Sonic does not mean sound. Sound means sound. Sonic means relating to sound. In the case of sonic speed, it denotes the speed of sound in a given medium. In that context, subsonic, sonic, supersonic, transonic, and hypersonic should all technically be followed by the word "speed" but everyone just drops it because we all know what we are referring to.
The people in that office were not innocent. They were working for an evil entity. They deserved it, the families they built with that profit from evil deserve their loss.
Yeah, you tell them! Those Charlie Hebdo shooters had the right idea, amirite?
The fact that a Persian vegan woman is the perpetrator in this instance does not change the fact that the vast, vast majority of perpetrators of gun violence in this country are not Persian or women or vegan.
Yeah! Just like the vast mojority of police shooting victims aren't black!
Wait... what? NOW you want to talk about population statistics? And what about earlier?
It contains bits that are OK, but also many parts which are just as bad as your "zero vitamins are made from oxygen hydrogen and carbon" claim.
You can't tear down one point and declare yourself the winner when even a single one of my points regarding soil nutrients being proves you wrong.
I don't care about "winning"; I care about interesting discussions. With that "one point" you demonstrated that you have absolutely no knowledge about this subject, and that I am unlikely to get an interesting conversation out of you.
I couldn't help noticing that you spend the rest of your comment banging on about how lack of soil nutrients prevents growth when, originally, you were arguing against plants designed to grow in deficient soil. This just further reinforces my conclusion. You've wandered away from your original claim, have lost all semblance of what you were originally trying to say, and are just firing off "points" in random directions so that you can feel like you're in the right about something.
I have no interest in that. The one thing you were right about is that this is a very complex topic, and I'm not going to wade into it with you when everything about the discussion thusfar suggests that it will be uninteresting and unproductive.
Why would it be stupid, expensive and wasteful? The organic farmers I know save a lot of money by not using artificial fertilizers or pesticides. Does not sound expensive. Does not sound wasteful, and is most certainly not stupid.
No, they don't. You're being slimy and using the word "artificial" in a way that can have two meanings, but, either way, there are only two possible scenarios and neither one of them results in "saving money":
1. They don't use ANY fertilizer or pesticides, in which case they take a massive loss on production due to low growth and wastage to pests. They then charge you $15 for an apple so they can try and break even.
or
2. They use "natural" fertilisers and pesticides, in which case they're actually spending more money than conventional farmers... and still getting shittier results.
Either way, yes, it's expensive, wasteful, and stupid.
I'm actually tired about people that boast their non knowledge about a topic on the internet, where they never invested the time to research it a little bit...
The irony in that statement is absolutely hilarious. You are one of the most ignorant people on Slashdot. Every single one of your comments - regardless of the topic - makes it painfully obvious that you have no clue what you're talking about. I mean you make Pope Ratzo sound almost sane and knowledgeable in comparison. And yet you think you're the informed one, and that everyone else is ignorant?
Oh it's the typical overreaction of ignorant crowds. It'll correct in a few weeks, or a couple months tops. All the "bad news" is taken completely out of context; their finances are far better today then they were a year ago. The only reason to NOT buy stock now is if you think it was massively overpriced to begin with.
What makes you think they're more efficient in anything other than size and yield?
Science.
The same nutrients are simply being spread over a larger volume of plant.
[citation needed]
You keep repeating this as if it were established fact. It is not. I pointed out your error in my first comment, and you're just dancing around it and repeating the same thing over and over again.
While they may grown more "efficiently", such plants are nutritionally considerably less efficient as you need to eat more of them to obtain the same nutrient load.
Again, no evidence for this claim. Studies between "organic" and regular produce show that on average they're essentially the same. Moreover, even a slight variance wouldn't offset the larger benefit of increased yields which is, you know, people not starving. Even if we pretend that all of the vitamins in plants are pulled straight from the soil (they're not, but hell, I'll go along with your imagination) having millions of people who are marginally vitamin deficient would be far better than having millions who are literally starving to death.
Pot, meet kettle. What part of what I've said thus far has been dishonest?
"Oh, I'm not counting fertilizer so now my point is back in play!"
"Oh, now I'm counting fertilizer again because reasons!"
They stated in the video feed that it was going to be an "experimental landing" without an attempt to recover, which clearly means they were landing in the ocean.
