That may be so, but I've never seen it advertised as healthier based on nutrients. I've mostly seen it advertised as containing no artificial chemicals or enhancers, or growth hormones, which--as they say--may affect our metabolism or cause health issues.
Most people that I know who choose organic products do it based on their distrust to chemical and hormones enhancers.
It's not a matter of being a conspiracy theorist. Consider the facts: The study focuses on the nutritional value exclusively; not overall health benefits, of which nutritional value would be a factor. I don't know about you, but when I hear people talking about organic food, I've never heard it mentioned that one of their discriminating criteria is because it has a higher content of nutrients. Even advertisments and propaganda literature that promote organic products typically mention the fact that they contain no chemical enhancers or additional growth hormones, which can affect our metabolisms. It seems to me rather strange that these are precisely the factors that the study did not address.
If you have a large population of people clamoring for organic products on the basis of their lack of pesticides and growth hormones, and you want to fund a study to put an end to the debate once and for all and see whether the benefits are real or not; why would you engineer the study to avoid accounting for the very factors that make the products attractive to them?
Moreover, if you read the article, it has a slight cynical slant towards organic products and their consumers, starting from the headline "Organic 'has no health benefits'". I don't claim there was a conspiracy involved, but obviously the article (and the study) were composed to generate a negative impact against organically grown products.
To be sure, I don't think the study is wrong--I do not disagree with its outcome nor its methods. I only have a problem with its narrow focus (and the consequences of it taken at a simplistic face value); it should be taken in context with other studies which consider other potential health benefits apart from nutritional value alone.
>> But the point being, tech has improvement a lot and why not with food aswell.
Ah, Better Living Through Chemistry(TM). What does nature know about health? I mean, it's our body, we know what to put in it. After all, living in a concrete box, with indoor plumbing and sewage, instead of in a rock cave, is perfectly comparable to inducing our biological, organic digestive systems into processing chemically enhanced and artificially produced food-stuff, as opposed to the biological, organic matter it was designed to handle.
I see, so "isn't a good method to use for writing anything" really means "isn't a practical method to use for writing in most modern environments", right?
I know, perfectly understandable typo; the keys are right next to each other.
And I agree with you both: I have this uncorroborated idea that since I've had some trouble reading some random people's hand-writing, then it stands to reason that no hand-writing can ever be legible, as a matter of incontrovertible truth. The fact that I have poor penmanship myself just proves this point beyond all doubt.
>> "Writing by hand isn't a good method to use for writing anything beyond two or three words."
Of course, this is the little known fact as to how computers were invented by the Ancient Egyptians, during the early Dynastic Period; and how we have been able to preserve recorded history for so long. Indeed, nothing of note was ever recorded in hand-writing; it is just not practical.
And I'd say that that's only because most people in the U.S. are not taught a proper and formalized "cursive" script, they are just given guidelines and left to their own devices. Have you ever read handwritten letters from other countries? I have, and I can cite as examples people from Argentina, Mexico, France (and even some small towns in the United States) where it doesn't matter who wrote the letter, everybody from the same region seems to share the same overall scripting style. The individual characteristics are few and minimal.
This is from my childhood experiences, writing to "pen-pals" from around the world. It always surprised me because I couldn't fathom how three different, random people from Argentina wrote in pretty much the same way; while at my school, I would be hard pressed to find any two of my friends that scripted with even a similar slant. I was told that they are given a very specific format to learn and follow, and that cursive teaching continued throughout most of their elementary school.
You didn't read my comment, did you? You automatically assumed criticism or sceptisism equals hatred.
I agree that there's a market for a store to sell Microsoft products. I'm just not convinced that imitating the Apple store concept is the correct way to implement such store.
There's a difference in trends. Analysts derided Apple's retail stores originally, too, but so did they for the iPod, iPhone, MacBook, iTunes Music Store, and other Apple products or services, which eventually grew to be exactly what the market wanted and very popular indeed.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has been praised effusively by analysts every time they come up with a new product or service, or enter a new market to which they are not familiar; be it their Zune, Table PCs, Songsmith, Plays4Shure, their campaign of $30M to fight Apple's TV commercials, and yes, even Windows Vista; and with some very few and notable exceptions, they all have flopped spectacularly.
