It's unrealistic to expect or think everyone can grow their own vegetables. For a very small percentage of the population, that's fine. For the rest, it's pesticide laced, mass produced, vegetables or nothing. If y ou really expect people to get their recommended amount of vitamins from that shit, you tneed o expose yourself to the inner workings of the US Ag. community and see where and what mainstream produce come from.
The second part is my point in a nutshell. As for the first... As Ron Finley says, plant some shit. Even if you don't ever go outside or have a balcony, there are plants that grow just fine inside, are edible, and don't take much maintenance. Growing your own food really is like printing your own money. I have no clue why everyone has been fooled into thinking that food has to come from some corporation. If you grow from heirloom seeds, you can even keep your own seeds, which means you just need "seed money" to start, and after that, it's just the costs of lighting, water and soil/soil enhancers. Food scraps make great soil enhancers.
I'm not saying that everyone can replace their food 365 days a year by growing it all themselves; but even growing your own herbs and spices will significantly increase your vitamin and mineral intake. Buying your stuff in season from local organic growers will also help.
Now you might argue that this stuff costs too much -- but think about it: as far as return on nutrition, you're probably doing better to buy one tomato from the farmer's market than to sit down and eat an entire jar of pasta sauce.
This is the digital age... the best method is to re-tool the publication process. As part of the subscription service, have a questionnaire to fill out that personalizes the ads. As part of the publication process, include information about the subscriber in the ad holes -- you can even customize the content to some degree (in an automated manner) based on the subscriber.
This results in an excellent watermark, as each subscriber will have slightly different content. Just do rolling MD5 hashes, and you'll quickly figure out who's leaking the content. Then stop their subscription.
It comes back to the old "give them something to make it worth it" model -- if you make the subscription for more than "get a dead tree magazine in digital form" and add in the ability to provide online feedback for ads and content, do things to make the customer feel connected to what you're sharing with them, and as a side benefit get excellent demographics information for your advertisers, then even if the magazine itself is pirated all over the place, people will still subscribe, as you're providing them a service that goes beyond that.
One idea off the top of my head: have an online forum where subscribers can discuss the content -- close it off to everyone else. When you print the digital copy for the individual for the month, include the "top 5 posts in customer's chosen category" as part of the Letters sections, and maybe even a roll-up of all comments the customer left on the website since the last publication, plus responses to those by other customers. Costs virtually nothing, but would be an excellent hook and security mechanism.
There's a very good reason why multivitamins exist, and that's because it's non-trivial to get enough nutrients in even healthy foods. And that's assuming that you have the time and energy to properly select and prepare your foods. It also assumes that your body needs the same amount of nutrients as the information suggests. Which may or may not apply.
"Properly select and prepare" being key here.
I grow my own tomatoes in organic soil with known mineral content. They taste significantly different than hothouse tomatoes bought from the grocery store or produce stand. Why? Because the mineral content is significantly different, and they haven't been force-watered.
So it's important to know what's in the food you're actually buying, not just the type of food you're buying.
That's selection. Then there's preparation.
If you buy roasted salted almonds that have been sitting on the store shelf for a year prior to you bringing them home, they're going to have very different nutritional content than if you sourced the same almonds but got them fresh from the producer, brought them home and refrigerated them, and then roasted them (without salting) immediately prior to use. Even roasting vs. not roasting makes different vitamins and minerals accessible to your body; which is the really important thing here.
It doesn't matter how much iron, for example, you consume if it's in a form your body can't actually use for anything.
And these days, if you actually consume enough force-grown produce to give you traditionally healthy vitamin and mineral levels, you're likely getting a huge dose of hormones, pesticides, herbicides, and various other chemical cocktails. It gets even worse with meat.
There are Christian Extremists just like there are Muslim Extremists -- and there are Hindi Extremists as well, for that matter. The rest of the logic is left as an exercise for the reader.
Oh, I wasn't talking reuse; I know that these days, that's generally checked out as one of the first options. I'm talking about using water that's already available and deemed not potable. There's bound to be a lot of it sitting around from mining, heavy industry, etc.
there were officials sitting and watching the electronic tally in real time, with the IP addresses attached even, and they were able to spot it and track the IP to the physical location and get there before he was done. Am I the only one surprised at the level of security for a student election? I guess it has been a problem before, since they had this whole system set up for this...
