When you read the words "new theory" and you're not an academic researching in the same field, you should ignore it, because that means it isn't yet well-established.
When you see words like "new theory" next to words that talk about the speaker's qualifications, you should understand that you're being sold something. If there was something newly considered proven, the appeal would be to a published study and the published studies that verified it, not to the letters next to a speaker's name.
Don't be credulous of authority, printing letters next to a name is cheap and easy.
Horse shit, you're an idiot if you think they're adding shit for health reasons, as if food processors are Mother Teresa.
They add ascorbic acid as a preservative. They're required to add stuff to prevent spoilage. They use ascorbic acid because it is cheap and people don't complain.
Also, it is well established that Americans who eat processed meat have a higher rate of colon cancer. It isn't a theoretical harm that might not exist, because [some stupid theory that doesn't explain the increased cancer rate].
Person A says says something. Person B listens, and then says something different. Person A said the thing that Person B said: a) True b) False c) Not enough information
You chose C, and you're wrong. Don't be a credulous moron. This is not a hard one.
This is why we need to get past nuclear phobias that keep us from using radiation to treat foods to vastly increase their shelf lives SAFELY. The radiation passes through, killing those bad microbes, and leaves no residual radiation. "Science", anyone??
You have to use a different word, like "electron sterilization," or "x-ray sterilization."
As for your appeal to science, please stop. You clearly don't understand the science, you only understand that people you believe are sciencey said that it is safe. That doesn't mean you understand the science. The radiation doesn't just "pass through," if it did there would be no sterilizing effect. You're not going to explain the science, because people aren't going to understand that it is absorbed by the food, but that absorbing radiation doesn't make something radioactive. Just like, sitting under the lightbulb doesn't cause you to emit light yourself when it is turned off. If the average person thought of the photons coming out of the lightbulb when you say "radiation," then they'd be capable of understanding it. But they don't, so they can't. And the people trying are usually just virtue signaling anyways.
And if you use electron sterilization, there is residual radiation, because the food remains ionized. Now you get to explain to people why you lied to them about the science, and they want to know if they can really trust you. LOL Better is to stop using the word that confuses them in the first place, instead of trying to give them a simple-but-false explanation. People understand that electricity is dangerous to touch, but the electrified object is safe later. So they can understand that electron sterilization is safe. Same for x-rays.
Don't just wave your hands with the word "toxic" like that, it is inaccurate.
Toxic is relative, not absolute; making something toxic to certain bacteria doesn't make the food "toxic" at all. Is it toxic to humans or not? If not, then it is misleading to use the bare word "toxic" to describe it, you should instead say "toxic to some specific type of creature."
Salt is not toxic to humans. The Japanese eat the most salt of any country, and they also have the longest lifespan.
More people eat processed meat than smoke, and for poor people, they'll have a harder time quitting.
For the poor, the choices are between eating processed meat, or not eating meat.
It isn't addictive, but it is a matter of basic freedom for them. They're not going to change their food culture. And there is no good reason why it is currently so harmful.
It is amazing how stupid people are. Not only should it have been obvious before the specific data came in, for the reasons you mention, but it has been years now where the studies are showing that eating "processed meat products" is a major factor in the increased rate of colon cancer in the US.
The neckbeards start wailing about how they'll die without their daily 10lb of bacon, without even considering that the problem has nothing to do with the pig meat, and if these chemicals get removed, bacon will still be made out of pig meat.
It isn't the bacon that is the problem, it is the additives. And they put it in all the processed meat products; lunch meat, hot dogs, bacon, ground beef, everything in the frozen aisle that has meat that isn't a whole cut.
They don't care about the soil, because they're running off an aquifer that they're depleting rapidly.
It will be the Central Desert when the stored water runs out. The land has sunk an average 28ft in the past hundred years. That's entirely from reductions in the water table. They only get 20 inches of rain per year at the north end, and 5 inches at the south end. That's not even close to enough for any of their high-value crops; and some years they don't get any rain at all!
In the midwest they're also using up their stored water. The difference is, they get enough annual rainfall that the farmers who still have soil will be able to grow other crops, even if they won't still be able to grow so much corn.
