I think the fact that the USAG won't guarantee his constitutional right to a fair trial is as horrifying of an indicator of how corrupted the US gov't has become in the post-911 era as any I can think of.
Well, of course they do it to save money. But consider a fairly close analogy: if they are selling alcoholic beverages which are as comparatively contaminated and devoid of alcohol as these tests show, would they get away with it? Of course not. Why? Because people would notice. Why? Because, for its intended purpose, alcohol very clearly works.
And I'm not saying *no* supplements work, I take several regularly myself (including turmeric, though I don't buy it as a supplement). But the point remains, if they are knowingly putting some random organic detritus in a capsule and calling it ginseng and taking the risk of getting caught doing so, they are making a rather hefty wager on the belief that consumers won't know the difference.
That makes me want to go out buy some random homeopathic remedy just to try to angrily return it.
"I paid good money for this water that contains no Rhus Tox. When I brought it home, it was clear that it actually contained no Hypericum. You FRAUD!!!"
First of all, they are not "counterfeiters"; they purport to be the "legitimate" manufacturers of supplements who are passing off fraudulent substances as genuine. A counterfeiter would be someone else trying to pass off fraudulent supplements as the "good" brands.
Secondly, all of the items you mention must at some level serve the function/perception of the legitimate product. You can't pass off counterfeit money that doesn't even look like real money, counterfeit electronics that don't work at all, etc.; or in other words, you are counting on someone not noticing (or caring about) the difference.
So, yes, I will stand by my assertion, if so-called "legitimate" manufacturers of these supplements are selling absolutely fraudulent goods, then they must certainly believe that no one would notice the difference, and by extension, that the "real thing" has no effect that the consumer would miss.
What's the big deal? Instead of getting "Useless Compound X," buyers were getting "Useless Compound Y."
Well, if nothing else, it certainly shows that the manufacturers believe the 'bona fide' supplements are useless, as they would have to be pretty well convinced that no one would know the difference to engage in fraud on such a scale.
I can't speak for GP, but I don't have a problem with lingo or jargon per se, it's *meaningless* market-droid buzzwords that bug me. I don't see people complaining much about the vast amount of never-ending jargon in the tech world, until it comes to things like "Web 2.0", "Cloud", and "Internet of Things" that vaguely repackage existing concepts designed to appeal to the PHB hive mind.
Actually, I would "villify" that you wrote "5 languages" then listed six...seven if you count C and C++ as separate languages as most people do. Oh, and that you misspelled "vilify".
To my mind, true "common sense" is what the GP describes, intuition guided by common experiences, not always accurate but useful in situations where you have no other information to go on.
Your understanding of "common sense" is what I would call "conventional wisdom", sometimes correct but often horribly wrong.
"Common sense" as used by most people can mean either thing and unfortunately erases any distinction between intuitive thinking (generally a good thing, IMO) and groupthink (not so much).
I rember buying the tripple album of Emerson Lake and Palmer. 3 (three) albums. That was unheard of.
Well, not exactly unheard of. The original Woodstock soundtrack, George Harrison's All Thing's Must Pass, Grateful Dead's Europe '72, and Yessongs are just a few well-known examples of triple LP releases that predate ELP's triple live album.
Don't know what to tell you, but I've toured I-don't-know-how-many US/Canadian brewpubs and they were all single-step infusion set ups. I can't speak to your buddy's homebrew machine, but in many ways a home brewery can be much more flexible than a small commercial brewery. Generally speaking, to do proper step-mashing you need a separate vessel for heating the mash in addition to the lautering vessel, which is obviously more costly and takes up more space. You can do limited step mashing in a single mash vessel set up by adding more hot water, but there are limitations to what you can do there.
As the AC noted above, opinions differ on the subject, but also note that I said 'difficult', not 'impossible'. However, having done both, my opinion is that decoction mashing produces a flavor profile that specialty grains can not.
From my understanding, the most successful breweries are not as concerned about their recipes being stolen because they have a proprietary yeast strain that they own and no one else can get.
Not to mention...not all breweries are the same. For instance, many German brewers use a traditional method called decoction mashing where portions of the mash are drawn off and boiled and then returned to the main mash to raise the temperatures for various enzymatic reactions, which will yield malty flavors that are difficult to achieve otherwise. Very few breweries outside Europe have this capability, in fact many smaller US craft breweries only allow for one step infusion mashing (hot water added to grain where the mash can only have one temperature stage) which limits the kinds of malts that can be used as the lightest and least modified malts require multiple stages of temperature rests. This is why it is exceeding rare for N. American breweries to be able to fully reproduce the flavors of e.g., a German Pils.
So much of brewing relies on process that just knowing the "recipe" (i.e., just the specific ingredients) is not a guarantee of being able to reproduce the beer.
It's perfectly fine to use the English plural of English words, whatever language they're borrowed from...
As with much of the English language, it depends on the specific case. If you were to use "datums", "agendums", "bacteriums", or "criterions" instead of "data", "agenda", "bacteria", or "criteria", those would be nearly universally considered incorrect. There is not much rhyme or reason other than how the usage evolved in practice.
Not trying to be pedantic, just pointing out that English has few hard and fast rules in that regard. And on that note, I'm off to meet up with some of my fellow alumnuses from college for a night at the opuses.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I think the fact that the USAG won't guarantee his constitutional right to a fair trial is as horrifying of an indicator of how corrupted the US gov't has become in the post-911 era as any I can think of.