Students aren't yet jaded, and those interested in politics take a very active part in it (and are often computer savvy as well, being young).
My point exactly. The actual fracking process itself, while it probably needs more study, seems generally pretty benign other than the huge volumes of water used. There are likely creative solutions for that too.
The main problem is with the people who own the operation not doing proper prep and cleanup.
I'd rather read a book from someone who lives humbly and serves humbly.
Donating billions of dollars to various charities is not humble?
That's right. Humility has nothing to do with how much money you give away. That's philanthropy.
One could even say that donating billions of dollars to specific charities shows a lack of humility, and a desire to control how things are done by others. While I would consider Bill Gates as MUCH more humble than the late Steve Jobs, I think you'll find Steve Wozniak has them both beat by many miles. Once he made it big, he immediately started seeing how he could use that money to make everyone's life better, even if there was no benefit for himself (financially, politically or in any other way other than "it feels good to help").
even if fracking itself is safe. The process contaminates millions of gallons of potable water that becomes hazardous waste. And it can never be reclaimed.
I wonder if frackers have experimented with using existing waste water instead of creating new waste water? Tailing ponds, treatment plant runoff, etc. It seems to me that there's already a LOT of waste water in holding ponds that would do much better buried in the shale. That would have the added benefit of not sucking the aquifers dry as fast (of course, aerated watering practices and shipping produce out of the aquifer's sustainable area are much more of an issue here than the millions of gallons used for fracking).
But what about the videos of people lighting their tap water. Are there explanations that don't directly implicate fracking? I asking seriously. I haven't read up on those films and I'm sure someone has a perfectly reasonable sounding story for how that could be.
And suppose the fracking chemicals themselves don't migrate. What about the petrochemicals they've broken loose (which is the whole reason for fracking in the first place, as I understand it)? Can those work their way up into the water supply?
As I understand it, when done properly, the petro and fracking chemicals either stay in the shale or end up back in the tankers.
The problem is, according to some studies, it's only done properly 20% of the time or less, due to the high costs of doing it properly and the lack of effective oversight.
In short, the chemicals usually migrate into the water supply due to dumping, accidents, and badly maintained equipment, not because they were properly injected into the shale/extracted and shipped to petrochemical companies.
The main issue does not appear to be that a properly administered site leaks fracking fluids into the drinking water... it's that most sites have no oversight and don't always handle the fracking fluids properly.
While it's useful to know that there isn't contamination from the properly injected deep-seam fracking fluids, this doesn't really help the people who are victims of sites where the injection column lelaked at drinking water levels, extra fluid was dumped at ground level, or any of the other hundreds of possible things that could happen... happened.
Yeah, and if you're upset tumblr did that you can go to flickr. Or photobucket. Or DeviantArt. Or imgur. Or...
If the municipal ISP starts filtering, you're pretty much SOL.
Huh? If you're upset with the municipal ISP, you get an exemption and go with a private carrier, and hope that they're better (they likely will be, as the municipal ISP is the baseline). Kind of like the postal system vs couriers.
The big media companies that actually make, and own, the TV programs, will only sell their cable channels in bundles.
The Cable company primarily delivers product to the customer, provides maintenance, tech support of the infrastructure, and bills the customer. The cable companies would sell individual channels, but the media companies would let them.
Is Time/Warner / Comcast / Cox a cable company or a media company?
Don't get fooled by the shell companies... it's the same people making the decisions at the end of the day. They just use the shells to provide layers of protection against collusion and culpability.
Government, on the other hand, doesn't shell well. If done right, the people responsible are actually held accountable.
ironic isnt it it the demands of the free market lead to a socialist solution.
Seems they believe in the if you build it they will come school of economics as opposed to if if you subsidise us we might build it. Damn Unamerican if you ask me.
Small scale Socialism is really good. (Individual chruches, Community) Large scale Socialism is really bad. (Federal / State Governments, THE CHURCH)
The majority of the developed world with successful socialist government would like to know why large scale socialism is really bad... sure, it gets abused, but so does capitalist government. There's nothing wrong with being social, as long as those being governed actually keep social ties to those governing. As soon as you build up a layer of bureaucracy between the two, the problems start. Bureaucracy is not socialism though.