Many farmers practice no-till on some crops, but do till some of their fields. Often combined with crop rotation, such that the field might get ploughed at some point during the cycle, but it isn't tilled as part of the planting.
If the soil was continuously tilled for 50+ years you can't just go straight to no-till. You have to reduce it gradually and rebuild the soil.
But I am surprised that there are people in the world who are aware enough about the existence of farming to talk about it, but think that cover crops are an "experimental" idea.
I thought you were supposed to maintain the state in whatever framework you're using to generate the docker containers?
I guess that is the problem; the more common practice is to receive containers rather than to build them. So whatever state you need is tacked onto the side.
IMO if you're using cloud computing to run your services, it should only be providing horizontal scaling. Nothing else should change. In that way of thinking, the statelessness is something you build into parts of your architecture by compartmentalizing the state in such a way that the parts that scale horizontally are stateless at runtime. This has to be done from inside the problem domain, it isn't going to be turn-key and also fit well. Docker is useful as a container, but a container isn't a framework. It is like having a nice lunch box; it tells you nothing about the lunch inside. And simply trading lunches with people who have nice lunch boxes doesn't imply that your personal dietary needs will be met.
Cloud computing solves the problem, "What happens when you need two mainframes? Or maybe three? And what if it changes from hour to hour?" Unfortunately, a lot of devs treat it as "Geocities for elite programmers" and forget to also plan their architecture before they implement it.
When I first heard about devops it was in the Ruby web dev community ~2007, and it referred to a role that was a liaison between the programmers and the sysadmins. Their job was to understand the dictates of the BOFH, and to help the programmers find a way to implement what they wanted in a way that was consistent with all the organizational rules. Mostly security or technology restrictions.
Then whoever decided to pay to hype it changed it to mean some sort of management service, a type of telemetry for the PHB to measure the team. It doesn't seem to even be a role on the team anymore, but instead a service where you pay consultants to spy on your team. I guess the idea is to externalize the resulting hate? It doesn't seem to be working.
The most popular local chain supermarket (WinCo) doesn't even accept CC! lol
So there are still stores at the other end of the spectrum. They do accept debit, though.
They also don't have baggers; you do that yourself. Keeps prices lower. It is better though IMO because if I bag it myself I know how it is packed and I know how to carry all the bags without injuring any fruits or veggies. At other stores I have to do the "self checkout" just to be allowed to bag!
Attempting to cause an unnecessary expense by going out of your way to procure small change is likely a separate tort on its own.
At a minimum, it shows bad faith.
There are probably edge cases where you could force them to accept it, for example if the debt was a royalty on vending machine receipts, and you paid by turning over the portion of collected quarters that you had set aside for them. But if you deposited the quarters in the bank, and then went out of your way to get different quarters to pay them with, then you're just trying to harm them by manufacturing a hassle.
As far as services like hair salons, I find that it is widely appreciated by service workers if you tip in cash even when paying with a credit card.
I entered one hair salon last year where they not only required CC payments, you had to actually sign up and give them a bunch of personal information just to get a hair cut. There were at least 5 employees there, and no other prospective customers, and yet they somehow managed to appear surprised when I laughed at them and walked out. I walked about half a block to find a small barber shop, where I only had to wait 10 minutes and received traditional service.
So that's my advice; if you don't like the policy, walk. There will be others who value your cash.
The fastest way to get rid of the cop is to insist that you want to charge the person from the store with filing a false report. The cop will very quickly be telling everybody, "this is a civil matter, this is a civil matter, this is a civil matter..."
It is a crime to accuse you of stealing if you attempted to pay, but no cop is going to take that report because it won't be consistent with their department policies. So they'll exit-stage-left very quickly.
If you don't say any "magic words," they might actually decide that you're a jerk and spend a bunch of time making you sit around next to their flashing lights looking like you're a Bad Guy.(TM)
I’ve eaten at lots of Chinese restaurants, and I’ve never EVER been in one which doesn’t take credit cards.