Well, of course they do it to save money. But consider a fairly close analogy: if they are selling alcoholic beverages which are as comparatively contaminated and devoid of alcohol as these tests show, would they get away with it? Of course not. Why? Because people would notice. Why? Because, for its intended purpose, alcohol very clearly works.
And I'm not saying *no* supplements work, I take several regularly myself (including turmeric, though I don't buy it as a supplement). But the point remains, if they are knowingly putting some random organic detritus in a capsule and calling it ginseng and taking the risk of getting caught doing so, they are making a rather hefty wager on the belief that consumers won't know the difference.
That makes me want to go out buy some random homeopathic remedy just to try to angrily return it.
"I paid good money for this water that contains no Rhus Tox. When I brought it home, it was clear that it actually contained no Hypericum. You FRAUD!!!"
First of all, they are not "counterfeiters"; they purport to be the "legitimate" manufacturers of supplements who are passing off fraudulent substances as genuine. A counterfeiter would be someone else trying to pass off fraudulent supplements as the "good" brands.
Secondly, all of the items you mention must at some level serve the function/perception of the legitimate product. You can't pass off counterfeit money that doesn't even look like real money, counterfeit electronics that don't work at all, etc.; or in other words, you are counting on someone not noticing (or caring about) the difference.
So, yes, I will stand by my assertion, if so-called "legitimate" manufacturers of these supplements are selling absolutely fraudulent goods, then they must certainly believe that no one would notice the difference, and by extension, that the "real thing" has no effect that the consumer would miss.
Well, if nothing else, it certainly shows that the manufacturers believe the 'bona fide' supplements are useless, as they would have to be pretty well convinced that no one would know the difference to engage in fraud on such a scale.
I can't speak for GP, but I don't have a problem with lingo or jargon per se, it's *meaningless* market-droid buzzwords that bug me. I don't see people complaining much about the vast amount of never-ending jargon in the tech world, until it comes to things like "Web 2.0", "Cloud", and "Internet of Things" that vaguely repackage existing concepts designed to appeal to the PHB hive mind.
So, yes, I'm old.
A good overlord never waffles.
Actually, I would "villify" that you wrote "5 languages" then listed six...seven if you count C and C++ as separate languages as most people do. Oh, and that you misspelled "vilify".
But otherwise, good points.
To my mind, true "common sense" is what the GP describes, intuition guided by common experiences, not always accurate but useful in situations where you have no other information to go on.
Your understanding of "common sense" is what I would call "conventional wisdom", sometimes correct but often horribly wrong.
"Common sense" as used by most people can mean either thing and unfortunately erases any distinction between intuitive thinking (generally a good thing, IMO) and groupthink (not so much).
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Not to mention, "pedophile" refers to someone with sexual interest in prepubescent children, not 17 year olds.
Because it also smells like fish.
Well, not exactly unheard of. The original Woodstock soundtrack, George Harrison's All Thing's Must Pass, Grateful Dead's Europe '72, and Yessongs are just a few well-known examples of triple LP releases that predate ELP's triple live album.
I'd have gone with Night Train and MD 20/20.
Adjust your spectacles, old man. That's a dog taking a dump. Oh, the humanity!!
I was wondering if he might have received some "rectal rehydration".
...with liberty and justice for all. *
* Disclaimer: Must be 18 or over, void where prohibited, some restrictions may apply, not available in all states.
apologies to Doug Stanhope
Option 4: NSA has a surveillance tape of him with a Kenyan Muslim sheep.
I am reminded of the following exchange:
talk show host Joe Pyne: "So I guess your long hair makes you a woman."
Frank Zappa: "So I guess your wooden leg makes you a table."
Don't know what to tell you, but I've toured I-don't-know-how-many US/Canadian brewpubs and they were all single-step infusion set ups. I can't speak to your buddy's homebrew machine, but in many ways a home brewery can be much more flexible than a small commercial brewery. Generally speaking, to do proper step-mashing you need a separate vessel for heating the mash in addition to the lautering vessel, which is obviously more costly and takes up more space. You can do limited step mashing in a single mash vessel set up by adding more hot water, but there are limitations to what you can do there.
My first thought was: "Selfie stick? Is that new slang for a dildo?"
As the AC noted above, opinions differ on the subject, but also note that I said 'difficult', not 'impossible'. However, having done both, my opinion is that decoction mashing produces a flavor profile that specialty grains can not.
Excellent and comprehensive explanation.
Not to mention...not all breweries are the same. For instance, many German brewers use a traditional method called decoction mashing where portions of the mash are drawn off and boiled and then returned to the main mash to raise the temperatures for various enzymatic reactions, which will yield malty flavors that are difficult to achieve otherwise. Very few breweries outside Europe have this capability, in fact many smaller US craft breweries only allow for one step infusion mashing (hot water added to grain where the mash can only have one temperature stage) which limits the kinds of malts that can be used as the lightest and least modified malts require multiple stages of temperature rests. This is why it is exceeding rare for N. American breweries to be able to fully reproduce the flavors of e.g., a German Pils.
So much of brewing relies on process that just knowing the "recipe" (i.e., just the specific ingredients) is not a guarantee of being able to reproduce the beer.
As with much of the English language, it depends on the specific case. If you were to use "datums", "agendums", "bacteriums", or "criterions" instead of "data", "agenda", "bacteria", or "criteria", those would be nearly universally considered incorrect. There is not much rhyme or reason other than how the usage evolved in practice.
Not trying to be pedantic, just pointing out that English has few hard and fast rules in that regard. And on that note, I'm off to meet up with some of my fellow alumnuses from college for a night at the opuses. :)