Government invented the internet. Private companies made it useful.
Odd... I was happily using the Internet before private companies were allowed on it. Seemed quite useful to me for transferring files, allowing ease of access to information (yay Gopher/FTP/Archie/Veronica/Jughead/elm/nn/telnet)! and even selling my own stuff and doing remote work (yes, some of us could telecommute 20+ years ago).
The majority of what privatization has brought to the internet is a) entertainment and b) spam and malware. Everything else could probably be done just about as well without being connected to the Internet -- even without TCP/IP.
For that matter, CableNet really is an entertainment network that has a peering arrangement with the Internet already.
The;really good thing about the ay the country was originally designed was that it allowed for exactly this type of thing. While the federal government had very little to do with a persons life the State and the Local Community were able to much more. They had the ability do do many things. While the federal government guaranteed the right of the people to move freely to or away from these types of experiments.
Competition between States was a good thing.
Um, the towns that have tried to do this in the US have often fallen victim to lawsuits from private companies due to "unfair competition".
But that doesn't matter, because this town's not in the US. It's true that the way the country was originally designed allowed for exactly this type of thing. It also allows for Crown Corporations, where the people by default own stock in the incorporated entity. This leads to the public actually getting dividends and rebates when a crown corp turns a profit. It's somewhat surprising that this is in Alberta though, where privatization is a big thing, and I'd expect more American-style lawsuits regarding unfair competition.
Slashdot Mirror
It's unrealistic to expect or think everyone can grow their own vegetables. For a very small percentage of the population, that's fine. For the rest, it's pesticide laced, mass produced, vegetables or nothing. If y ou really expect people to get their recommended amount of vitamins from that shit, you tneed o expose yourself to the inner workings of the US Ag. community and see where and what mainstream produce come from.
The second part is my point in a nutshell. As for the first...
As Ron Finley says, plant some shit. Even if you don't ever go outside or have a balcony, there are plants that grow just fine inside, are edible, and don't take much maintenance. Growing your own food really is like printing your own money. I have no clue why everyone has been fooled into thinking that food has to come from some corporation. If you grow from heirloom seeds, you can even keep your own seeds, which means you just need "seed money" to start, and after that, it's just the costs of lighting, water and soil/soil enhancers. Food scraps make great soil enhancers.
I'm not saying that everyone can replace their food 365 days a year by growing it all themselves; but even growing your own herbs and spices will significantly increase your vitamin and mineral intake. Buying your stuff in season from local organic growers will also help.
Now you might argue that this stuff costs too much -- but think about it: as far as return on nutrition, you're probably doing better to buy one tomato from the farmer's market than to sit down and eat an entire jar of pasta sauce.
This is the digital age... the best method is to re-tool the publication process. As part of the subscription service, have a questionnaire to fill out that personalizes the ads. As part of the publication process, include information about the subscriber in the ad holes -- you can even customize the content to some degree (in an automated manner) based on the subscriber.
This results in an excellent watermark, as each subscriber will have slightly different content. Just do rolling MD5 hashes, and you'll quickly figure out who's leaking the content. Then stop their subscription.
It comes back to the old "give them something to make it worth it" model -- if you make the subscription for more than "get a dead tree magazine in digital form" and add in the ability to provide online feedback for ads and content, do things to make the customer feel connected to what you're sharing with them, and as a side benefit get excellent demographics information for your advertisers, then even if the magazine itself is pirated all over the place, people will still subscribe, as you're providing them a service that goes beyond that.
One idea off the top of my head: have an online forum where subscribers can discuss the content -- close it off to everyone else. When you print the digital copy for the individual for the month, include the "top 5 posts in customer's chosen category" as part of the Letters sections, and maybe even a roll-up of all comments the customer left on the website since the last publication, plus responses to those by other customers. Costs virtually nothing, but would be an excellent hook and security mechanism.
There's a very good reason why multivitamins exist, and that's because it's non-trivial to get enough nutrients in even healthy foods. And that's assuming that you have the time and energy to properly select and prepare your foods. It also assumes that your body needs the same amount of nutrients as the information suggests. Which may or may not apply.
"Properly select and prepare" being key here.