Apparently not all of the ones in China Town that lack an English storefront, and are also not visible from the street.;)
The Asian Market I shop at is run by a nice couple from Hong Kong. They definitely accept the full range of credit cards. But if you want to be a valued regular who gets high quality service, like having them order the brands you like that they stopped carrying, or if you want them to set aside a box of some sort of vegetable for you during the week before a holiday, then you should probably get used to bringing cash.
And if you want a birds nest, it costs $750. If you're using a CC, I highly doubt they have any in stock.
That's the thing about the "right" to privacy; it doesn't actually protect, or attempt to protect, your privacy. It protects your rights as you attempt to implement privacy. It is similar to the concept of a "trade secret" where the rights only exist as long you as you succeeded in keeping it secret/private.
It is about protecting you from being punished for refusing to turn out your pockets, not a protection against somebody looking at what accidentally falls out of your pockets.
Or put another way, you have a right to your desire for privacy, rather than a right to actually have privacy.
That's fair, but they're under no obligation to give you change.
Bullshit! They're under no obligation to immediately give you change in cash, but they're absolutely under obligation to give you change eventually. Keeping the surplus portion would be theft.
And no need to get hand-wavy; if they refused to accept the cash, they also waived their right to accuse you of "theft of services." It doesn't matter who refuses. If they've refused to accept, it is merely a civil debt, you can come back and pay them later, just the same as they can try to make you wait.
Slashdot Mirror
Normally kraut is made from cabbage, maybe that is why the flavor was off?
Maybe they accidentally served you raw meat instead.
When you read the words "new theory" and you're not an academic researching in the same field, you should ignore it, because that means it isn't yet well-established.
When you see words like "new theory" next to words that talk about the speaker's qualifications, you should understand that you're being sold something. If there was something newly considered proven, the appeal would be to a published study and the published studies that verified it, not to the letters next to a speaker's name.
Don't be credulous of authority, printing letters next to a name is cheap and easy.
Horse shit, you're an idiot if you think they're adding shit for health reasons, as if food processors are Mother Teresa.
They add ascorbic acid as a preservative. They're required to add stuff to prevent spoilage. They use ascorbic acid because it is cheap and people don't complain.
Also, it is well established that Americans who eat processed meat have a higher rate of colon cancer. It isn't a theoretical harm that might not exist, because [some stupid theory that doesn't explain the increased cancer rate].
Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't.
No, absolutely not.
Person A says says something.
Person B listens, and then says something different.
Person A said the thing that Person B said:
a) True
b) False
c) Not enough information
You chose C, and you're wrong. Don't be a credulous moron. This is not a hard one.
I smoke. As Andrew Dice Clay pointed out, if second hand smoke is worse than "first hand" smoke, I made the right choice then didn't I?
That just means you're less stupid than whoever is willing to be your friend or family member.
There is nothing wrong with cured meat. The problem is with chemical additives.
Italians have traditional meat curing processes. The resulting meats are expensive, but safe.
I call BS on your reading comprehension.
This is why we need to get past nuclear phobias that keep us from using radiation to treat foods to vastly increase their shelf lives SAFELY. The radiation passes through, killing those bad microbes, and leaves no residual radiation. "Science", anyone??
You have to use a different word, like "electron sterilization," or "x-ray sterilization."
As for your appeal to science, please stop. You clearly don't understand the science, you only understand that people you believe are sciencey said that it is safe. That doesn't mean you understand the science. The radiation doesn't just "pass through," if it did there would be no sterilizing effect. You're not going to explain the science, because people aren't going to understand that it is absorbed by the food, but that absorbing radiation doesn't make something radioactive. Just like, sitting under the lightbulb doesn't cause you to emit light yourself when it is turned off. If the average person thought of the photons coming out of the lightbulb when you say "radiation," then they'd be capable of understanding it. But they don't, so they can't. And the people trying are usually just virtue signaling anyways.
