10/14 Small quote from http://economist.com article about mcdonalds:
"The company is now testing small hand-held devices, which can be
used like electronic clip-boards by those making the rounds.
Failures to check, say, the temperature inside a refrigerator
(the devices are fitted with a probe) or to scan a location barcode
(they have a scanner too) when checking the play area, will be recorded.
If too many incomplete checks build up, the device can automatically
alert the local manager by ringing his mobile phone."
Why am I suddenly thinking of that short story about fastfood
management software taking over the world? -- ilyas
\_ because you're an idiot?
\_ Do I need to use defending Ilyas, wrong as he sometimes is, as
an excuse to tear you a new bunghole yet again, anonymous motd
drug addict? -John
\_ hehe, you said 'bunghole'
\_ w00t!
\_ ilyas, I thought you said that Marshall Brain thing was off-base.
Did you change your mind?
\_ Yeah, I thought it was complete crack, but I still thought of it.
-- ilyas
\_ Check out Fast Food Nation if you're at all interested. I
think the Marshall Brain thing is crack too, but that book
shows how McDonald's is a real pioneer in this sort of thing.
They call it "deskilling," and they are very very good at it.
The less skill is required for a job, the more easily
replaceable the workers become.
\_ I steer clear of both McDonalds and books like Fast Food
Nation (both make me ill). I think deskilling is good, not
bad, because it increases overall productivity which in the
long term is a good thing. I don't think McDonalds is
sinister. On a slightly unrelated note, I was watching
this nature show which was talking about how adaptable the
bears are. These days, bears don't even hunt anymore, they
just hang out near dumps and eat junk food leftovers. And
since it's highly nutricious, they pack on weight for the
since it's highly nutritious, they pack on weight for the
hibernation, have more young, and in general do very well.
I found that very funny. Someone should clue in those
bears about the vast evils of junk food. -- ilyas
\_ I made no judgement about deskilling good or bad. I do
think you're being close-minded about the book though.
Give it a shot. It isn't just a partisan rant, there's
a ton of interesting facts in it. You will probably
disagree with his ultimate conclusions (that fast food
has changed our culture in negative ways, and with the
blessing and active help of the government), but you
may learn a lot of stuff too. He doesn't necessarily
argue that McDonald's is "sinister." He's far too
smart for that. [sigh, restored]
\_ You don't understand. I _don't_ think it's partisan
trash. I don't want to read it because I think it
will make me physically ill (it talks about a fair
number of icky things). -- ilyas
number of icky things). I haven't thought about
the overall effect of fast food on our society.
I can certainly see how it affected us badly. But
at the same time you can't underestimate the positives
of cheap nutricious food. I think the positives and
of cheap nutritious food. I think the positives and
the negatives are simply incommensurable in this case.
-- ilyas
\_ Fast food is neither cheap nor nutricious (unless
\_ Fast food is neither cheap nor nutritious (unless
you're including $1.10 chinese food, which is
just cheap).
\_ See above about bears. -- ilyas
\_ This doesn't prove that fast food is
nutritious; it says nothing about the
long term health effects on the bears. Also,
without a substantiating source with real
scientific credibility, this is anecdotal
and has no logical place in a serious
discussion.
\_ I use 'nutritious' in the good old
fashioned sense of 'has calories, you
eat it -- you get fatter' sense.
I don't have any hard scientific evidence
on long term effects of fast food on
bears. But I am not sure you can hold it
against me, since no one will fund this
kind of research. People who study
bears know bears do very well on
junk food, you can disbelieve them if you
want. The issue with bears is they
need lots of calories before winter,
which junk food provides in spades (i.e.
it's nutritious and plentiful). Also,
to a bear, a shorter lifespan but more
offspring is a good tradeoff. -- ilyas
\_ Bears are far more versatile than we
are so I wouldn't be surprised if they
do fine on junk food. Their preferred
behavior is to forage anyway, as
opposed to "hunt". However, it's also
the case that human activities have
reduced many natural bear food sources
and shrunk the amount of contiguous
habitat available for their natural
activities. I don't really see much
significance to this whole bear thing.