I'm not saying that the Microsoft Stores will fail, I have no way of knowing that, but I would be reluctant to believe that after all these missteps, all of a sudden Microsoft has found the magic formula to being "cool" and popular with the kids, and to offering something that the masses really can get passionate about. Especially when this new venture smells so much like a cross-cultural translation of an Apple store.
Yeah, it reminds me of the burger joint in the movie "Coming to America", where it's trying to imitate a McDonald's restaurant by slightly changing the names, colors, and decor patterns, while keeping them mostly recognizable:
Name: McDowall's (McDonald's) Burger: Big Mik (Big Mac) Logo: Arcs of Gold (Golden Arches)
Likewise, the Microsoft store will sport an "Answers Bar" or "Guru Bar" (for Apple's "Genius Bar"), and trendy decor and layout very similar to an Apple store. Maybe they'll even change their four-colored Windows logo, cropped to the outline of an apple--but without the bite taken out of it; for differentiation, of course.
The problem (for them) is their ubiquity. People don't really get a choice of Microsoft's products; they choose a laptop or a PC, sure, but then it just comes with Windows. It's just a matter of fact, not individuality.
Tycho, of PennyArcade, said it best:
Microsoft wants people to resonate with the "brand" - they want to be liked for being Microsoft, and harvest the benefits of that affinity - and they've determined that having dedicated stores to contextualize their product will help them to define their destiny. But their ubiquity poses a serious challenge to this: it's awful hard to like something you can't actually choose. People can enjoy using their 360 or even their Zune, because those products exist in a continuum that includes other products - you can make a decision that reflects you in some way. On the desktop, and this is unfortunate for them, the only way to make a truly discriminating choice is to purchase a competitor's product.
You're thinking sensitive material as in the plans to the Death Star, or the combination to the bank's vault. However, sensitive material may just be a seemingly inocuous e-mail to your boss telling him how the business proposal was received, or a voice memo you prepared highlighting some new product ideas, while on the road to meet a client.
With a mobile phone? I would imagine that that is mandatory. Unless you bolt it to a chain and clamp it to your arm or something as such, the chances of losing or misplacing a mobile device is high. That's why wiping sensitive data on it when compromised is an acceptable protection.
I thought it stated already that China has as much insentive to avoid hostilities against us as we do.
That's what I don't understand of this whole China boogey-man: The argument seems to be, we must ramp up our military and weapons technology in case China tries to antagonize us; but when pointed out that China has a lot of economic power over us already and can antagonize us in other ways, the response is that our debt and mutual economic dependencies gives the U.S. the upper hand already.
So, is the potential of China attacking the U.S. a real threat? Just as long as it is militarily, because they wouldn't dare us touch us economically, is that it?
Thank you for your response. My comment was very simplistic, almost meant as a joke (which apparently many took seriously), but it was to highlight the precariousness of our economic situation.
I do not agree that we should fear the "big bad China" military might as much as others keep pointing out. There are many other ways that we could be undermined by other potential super powers, in particular, economically. And in any case--as many have pointed out, as well as yourself--China itself is in a precarious economic position due to their heavy investment in our economy.
If our economy implodes, whether by our own hand or not, I do not see us being able to maintain our military superiority. Sure, this won't happen as long as all things remain equal, but this precludes any change on the balance of world trade.
Slashdot Mirror
That may be so, but I've never seen it advertised as healthier based on nutrients. I've mostly seen it advertised as containing no artificial chemicals or enhancers, or growth hormones, which--as they say--may affect our metabolism or cause health issues.
Most people that I know who choose organic products do it based on their distrust to chemical and hormones enhancers.
-dZ.
Nice going troll!