And if you use electron sterilization, there is residual radiation, because the food remains ionized. Now you get to explain to people why you lied to them about the science, and they want to know if they can really trust you. LOL Better is to stop using the word that confuses them in the first place, instead of trying to give them a simple-but-false explanation. People understand that electricity is dangerous to touch, but the electrified object is safe later. So they can understand that electron sterilization is safe. Same for x-rays.
Don't just wave your hands with the word "toxic" like that, it is inaccurate.
Toxic is relative, not absolute; making something toxic to certain bacteria doesn't make the food "toxic" at all. Is it toxic to humans or not? If not, then it is misleading to use the bare word "toxic" to describe it, you should instead say "toxic to some specific type of creature."
Salt is not toxic to humans. The Japanese eat the most salt of any country, and they also have the longest lifespan.
You're either European, or you live in a really bad neighborhood if that many people around you smoke.
And I'm from a city with a lot of vegetarians.
More people eat processed meat than smoke, and for poor people, they'll have a harder time quitting.
For the poor, the choices are between eating processed meat, or not eating meat.
It isn't addictive, but it is a matter of basic freedom for them. They're not going to change their food culture. And there is no good reason why it is currently so harmful.
It is amazing how stupid people are. Not only should it have been obvious before the specific data came in, for the reasons you mention, but it has been years now where the studies are showing that eating "processed meat products" is a major factor in the increased rate of colon cancer in the US.
The neckbeards start wailing about how they'll die without their daily 10lb of bacon, without even considering that the problem has nothing to do with the pig meat, and if these chemicals get removed, bacon will still be made out of pig meat.
It isn't the bacon that is the problem, it is the additives. And they put it in all the processed meat products; lunch meat, hot dogs, bacon, ground beef, everything in the frozen aisle that has meat that isn't a whole cut.
They don't care about the soil, because they're running off an aquifer that they're depleting rapidly.
It will be the Central Desert when the stored water runs out. The land has sunk an average 28ft in the past hundred years. That's entirely from reductions in the water table. They only get 20 inches of rain per year at the north end, and 5 inches at the south end. That's not even close to enough for any of their high-value crops; and some years they don't get any rain at all!
In the midwest they're also using up their stored water. The difference is, they get enough annual rainfall that the farmers who still have soil will be able to grow other crops, even if they won't still be able to grow so much corn.
Many farmers practice no-till on some crops, but do till some of their fields. Often combined with crop rotation, such that the field might get ploughed at some point during the cycle, but it isn't tilled as part of the planting.
If the soil was continuously tilled for 50+ years you can't just go straight to no-till. You have to reduce it gradually and rebuild the soil.
Wait, what?! Growing weeds doesn't improve soil quality?? How could it be true?! lolol
I'm not surprised that they're this stupid.
But I am surprised that there are people in the world who are aware enough about the existence of farming to talk about it, but think that cover crops are an "experimental" idea.
I thought you were supposed to maintain the state in whatever framework you're using to generate the docker containers?
I guess that is the problem; the more common practice is to receive containers rather than to build them. So whatever state you need is tacked onto the side.
IMO if you're using cloud computing to run your services, it should only be providing horizontal scaling. Nothing else should change. In that way of thinking, the statelessness is something you build into parts of your architecture by compartmentalizing the state in such a way that the parts that scale horizontally are stateless at runtime. This has to be done from inside the problem domain, it isn't going to be turn-key and also fit well. Docker is useful as a container, but a container isn't a framework. It is like having a nice lunch box; it tells you nothing about the lunch inside. And simply trading lunches with people who have nice lunch boxes doesn't imply that your personal dietary needs will be met.
Cloud computing solves the problem, "What happens when you need two mainframes? Or maybe three? And what if it changes from hour to hour?" Unfortunately, a lot of devs treat it as "Geocities for elite programmers" and forget to also plan their architecture before they implement it.
Who asked you to whine?
I did. I was listening to Astral Plane by Jonathan Richman, and I thought, "gosh, are these devops guys just astral travelers, or what?"
Now, thanks to SirAstral, we know the answer. Or to paraphrase, "revolution in, revolution out."