I grow my own tomatoes in organic soil with known mineral content. They taste significantly different than hothouse tomatoes bought from the grocery store or produce stand. Why? Because the mineral content is significantly different, and they haven't been force-watered.
So it's important to know what's in the food you're actually buying, not just the type of food you're buying.
That's selection. Then there's preparation.
If you buy roasted salted almonds that have been sitting on the store shelf for a year prior to you bringing them home, they're going to have very different nutritional content than if you sourced the same almonds but got them fresh from the producer, brought them home and refrigerated them, and then roasted them (without salting) immediately prior to use. Even roasting vs. not roasting makes different vitamins and minerals accessible to your body; which is the really important thing here.
It doesn't matter how much iron, for example, you consume if it's in a form your body can't actually use for anything.
And these days, if you actually consume enough force-grown produce to give you traditionally healthy vitamin and mineral levels, you're likely getting a huge dose of hormones, pesticides, herbicides, and various other chemical cocktails. It gets even worse with meat.
I'll take the bait. Ever been to Nigeria?
There are Christian Extremists just like there are Muslim Extremists -- and there are Hindi Extremists as well, for that matter. The rest of the logic is left as an exercise for the reader.
Oh, I wasn't talking reuse; I know that these days, that's generally checked out as one of the first options. I'm talking about using water that's already available and deemed not potable. There's bound to be a lot of it sitting around from mining, heavy industry, etc.
there were officials sitting and watching the electronic tally in real time, with the IP addresses attached even, and they were able to spot it and track the IP to the physical location and get there before he was done. Am I the only one surprised at the level of security for a student election? I guess it has been a problem before, since they had this whole system set up for this...
Students aren't yet jaded, and those interested in politics take a very active part in it (and are often computer savvy as well, being young).
He would have done better to frame his competition and win by default.
My point exactly. The actual fracking process itself, while it probably needs more study, seems generally pretty benign other than the huge volumes of water used. There are likely creative solutions for that too.
The main problem is with the people who own the operation not doing proper prep and cleanup.
I'd rather read a book from someone who lives humbly and serves humbly.
Donating billions of dollars to various charities is not humble?
That's right. Humility has nothing to do with how much money you give away. That's philanthropy.
One could even say that donating billions of dollars to specific charities shows a lack of humility, and a desire to control how things are done by others. While I would consider Bill Gates as MUCH more humble than the late Steve Jobs, I think you'll find Steve Wozniak has them both beat by many miles. Once he made it big, he immediately started seeing how he could use that money to make everyone's life better, even if there was no benefit for himself (financially, politically or in any other way other than "it feels good to help").
Like I said, it's hard to know who to trust these days. Seems like everyone has an agenda.
Everyone's always had an agenda -- the consequences of those agendas are just more likely to affect you in an understandable way these days.
even if fracking itself is safe. The process contaminates millions of gallons of potable water that becomes hazardous waste. And it can never be reclaimed.
I wonder if frackers have experimented with using existing waste water instead of creating new waste water? Tailing ponds, treatment plant runoff, etc. It seems to me that there's already a LOT of waste water in holding ponds that would do much better buried in the shale. That would have the added benefit of not sucking the aquifers dry as fast (of course, aerated watering practices and shipping produce out of the aquifer's sustainable area are much more of an issue here than the millions of gallons used for fracking).
But what about the videos of people lighting their tap water. Are there explanations that don't directly implicate fracking? I asking seriously. I haven't read up on those films and I'm sure someone has a perfectly reasonable sounding story for how that could be.
And suppose the fracking chemicals themselves don't migrate. What about the petrochemicals they've broken loose (which is the whole reason for fracking in the first place, as I understand it)? Can those work their way up into the water supply?
As I understand it, when done properly, the petro and fracking chemicals either stay in the shale or end up back in the tankers.
The problem is, according to some studies, it's only done properly 20% of the time or less, due to the high costs of doing it properly and the lack of effective oversight.
In short, the chemicals usually migrate into the water supply due to dumping, accidents, and badly maintained equipment, not because they were properly injected into the shale/extracted and shipped to petrochemical companies.
Indeed: http://www.howstuffworks.com/search.php?terms=fracking
The main issue does not appear to be that a properly administered site leaks fracking fluids into the drinking water... it's that most sites have no oversight and don't always handle the fracking fluids properly.
