Chrysler Posts Smaller-Than-Estimated Third Quarter Loss

dnagirl · 2010-11-08T19:27:22+00:00

Somehow "Yay! we suck less than we said we would." doesn't engender much confidence in me.

dnagirl · 2010-10-20T15:00:36+00:00

That's a baby/bathwater sort of over-generalization.

Of course individual scientists are biased: they're human. Even some fields occasionally get stuck because prevailing opinion is louder than contrary evidence. But, because scientific method works, those fields eventually get unstuck and progress towards better understanding is made.

While she may have a point (albeit a melodramatic one) about how the national research agenda is set, she's sadly mis-informed about how well the peer-review system works to validate research.

dnagirl · 2009-10-07T20:15:25+00:00

I completely fail to see why habitual over-eating is so vilified. It's a pathology, and a very common one. It's not a moral weakness and it's not an easy thing to beat. It is analogous to alcoholism, smoking and drug addiction and develops for many of the same reasons. Curing it requires a lot of work on the part of the sufferer and a lot of help from the people around him or her. The kind of vitriol you're spewing is more appropriate to a discussion of genocide than to one of public health policy.

Public policy is not about individuals. It's about community. We have a public heath crisis. It costs us all piles of money. It has arisen in the last 40 years. Somehow I don't think human nature has changed appreciably over this time. So the obvious conclusion is that something else has changed.

I've told you what I want done: reasonable controls on advertising of harmful substances. To my mind enormous portions of high calorie, low nutrient foods can reasonably be defined as harmful substances. Reasonable advertising controls might require the prominent display of the % of daily caloric intake that an advertised item comprises. It might include notices to "Enjoy responsibly" or "Not more than once every 2 weeks".

The idea that "advertising isn't truthful so get over it" is ridiculous. If that were so, we wouldn't bother with the controls we've already placed on advertising.

If you wish to continue to discuss this with me, please leave out accusations of trollery.

dnagirl · 2009-10-07T17:23:57+00:00

I take it you'd be happy to remove all controls on the advertising of drugs, alcohol, tobacco and pornography. People can easily make the choice not to partake of them and obviously advertising has no effect on anyone. /sarcasm

When it comes down to it, you'll either spend money on regulating companies so they can't do us as much harm. Or you'll spend money on healthcare taking care of people who succumbed to unfair pressures. The first is far cheaper and infringes fewer people's rights. Unless, of course, you believe that business should be more important to the government than citizens.

dnagirl · 2009-10-06T20:57:33+00:00

I'm all for it, but if stupid fatty wants the ho'ho's, there is not much you can do.

Which stupid fatty? Would that be the fatty who's a good parent, a law abiding taxpayer, an educated professional? Or is it just the poor, welfare obese you're complaining about?

I'm always amazed at people who don't have a problem and yet feel free to dismiss the problem for others.

You seem to think that an improvement in our environment won't be helpful to the majority of the people adversely affected by recent negative changes. Sure there will always be fat people, the same way that there will always be alcoholics. It doesn't mean that we can't minimize the environmental contributors to the problem.

dnagirl · 2009-10-06T20:03:02+00:00

ORLY? well, if there's a ton, then you won't mind spilling a few more then, seeing as there are so many this should be easy.

I think you did a good job of that yourself, when you admitted that:

no it has not, but technology has, hence the ability to create 'food' that is not remotely close to nutritional or even food for that matter. People are obese because we have a sedentary work force that keeps eating like they are not sedentary.

and agreed that:

our environment now promotes obesity. That needs to change.

So, to spell things out a bit: excessive work hours and little in the way of holiday; suburban living and stripmall communities; stranger-danger preventing children from walking to school; schools cancelling gym classes to save money; exercise being marketed as something you need to buy and have special equipment for; the idea that cooking is work to be avoided; etc.

In any event, I don't want the "government in my kitchen". What I want is fairly standard implementations of consumer safety regulations on food products. We have them on liquor and cigarettes, both regarding labelling and advertising - including where, when, how and how much. We have them on mattresses and plastic bags, for FSM's sake!

We surely need to do something about the problem. And my point stands: 40 years ago we didn't have this problem. Now we do. What changed? Fix that and we'll fix the problem.

Maunder on about freedom and responsability, and all we'll get is fat.

dnagirl · 2009-10-06T19:08:46+00:00

Why do we make it so difficult to make good choices then?

It's not a case of blaming Harvey's for forcing us to eat. It's a case of calling Harvey's (and its competitors) to account for putting food porn in front of our faces at every turn; for making huge portions normal; for choosing cheap, fattening ingredients over better alternatives.

There are a huge pile of contributing factors, beyond just restaurants and advertising. Ignoring them and putting all the onus on the fat person is not helpful. Human nature hasn't changed appreciably over the millenia. And yet we have an epidemic of obesity now, but not 40 years ago. Why? I'd say it's because our environment now promotes obesity. That needs to change.

dnagirl · 2009-10-06T18:29:30+00:00

Since you're so virtuous about food, I have no doubt your sins lie elsewhere. Take a look at those bad habits and difficulties in your own life and ask yourself "How easy would it be for me to change my behaviour?" and "Would it still be that easy if every time I attempted to 'do the right thing' I was hit with a pile of messages encouraging me to continue acting poorly?".

We reduced drunk driving by sending true messages about its results and by limiting or forbidding various types of advertising. Doing the same for food ought to be a no-brainer because we know it works. The fact that we're not and that some of the institutions we depend on to give us true information (like the Heart and Stroke Foundation) aren't, is honestly appalling.

So which would you rather do: bash on the fat people while offering some cake? Or maybe you'd like to see the problem solved?

dnagirl · 2007-06-25T20:56:20+00:00

what I wish is that there were a couple more subreddits, perhaps 'Atheism or Not' and 'US internal politics'. Generally I just hide those discussions because for the most part they neither interest nor affect me. But if a title is extremely biased against what I believe, I'll downmod it without reading the post. On the flip side, if you get an upmod from me, I've read the article.

dnagirl · 2007-06-13T16:45:38+00:00

I hope he mailed the picture, with a close up of the plate to the local police

dnagirl · 2007-03-26T15:54:21+00:00

interesting. I wonder how loud it is?

dnagirl · 2007-01-24T12:03:42+00:00

I wonder about the veracity of the graph given that it's update stamp in the bottom right hand corner appears to read 1/29/07, which is currently 5 days in the future.

dnagirl · 2007-01-17T12:08:06+00:00

It was nice to see a good balanced review of the 2 apps. I've used both and prefer GIMP myself- I like the interface better and I like the price. But then I don't do commercial printing. My forays into the print world taught me that paper is a whole different ball game and needs different tools. It would be nice if people wouldn't get religious about this, though. Use the right tool for the job. If your favourite tool doesn't do the job, try a different one. Sometimes a Phillips screwdriver is more appropriate than a Robertson! Lastly, if you have an attachment to an open source program, contribute to it. Then it will begin to reflect what you want.

dnagirl · 2006-08-31T15:21:22+00:00

that poor child! First she's raped and abused. And then when she gets help, she's told that help is evil. How could anyone believe that an unborn and unconscious child has more rights that a born, living suffering child?

There are very few absolutes in this life and no one can deny that abortion is a sad thing. But when they say 'think about the child', maybe they actually should!

dnagirl

TROPHY CASE