When I first heard about devops it was in the Ruby web dev community ~2007, and it referred to a role that was a liaison between the programmers and the sysadmins. Their job was to understand the dictates of the BOFH, and to help the programmers find a way to implement what they wanted in a way that was consistent with all the organizational rules. Mostly security or technology restrictions.
Then whoever decided to pay to hype it changed it to mean some sort of management service, a type of telemetry for the PHB to measure the team. It doesn't seem to even be a role on the team anymore, but instead a service where you pay consultants to spy on your team. I guess the idea is to externalize the resulting hate? It doesn't seem to be working.
The most popular local chain supermarket (WinCo) doesn't even accept CC! lol
So there are still stores at the other end of the spectrum. They do accept debit, though.
They also don't have baggers; you do that yourself. Keeps prices lower. It is better though IMO because if I bag it myself I know how it is packed and I know how to carry all the bags without injuring any fruits or veggies. At other stores I have to do the "self checkout" just to be allowed to bag!
Attempting to cause an unnecessary expense by going out of your way to procure small change is likely a separate tort on its own.
At a minimum, it shows bad faith.
There are probably edge cases where you could force them to accept it, for example if the debt was a royalty on vending machine receipts, and you paid by turning over the portion of collected quarters that you had set aside for them. But if you deposited the quarters in the bank, and then went out of your way to get different quarters to pay them with, then you're just trying to harm them by manufacturing a hassle.
As far as services like hair salons, I find that it is widely appreciated by service workers if you tip in cash even when paying with a credit card.
I entered one hair salon last year where they not only required CC payments, you had to actually sign up and give them a bunch of personal information just to get a hair cut. There were at least 5 employees there, and no other prospective customers, and yet they somehow managed to appear surprised when I laughed at them and walked out. I walked about half a block to find a small barber shop, where I only had to wait 10 minutes and received traditional service.
So that's my advice; if you don't like the policy, walk. There will be others who value your cash.
The fastest way to get rid of the cop is to insist that you want to charge the person from the store with filing a false report. The cop will very quickly be telling everybody, "this is a civil matter, this is a civil matter, this is a civil matter..."
It is a crime to accuse you of stealing if you attempted to pay, but no cop is going to take that report because it won't be consistent with their department policies. So they'll exit-stage-left very quickly.
If you don't say any "magic words," they might actually decide that you're a jerk and spend a bunch of time making you sit around next to their flashing lights looking like you're a Bad Guy.(TM)
Very few Chinese restaurants take credit cards.
I’ve eaten at lots of Chinese restaurants, and I’ve never EVER been in one which doesn’t take credit cards.
Apparently not all of the ones in China Town that lack an English storefront, and are also not visible from the street. ;)
The Asian Market I shop at is run by a nice couple from Hong Kong. They definitely accept the full range of credit cards. But if you want to be a valued regular who gets high quality service, like having them order the brands you like that they stopped carrying, or if you want them to set aside a box of some sort of vegetable for you during the week before a holiday, then you should probably get used to bringing cash.
And if you want a birds nest, it costs $750. If you're using a CC, I highly doubt they have any in stock.
You might want to slow down on the hur-dur and figure out what you're trying to say.
You used the phrases "human right" and "civil right" but I think you actually meant to be differentiating between "natural rights" and "legal rights."
That's the thing about the "right" to privacy; it doesn't actually protect, or attempt to protect, your privacy. It protects your rights as you attempt to implement privacy. It is similar to the concept of a "trade secret" where the rights only exist as long you as you succeeded in keeping it secret/private.
It is about protecting you from being punished for refusing to turn out your pockets, not a protection against somebody looking at what accidentally falls out of your pockets.
Or put another way, you have a right to your desire for privacy, rather than a right to actually have privacy.
That's fair, but they're under no obligation to give you change.
Bullshit! They're under no obligation to immediately give you change in cash, but they're absolutely under obligation to give you change eventually. Keeping the surplus portion would be theft.
And no need to get hand-wavy; if they refused to accept the cash, they also waived their right to accuse you of "theft of services." It doesn't matter who refuses. If they've refused to accept, it is merely a civil debt, you can come back and pay them later, just the same as they can try to make you wait.