Did you ever stop and think that the reason that the big automakers haven't pushed harder on EVs is because they don't want to, because they're all tooled up and researched to build ICEs?
I think this was precisely his point; if they wanted to, and were willing to cut down on their ICE production, they could pump out enough EVs to eclipse Tesla overnight. (whether those EVs would be as good as Tesla's designs is a different question)
But that is exactly what is happening in radar installation technicians, the organs without large internal blood movement for cooling, e.g. eyballs, become more susceptible to tumors and cancer and it is do to heating
And yeah why not obedience to an unseen invisible friend, what's the difference between that and any standard military or police training?
Well, in the later case:
1. The authority isn't invisible, can be shown to exist, and is subject to challenge. 2. They aren't taught blind obedience. At least not anywhere outside of third world dictatorships.
Not really. You're still assuming that plants are 100% effective at extracting nutrients from soil, which is really really dumb. If that were true you would never get more than 1 years growth out of any piece of land; all the nutrients would be gone and nothing would grow the next year.
Slashdot Mirror
Sonic does not mean sound. Sound means sound. Sonic means relating to sound. In the case of sonic speed, it denotes the speed of sound in a given medium. In that context, subsonic, sonic, supersonic, transonic, and hypersonic should all technically be followed by the word "speed" but everyone just drops it because we all know what we are referring to.
It'll take decades to clean up the mess DRRUUUMMPFF is making now.
That's not really true. If you elect another democrat I bet it will take them less than a year to get North Korea rattling their nuclear sabres again.
The people in that office were not innocent. They were working for an evil entity. They deserved it, the families they built with that profit from evil deserve their loss.
Yeah, you tell them! Those Charlie Hebdo shooters had the right idea, amirite?
Animals are her family? WTF?
I know there's a stereotype out there about Muslim men fornicating with barnyard animals, but I don't think you should take it THAT literally ...
I will.. From watching 30 seconds of her video she was clearly in the batshit crazy group.
Obviously. It says right in TFA that she's a vegan. You don't even need to watch her videos; it goes without saying that she's batshit crazy.
The fact that a Persian vegan woman is the perpetrator in this instance does not change the fact that the vast, vast majority of perpetrators of gun violence in this country are not Persian or women or vegan.
Yeah! Just like the vast mojority of police shooting victims aren't black!
Wait ... what? NOW you want to talk about population statistics? And what about earlier?
Yes, they're different, but unless Whole Foods were lobbying against this I don't see how it would effect how a Republican administration would act.
The organic industry has been lobbying against GMOs for years. Where the hell do you think idiotic laws like California's came from?
Why don't you simply google how it works?
Because then I would be just as poorly informed as you are.
So I learned something this morning, thank you.
You're welcome.
What of the rest of my post?
It contains bits that are OK, but also many parts which are just as bad as your "zero vitamins are made from oxygen hydrogen and carbon" claim.
You can't tear down one point and declare yourself the winner when even a single one of my points regarding soil nutrients being proves you wrong.
I don't care about "winning"; I care about interesting discussions. With that "one point" you demonstrated that you have absolutely no knowledge about this subject, and that I am unlikely to get an interesting conversation out of you.
I couldn't help noticing that you spend the rest of your comment banging on about how lack of soil nutrients prevents growth when, originally, you were arguing against plants designed to grow in deficient soil. This just further reinforces my conclusion. You've wandered away from your original claim, have lost all semblance of what you were originally trying to say, and are just firing off "points" in random directions so that you can feel like you're in the right about something.
I have no interest in that. The one thing you were right about is that this is a very complex topic, and I'm not going to wade into it with you when everything about the discussion thusfar suggests that it will be uninteresting and unproductive.
Why would it be stupid, expensive and wasteful?
The organic farmers I know save a lot of money by not using artificial fertilizers or pesticides.
Does not sound expensive. Does not sound wasteful, and is most certainly not stupid.
No, they don't. You're being slimy and using the word "artificial" in a way that can have two meanings, but, either way, there are only two possible scenarios and neither one of them results in "saving money":
1. They don't use ANY fertilizer or pesticides, in which case they take a massive loss on production due to low growth and wastage to pests. They then charge you $15 for an apple so they can try and break even.
or
2. They use "natural" fertilisers and pesticides, in which case they're actually spending more money than conventional farmers ... and still getting shittier results.
Either way, yes, it's expensive, wasteful, and stupid.