It's not a matter of being a conspiracy theorist. Consider the facts: The study focuses on the nutritional value exclusively; not overall health benefits, of which nutritional value would be a factor. I don't know about you, but when I hear people talking about organic food, I've never heard it mentioned that one of their discriminating criteria is because it has a higher content of nutrients. Even advertisments and propaganda literature that promote organic products typically mention the fact that they contain no chemical enhancers or additional growth hormones, which can affect our metabolisms. It seems to me rather strange that these are precisely the factors that the study did not address.
If you have a large population of people clamoring for organic products on the basis of their lack of pesticides and growth hormones, and you want to fund a study to put an end to the debate once and for all and see whether the benefits are real or not; why would you engineer the study to avoid accounting for the very factors that make the products attractive to them?
Moreover, if you read the article, it has a slight cynical slant towards organic products and their consumers, starting from the headline "Organic 'has no health benefits'". I don't claim there was a conspiracy involved, but obviously the article (and the study) were composed to generate a negative impact against organically grown products.
To be sure, I don't think the study is wrong--I do not disagree with its outcome nor its methods. I only have a problem with its narrow focus (and the consequences of it taken at a simplistic face value); it should be taken in context with other studies which consider other potential health benefits apart from nutritional value alone.
-dZ.
>> But the point being, tech has improvement a lot and why not with food aswell.
Ah, Better Living Through Chemistry(TM). What does nature know about health? I mean, it's our body, we know what to put in it. After all, living in a concrete box, with indoor plumbing and sewage, instead of in a rock cave, is perfectly comparable to inducing our biological, organic digestive systems into processing chemically enhanced and artificially produced food-stuff, as opposed to the biological, organic matter it was designed to handle.
-dZ.
As snake!!!!!
-dZ.
I see, so "isn't a good method to use for writing anything" really means "isn't a practical method to use for writing in most modern environments", right?
I know, perfectly understandable typo; the keys are right next to each other.
-dZ.
Star Wars first came out in 1977. "The Black Hole" came out in 1979. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the movie that ruined your life.
-dZ.
You mean, vast and successful?
Just kidding!!! *ducks*
-dZ.
I have it on good authority that temperature data, as well as information, wants to be left the fsck alone.
-dZ.
You say "films" as if there was more than one.
-dZ.
And I agree with you both: I have this uncorroborated idea that since I've had some trouble reading some random people's hand-writing, then it stands to reason that no hand-writing can ever be legible, as a matter of incontrovertible truth. The fact that I have poor penmanship myself just proves this point beyond all doubt.
-dZ.
>> "Writing by hand isn't a good method to use for writing anything beyond two or three words."
Of course, this is the little known fact as to how computers were invented by the Ancient Egyptians, during the early Dynastic Period; and how we have been able to preserve recorded history for so long. Indeed, nothing of note was ever recorded in hand-writing; it is just not practical.
-dZ.
And I'd say that that's only because most people in the U.S. are not taught a proper and formalized "cursive" script, they are just given guidelines and left to their own devices. Have you ever read handwritten letters from other countries? I have, and I can cite as examples people from Argentina, Mexico, France (and even some small towns in the United States) where it doesn't matter who wrote the letter, everybody from the same region seems to share the same overall scripting style. The individual characteristics are few and minimal.
This is from my childhood experiences, writing to "pen-pals" from around the world. It always surprised me because I couldn't fathom how three different, random people from Argentina wrote in pretty much the same way; while at my school, I would be hard pressed to find any two of my friends that scripted with even a similar slant. I was told that they are given a very specific format to learn and follow, and that cursive teaching continued throughout most of their elementary school.
-dZ.
You didn't read my comment, did you? You automatically assumed criticism or sceptisism equals hatred.
I agree that there's a market for a store to sell Microsoft products. I'm just not convinced that imitating the Apple store concept is the correct way to implement such store.
-dZ.
There's a difference in trends. Analysts derided Apple's retail stores originally, too, but so did they for the iPod, iPhone, MacBook, iTunes Music Store, and other Apple products or services, which eventually grew to be exactly what the market wanted and very popular indeed.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has been praised effusively by analysts every time they come up with a new product or service, or enter a new market to which they are not familiar; be it their Zune, Table PCs, Songsmith, Plays4Shure, their campaign of $30M to fight Apple's TV commercials, and yes, even Windows Vista; and with some very few and notable exceptions, they all have flopped spectacularly.
