "if someone wants to perform fellatio on me, they are welcome to as I'm not fussy" as opposed to "if someone wants to perform fellatio on me he, she, or it is welcome to as I'm not fussy".
Benjamin Franklin didn't live in a time when everyone expected the government to protect them from crime.
Your approach assumes that the purpose of his statement was to minimize the amount of total harm. Not everyone wants to do that. Some us are fine with people having to pay for their own choices, and just don't want to have to pay for everyone else's mistakes.
Then you should fuck off and live on a desert island somewhere. Preferably one which will soon be swamped due to global warming.
Most of us prefer civilization, and the greatest good of the greatest number of people (or perhaps the least harm to the fewest number of people) is indeed the guiding principle. One individual being limited in his absolute freedom is a small price to pay for not having to live in constant fear of being murdered in your bed by someone with enough powerful friends.
Sorry, rather be raped and murdered than be falsely accused :P
You would rather be raped and murdered than falsely accused of something? That makes no sense.
But this is the very definition of a "fishing expedition", which is against some of the most very basic legal principles and Constitutional rights of the American people. Scientists know -- and have been saying -- that DNA is far weaker evidence than prosecutors have tried to paint for the last few decades. But really more to the point: even if a conviction were made, it is not worth the loss of freedom and potential abuse this procedure involves.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.
But no innocent person is going to be convicted purely because of a basic DNA screening (if the odds are indeed only 1/7000 as posted above). And the "loss of freedom" in voluntarily donating a sample of your own DNA is trivial in relation to the benefits of catching the sort of person who rapes and murders a child.