targeted ads, my friend.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Whenever you go to pirate bay, they run ads telling you to sign up to talk to desperate Asian women.
Do you think they run ads in Asia telling people to sign up to talk to desperate American men?
true story. I can't tell you how many ads I get for penis reduction surgery
that means you must be actively searching "large penises". Whatever floats your boat!
it means i've been actively searching how to reduce the size of my enormous penis you dolt.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6316|Graz, Austria
I use AdBlock. I don't get any ads.
Stop taking bovine growth hormones.pirana6 wrote:
it means i've been actively searching how to reduce the size of my enormous penis you dolt.
You've been able to use solar power to turn salt water drinkable for millions of years.
http://qz.com/392138/audi-is-making-fue … and-water/
even better audi is making diesel from renewable energies and water.
even better audi is making diesel from renewable energies and water.
We finally invented evaporation!!DesertFox- wrote:
You've been able to use solar power to turn salt water drinkable for millions of years.
Did I sayDesertFox- wrote:
You've been able to use solar power to turn salt water drinkable for millions of years.
no I did notpirana6 wrote:
Check it out y'all, a brand new invention!
No, you didn't. However, I chose to misinterpret the poorly written headline for the sake of humor.pirana6 wrote:
Did I sayDesertFox- wrote:
You've been able to use solar power to turn salt water drinkable for millions of years.no I did notpirana6 wrote:
Check it out y'all, a brand new invention!
everything is a gmoRTHKI wrote:
chipotle stops using gmo in food. of course soda is a ok
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
There's no place for humor at bf2sDesertFox- wrote:
No, you didn't. However, I chose to misinterpret the poorly written headline for the sake of humor.pirana6 wrote:
Did I sayDesertFox- wrote:
You've been able to use solar power to turn salt water drinkable for millions of years.no I did notpirana6 wrote:
Check it out y'all, a brand new invention!
aww, you're on that train? Clearly there is no distinction!Jay wrote:
everything is a gmoRTHKI wrote:
chipotle stops using gmo in food. of course soda is a ok
Not really. Whether they grow a million generations of a plant, picking selective mutations along the way, or they splice genes in a lab, either way you're picking plants in a 'non-natural' way. The whole purity, natural, whole, organic thing is for morons really. They're selling a lifestyle at inflated cost and yuppies lap that shit up while gaining no real benefit except a lighter wallet.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
aww, you're on that train? Clearly there is no distinction!Jay wrote:
everything is a gmoRTHKI wrote:
chipotle stops using gmo in food. of course soda is a ok
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I don't disagree with you that both versions are modified. I think you are smart enough to understand what "GMO" as used in the context of the "GMO debate" means. You're not really doing any service by piping in and crying "b-b-b-but ALL food is GMO hurrr durr".
The organic vs. nonorganic debate is completely separate from the "GMO debate", in my opinion. I've always argued the GMO debate should be about the ownership of plant/animal genes from a property perspective (the idea of a for-profit entity owning a patent on a potentially live-saving food or cure still doesn't quite sit right with me). Luckily for my own sanity I don't get caught up in the stupid pro-organic or rah-rah GMO food is evil debate so I don't waste my time complaining about it.
You can refer to my very critical and well thought out arguments put forth in this post so I don't have to rehash here. It's a good read
The organic vs. nonorganic debate is completely separate from the "GMO debate", in my opinion. I've always argued the GMO debate should be about the ownership of plant/animal genes from a property perspective (the idea of a for-profit entity owning a patent on a potentially live-saving food or cure still doesn't quite sit right with me). Luckily for my own sanity I don't get caught up in the stupid pro-organic or rah-rah GMO food is evil debate so I don't waste my time complaining about it.
You can refer to my very critical and well thought out arguments put forth in this post so I don't have to rehash here. It's a good read
A lot of money goes into creating the GM crops, between time in the lab, marketing etc. so they have every right to recoup those losses via sales and IP. I do, however, think that some of the lawsuits companies like Monsanto have filed against small farmers who had seen blown onto their property or whatever are asinine and counterproductive.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I don't disagree with you that both versions are modified. I think you are smart enough to understand what "GMO" as used in the context of the "GMO debate" means. You're not really doing any service by piping in and crying "b-b-b-but ALL food is GMO hurrr durr".
The organic vs. nonorganic debate is completely separate from the "GMO debate", in my opinion. I've always argued the GMO debate should be about the ownership of plant/animal genes from a property perspective (the idea of a for-profit entity owning a patent on a potentially live-saving food or cure still doesn't quite sit right with me). Luckily for my own sanity I don't get caught up in the stupid pro-organic or rah-rah GMO food is evil debate so I don't waste my time complaining about it.
You can refer to my very critical and well thought out arguments put forth in this post so I don't have to rehash here. It's a good read
I was sitting on the train a few weeks ago next to a guy that works for a hydroponic company down in Virginia. I started a conversation with him by asking him how much water they use and what kind of air systems they need (I'm an engineer, duh) and we got around to talking about what organic meant because I overheard him telling his boss or whoever he was on the phone with, about lobbying congress for a "hydro-organic" label for his companies crops because they currently can't label their food as organic. Why? Because it's not grown with manure. That's the only criteria needed to gain the organic label. You can use all the pesticides you want, you can use fertilizer and GM seed, doesn't matter. Grow with manure? You get to slap an organic label on your packaging and sell it for double the price to yuppies.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I should have preemptively replied to you...I knew you were going to bring up the sunk cost of research. However, you can look at two examples that can provide some insight - the patent application of CSIRO research into Wifi and subsequent public licensing, and the pharmaceutical drug research project cycle.