I'm not saying that the Microsoft Stores will fail, I have no way of knowing that, but I would be reluctant to believe that after all these missteps, all of a sudden Microsoft has found the magic formula to being "cool" and popular with the kids, and to offering something that the masses really can get passionate about. Especially when this new venture smells so much like a cross-cultural translation of an Apple store.
-dZ.
You had flags??!
In my day we had to make our own! We had to plant them in three feet of snow, uphill both... er... ways.
Or sump'in.
-dZ.
Yeah, it reminds me of the burger joint in the movie "Coming to America", where it's trying to imitate a McDonald's restaurant by slightly changing the names, colors, and decor patterns, while keeping them mostly recognizable:
Name: McDowall's (McDonald's)
Burger: Big Mik (Big Mac)
Logo: Arcs of Gold (Golden Arches)
Likewise, the Microsoft store will sport an "Answers Bar" or "Guru Bar" (for Apple's "Genius Bar"), and trendy decor and layout very similar to an Apple store. Maybe they'll even change their four-colored Windows logo, cropped to the outline of an apple--but without the bite taken out of it; for differentiation, of course.
-dZ.
The problem (for them) is their ubiquity. People don't really get a choice of Microsoft's products; they choose a laptop or a PC, sure, but then it just comes with Windows. It's just a matter of fact, not individuality.
Tycho, of PennyArcade, said it best:
Microsoft wants people to resonate with the "brand" - they want to be liked for being Microsoft, and harvest the benefits of that affinity - and they've determined that having dedicated stores to contextualize their product will help them to define their destiny. But their ubiquity poses a serious challenge to this: it's awful hard to like something you can't actually choose. People can enjoy using their 360 or even their Zune, because those products exist in a continuum that includes other products - you can make a decision that reflects you in some way. On the desktop, and this is unfortunate for them, the only way to make a truly discriminating choice is to purchase a competitor's product.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2009/7/20/
-dZ.
You're thinking sensitive material as in the plans to the Death Star, or the combination to the bank's vault. However, sensitive material may just be a seemingly inocuous e-mail to your boss telling him how the business proposal was received, or a voice memo you prepared highlighting some new product ideas, while on the road to meet a client.
-dZ.
It's not encrypted, it's Base64-encoded!
Learn the difference. sheeeesh.
-dZ.
With a mobile phone? I would imagine that that is mandatory. Unless you bolt it to a chain and clamp it to your arm or something as such, the chances of losing or misplacing a mobile device is high. That's why wiping sensitive data on it when compromised is an acceptable protection.
-dZ.
I thought it stated already that China has as much insentive to avoid hostilities against us as we do.
That's what I don't understand of this whole China boogey-man: The argument seems to be, we must ramp up our military and weapons technology in case China tries to antagonize us; but when pointed out that China has a lot of economic power over us already and can antagonize us in other ways, the response is that our debt and mutual economic dependencies gives the U.S. the upper hand already.
So, is the potential of China attacking the U.S. a real threat? Just as long as it is militarily, because they wouldn't dare us touch us economically, is that it?
-dZ.
And everybody scoffs at the PHP guys, including the punch-card guys.
-dZ.
Exactly! So, tell me again, why are we afraid of China building up their weapons and overcoming us militarily?
-dZ.
I see. But we should be scared that they could nuke us at any time without consequences?
-dZ.
Thank you for your response. My comment was very simplistic, almost meant as a joke (which apparently many took seriously), but it was to highlight the precariousness of our economic situation.
I do not agree that we should fear the "big bad China" military might as much as others keep pointing out. There are many other ways that we could be undermined by other potential super powers, in particular, economically. And in any case--as many have pointed out, as well as yourself--China itself is in a precarious economic position due to their heavy investment in our economy.
If our economy implodes, whether by our own hand or not, I do not see us being able to maintain our military superiority. Sure, this won't happen as long as all things remain equal, but this precludes any change on the balance of world trade.
-dZ.