While it's useful to know that there isn't contamination from the properly injected deep-seam fracking fluids, this doesn't really help the people who are victims of sites where the injection column lelaked at drinking water levels, extra fluid was dumped at ground level, or any of the other hundreds of possible things that could happen... happened.
Anyone who tells you differently is selling you something.
Works well for CUDA anyway....
I wonder if they will notice a large population influx. /me calls his realtor
I think this is the idea... they want to become a major Tech hub for Alberta. Not a bad investment, as long as the system scales well.
Yeah, and if you're upset tumblr did that you can go to flickr. Or photobucket. Or DeviantArt. Or imgur. Or...
If the municipal ISP starts filtering, you're pretty much SOL.
Huh? If you're upset with the municipal ISP, you get an exemption and go with a private carrier, and hope that they're better (they likely will be, as the municipal ISP is the baseline). Kind of like the postal system vs couriers.
I disagree. Public resources should not be filtered.
I like my potable water drinkable from the tap, thank you very much.
The big media companies that actually make, and own, the TV programs, will only sell their cable channels in bundles.
The Cable company primarily delivers product to the customer, provides maintenance, tech support of the infrastructure, and bills the customer. The cable companies would sell individual channels, but the media companies would let them.
Is Time/Warner / Comcast / Cox a cable company or a media company?
Don't get fooled by the shell companies... it's the same people making the decisions at the end of the day. They just use the shells to provide layers of protection against collusion and culpability.
Government, on the other hand, doesn't shell well. If done right, the people responsible are actually held accountable.
why can't we have something like that is usa?
You can. So stop whining and buy some Congressmen. If the telco's can do it, B.F. KS can do it. Right?
You just gave me a great idea: a Kickstarter project for buying congress/lobbyists. I wonder if it would work?
I thought government was inefficient and can't do anything right? How would a super efficient private company ever have trouble competing?
These folks need to get their stories straight.
The answer is simple: this town is Olds, Alberta, Canada. Using the US governmental system as a measuring stick is not very useful in this case.
It's like the batshit crazy ex who doesn't want to be with you but also doesn't want anyone else being with you.
Either way, you're screwed.
I thought the opposite was the problem...?
ironic isnt it it the demands of the free market lead to a socialist solution.
Seems they believe in the if you build it they will come school of economics as opposed to if if you subsidise us we might build it. Damn Unamerican if you ask me.
Yeah; the town's in Alberta, Canada.
Small scale Socialism is really good. (Individual chruches, Community)
Large scale Socialism is really bad. (Federal / State Governments, THE CHURCH)
The majority of the developed world with successful socialist government would like to know why large scale socialism is really bad... sure, it gets abused, but so does capitalist government. There's nothing wrong with being social, as long as those being governed actually keep social ties to those governing. As soon as you build up a layer of bureaucracy between the two, the problems start. Bureaucracy is not socialism though.
Government invented the internet.
Private companies made it useful.
Odd... I was happily using the Internet before private companies were allowed on it. Seemed quite useful to me for transferring files, allowing ease of access to information (yay Gopher/FTP/Archie/Veronica/Jughead/elm/nn/telnet)! and even selling my own stuff and doing remote work (yes, some of us could telecommute 20+ years ago).
The majority of what privatization has brought to the internet is a) entertainment and b) spam and malware. Everything else could probably be done just about as well without being connected to the Internet -- even without TCP/IP.
For that matter, CableNet really is an entertainment network that has a peering arrangement with the Internet already.
The ;really good thing about the ay the country was originally designed was that it allowed for exactly this type of thing.
While the federal government had very little to do with a persons life the State and the Local Community were able to much more.
They had the ability do do many things. While the federal government guaranteed the right of the people to move freely to or away from these types of experiments.
Competition between States was a good thing.
Um, the towns that have tried to do this in the US have often fallen victim to lawsuits from private companies due to "unfair competition".
But that doesn't matter, because this town's not in the US. It's true that the way the country was originally designed allowed for exactly this type of thing. It also allows for Crown Corporations, where the people by default own stock in the incorporated entity. This leads to the public actually getting dividends and rebates when a crown corp turns a profit. It's somewhat surprising that this is in Alberta though, where privatization is a big thing, and I'd expect more American-style lawsuits regarding unfair competition.