There is no altruistic means when a business creates a GMO foodstuff or animal or whatever- the company isn't sinking money into creating a GM crop and then trying to "recoup losses" by sales and IP - a company sinks those costs with the sole purpose of ROI through sales and creating IP. Now there's nothing wrong with that model - except it leads to market barriers and pushes people toward reliance on companies to live.
You know I couldn't care less about your little anecdotes, especially when they aren't relevant. Awesome story though. 10/10 would read again.
There is no altruistic means when a business creates a GMO foodstuff or animal or whatever- the company isn't sinking money into creating a GM crop and then trying to "recoup losses" by sales and IP - a company sinks those costs with the sole purpose of ROI through sales and creating IP. Now there's nothing wrong with that model - except it leads to market barriers and pushes people toward reliance on companies to live.
You know I couldn't care less about your little anecdotes, especially when they aren't relevant. Awesome story though. 10/10 would read again.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3712
Take it to the science thread
You're really going to say there's no difference between selective breeding and gene-splicing? You sir are the moron.Jay wrote:
Not really. Whether they grow a million generations of a plant, picking selective mutations along the way, or they splice genes in a lab, either way you're picking plants in a 'non-natural' way. The whole purity, natural, whole, organic thing is for morons really. They're selling a lifestyle at inflated cost and yuppies lap that shit up while gaining no real benefit except a lighter wallet.
Complete nonsense. It can't be labelled organic because it isn't, and no you can't use synthetic pesticides or fertiliser on organic food.I was sitting on the train a few weeks ago next to a guy that works for a hydroponic company down in Virginia. I started a conversation with him by asking him how much water they use and what kind of air systems they need (I'm an engineer, duh) and we got around to talking about what organic meant because I overheard him telling his boss or whoever he was on the phone with, about lobbying congress for a "hydro-organic" label for his companies crops because they currently can't label their food as organic. Why? Because it's not grown with manure. That's the only criteria needed to gain the organic label. You can use all the pesticides you want, you can use fertilizer and GM seed, doesn't matter. Grow with manure? You get to slap an organic label on your packaging and sell it for double the price to yuppies.
If this person wasn't invented to provide you with an anecdote then he's an idiot.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
1) They're not entirely the same, gene splicing is more efficient than waiting around for a random happy accident to occur.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're really going to say there's no difference between selective breeding and gene-splicing? You sir are the moron.Jay wrote:
Not really. Whether they grow a million generations of a plant, picking selective mutations along the way, or they splice genes in a lab, either way you're picking plants in a 'non-natural' way. The whole purity, natural, whole, organic thing is for morons really. They're selling a lifestyle at inflated cost and yuppies lap that shit up while gaining no real benefit except a lighter wallet.Complete nonsense. It can't be labelled organic because it isn't, and no you can't use synthetic pesticides or fertiliser on organic food.I was sitting on the train a few weeks ago next to a guy that works for a hydroponic company down in Virginia. I started a conversation with him by asking him how much water they use and what kind of air systems they need (I'm an engineer, duh) and we got around to talking about what organic meant because I overheard him telling his boss or whoever he was on the phone with, about lobbying congress for a "hydro-organic" label for his companies crops because they currently can't label their food as organic. Why? Because it's not grown with manure. That's the only criteria needed to gain the organic label. You can use all the pesticides you want, you can use fertilizer and GM seed, doesn't matter. Grow with manure? You get to slap an organic label on your packaging and sell it for double the price to yuppies.
If this person wasn't invented to provide you with an anecdote then he's an idiot.
2) US labeling laws
Last edited by Jay (2015-04-30 14:35:23)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3712
Excellent dinner storyThe wife of a Jersey City man arrested last night after police shot and killed their pit bull said the dog was never a threat to officers -- it was actually biting her husband while the couple was having "rough" sex.
James Manning, 31, of the 400 block of Garfield Avenue was arrested at the couple's home just after 9 p.m. yesterday and charged with two counts of aggravated assault on police officers and a weapons offense, all related to the actions of the couple's dog, Lily. He is also charged with weapons offenses related to a knife.
In court today the prosecutor said police responded to the location on a report of a woman screaming that she was being raped. The officers entered the apartment and Manning commanded the dog to attack the police officers, prompting them to shoot the animal, the prosecutor said, adding that police also said Manning reached for a knife.
But Manning's wife told The Jersey Journal that the police allegations are not true.
"We were having sex in the bed, a little rough, when my dog got agitated and jumped on the bed and attacked him," said Diane Manning. "She thought he was hurting me and I was telling the dog to get off him and I was screaming and that made dog more agitated."
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6316|Graz, Austria
Splicing bacterial genes into a plant's genome won't happen naturally or through breeding.
End of story.
End of story.