I'm actually tired about people that boast their non knowledge about a topic on the internet, where they never invested the time to research it a little bit ...
The irony in that statement is absolutely hilarious. You are one of the most ignorant people on Slashdot. Every single one of your comments - regardless of the topic - makes it painfully obvious that you have no clue what you're talking about. I mean you make Pope Ratzo sound almost sane and knowledgeable in comparison. And yet you think you're the informed one, and that everyone else is ignorant?
Mind blowing.
I spent thousands on the AppStore
How did that happen?
What do you mean? On the apple store that's like 5 apps and a song.
lol. Sure, switching to ARM will somehow make OSX more secure when they leave the root password blank.
Oh it's the typical overreaction of ignorant crowds. It'll correct in a few weeks, or a couple months tops. All the "bad news" is taken completely out of context; their finances are far better today then they were a year ago. The only reason to NOT buy stock now is if you think it was massively overpriced to begin with.
How many vitamins are comprised solely of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen? None.
The first one I googled was Vitamin C. Guess what. It's composed entirely of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon.
Second one I looked up was Vitamin A. Wanna guess at that one? Yep. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen.
Please just stop talking now.
What makes you think they're more efficient in anything other than size and yield?
Science.
The same nutrients are simply being spread over a larger volume of plant.
[citation needed]
You keep repeating this as if it were established fact. It is not. I pointed out your error in my first comment, and you're just dancing around it and repeating the same thing over and over again.
While they may grown more "efficiently", such plants are nutritionally considerably less efficient as you need to eat more of them to obtain the same nutrient load.
Again, no evidence for this claim. Studies between "organic" and regular produce show that on average they're essentially the same. Moreover, even a slight variance wouldn't offset the larger benefit of increased yields which is, you know, people not starving. Even if we pretend that all of the vitamins in plants are pulled straight from the soil (they're not, but hell, I'll go along with your imagination) having millions of people who are marginally vitamin deficient would be far better than having millions who are literally starving to death.
Pot, meet kettle. What part of what I've said thus far has been dishonest?
"Oh, I'm not counting fertilizer so now my point is back in play!"
"Oh, now I'm counting fertilizer again because reasons!"
Different plants need different nutrients, fertilizers often get applied
But you just said this doesn't apply because you're not counting things like fertilizer.
but most often farmers will rotate crops so they aren't growing the same crop on the same land multiple years in a row.
No shit? And what stops them from doing that while growing more efficient crops?
You aren't too familiar with agriculture, are ya?
No, it's not that; I just thought I was dealing with an honest person. My bad.
They stated in the video feed that it was going to be an "experimental landing" without an attempt to recover, which clearly means they were landing in the ocean.
Yes, but keep in mind that the shuttle's failure rate was well below the planned for failure rate by more than an order of magnitude.
I think you mean well above, right? Or do you really think they expected 20 of them to blow up?
Holy crap. I haven't been posting attention to the market recently, so thanks! Great time to buy.
Did you ever stop and think that the reason that the big automakers haven't pushed harder on EVs is because they don't want to, because they're all tooled up and researched to build ICEs?
I think this was precisely his point; if they wanted to, and were willing to cut down on their ICE production, they could pump out enough EVs to eclipse Tesla overnight. (whether those EVs would be as good as Tesla's designs is a different question)
The two of you seem to be in violent agreement.
But that is exactly what is happening in radar installation technicians, the organs without large internal blood movement for cooling, e.g. eyballs, become more susceptible to tumors and cancer and it is do to heating
[Citation needed]
And yeah why not obedience to an unseen invisible friend, what's the difference between that and any standard military or police training?
Well, in the later case:
1. The authority isn't invisible, can be shown to exist, and is subject to challenge.
2. They aren't taught blind obedience. At least not anywhere outside of third world dictatorships.
Other than that it's like totally the same.
There's nothing weird about this, GMOs are backed by very large companies. Ultimately, that's all that matters.
Right. Unlike the "organic" market backed by teeny tiny multi-billion dollar corporations like whole foods. Totally different things!
What exactly is wrong with "organic"?
It's stupid, wasteful, expensive, and provides no tangible benefit. But other than that it's great!
Not really. You're still assuming that plants are 100% effective at extracting nutrients from soil, which is really really dumb. If that were true you would never get more than 1 years growth out of any piece of land; all the nutrients would be gone and nothing would grow the next year.