The lifespan comment is ridiculous.
\_ The significance to this whole
bear thing is that under my
definition, junk food is very
nutritious -- it lets a giant
of an animal go without food for
an entire season very easily.
This kind of nutritiousness is a
huge positive in many
situations for people, say people
who are extremely poor and
malnourished. (They may not be
able to hibernate, but they
certainly get a lot of value out
of this kind of food).
Sure, it doesn't
have fiber, vitamins, essential
minerals, etc. etc. But you take
care of that AFTER you make sure
you don't croak from calorie lack.
I am just saying the crude
advantages of junk food are
significant and cannot be
discounted. Comment about
'ridiculousness' ignored due to
lack of explanation and because
attacks are lame. Btw, I don't
think there is any difference
in food versatility between us
and bears inherently -- we are
both omnivores. Any sort of
heightened sensitivity of ours
is probably due to the fact
that natural selection stopped
for us, and our sensitive
stomachs aren't dying out
anymore. -- ilyas
Well you also didn't explain the lifespan _/
thing... it would seem your comment applies
to humans as well. And bears can eat grass
and other stuff we can't, so presumably can
fill some needs that way. I also think your
assumptions about the inherent "value" in
this food may not be realistic when compared
to the cost of cooking food from basics,
leaving aside the whole "hidden costs"
argument someone else alluded to. (I think
also bears can live entirely on meat/fat,
like carnivores, and unlike humans. Though
I've heard weird things about Inuits.)
\_ He's redefined 'nutritious' and then
argued from that stand point. It
recontextualizes the discussion, and
imposes far less vigorous constraints on
the point he's trying to argue. As long
as you let that happen, he's going to
'win' the debate. It's a clever tactic,
though it's not a strictly logical one.
I also like how he ignores the fact that
bears and humans have significantly
different needs from their food, so
equating humans to bears is also a far
less rigorous point to have to 'prove'
especially considering that no facts to
back up the initial opinion about junk food
being 'good' for bears have been provided.
The assertion that no one's done a study
or research into the impact of human waste
on bears is almost laughably unlikely.
\_ Nutrition = a process by which organisms
obtain energy (nasa.gov). Nutritious =
providing nourishment (dict). I am
redefining nothing, I am making concrete
what I feel is a reasonably vague
definition. I can just feel the
venom dripping from your fangs, you
poor sap. When did you become so
cheerless and morose? I don't know
definition. I don't know
what shadowy evil you think I am up to
with my evil evil debating tactics,
but all I am trying to say is that
high calorie food does a lot of good
in certain rubber-hits-the-road
situations, and the harm junk food
causes has to be balanced again this
good. P.S. Read my assertion about
what's not getting funded again. I
think you are trying to pull a fast
one here. -- ilyas
\_ Nice. I've reduced you to ad
hominem attacks. You've rather
misrepresented me in your
interpretation of my attitudes and
motives. If it means this much to
you to be right, then okay. I've
challenged your style of agrument,
and you've responded by
comparing me to a snake. Okaaaaay.
\_ Ok, fair enough. What about the
rest? -- ilyas
| \_ Well, one definition of nutritious would be
| 'contains calories and protein' which I'd say
| is generally true.
\_ This is specious and largely irrelevant.
\_ High fat, high salt, low fiber == not healthy.
However they're not forcing people to eat it.
\_ Huh? I've never made any claims about
anyone being forced to eat anything. What
are you talking about here?
\_ Fast food is massively subsidized in many
ways, if we had to pay the actual costs the
system wouldn't work -- see oil.
\_ I'm just saying, people buy the unhealthy
food in droves knowing it's unhealthy.
Given this desire I don't think the
industry is at fault. I'd be in favor
of restricting child-targetted marketing.
Oh and I wasn't really talking to you,
just elaborating on the general subject.
Here you go.
<DEAD>www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/What's_In_Meat_FFN.html<DEAD> |
http://csua.com/feed/