I'd add frozen veggies into there too. They have all of the advantages of fresh with a lower risk of spoilage.

Canned veggies, though, should be your last resort. Only use those when no other veggies are available.

You're not reading research. You're reading news articles. There are unscrupulous "journalists" out there that spend all day scanning research journals for studies they can turn into shocking stories to get clicks.

Journalists are at fault, but they're not the only ones. See PHD Comics.

The research might have said "people who wear tight pants have a 1.2% greater risk of cancer given this study and these error parameters." After the study passed through the various layers of reporting, though, it turned into JEANS CAUSE CANCER!!!!!

I seem to cause high blood pressure in my wife. Especially when I have my blood pressure taken and it is insanely low. I have the blood pressure of a marathon runner. Not the rest of the body, mind you. Just the blood pressure.

A contract is one thing, having a line buried in your website's Terms of Use that states "By using this website you agree to not post any bad reviews about us anywhere" is another thing. In the case of the former, it's an agreement entered into by two parties where both had the opportunity to review the terms of the contract. In the case of the latter, it is a weak attempt to silence disgruntled customers. (See the KlearGear case posted above.)

This lead me to wonder what the term would be for people who post bad reviews of a company/product for the purposes of helping that company/product's competitor. For example, if LG paid people to post horrible reviews about the new Samsung phone. Obviously, they are not shills, but there doesn't seem to be an exact term for these people.

This Wikipedia section discusses it and they suggest either "false flag" (though that's more military-related) or "straw man." In the case of the latter, it references misrepresenting an opponent's argument, easily refuting the misrepresented argument, and then using that to "prove" you are right. These fake bad reviews allow you to misrepresent how good a competitor's product/service is, thus "proving" that yours is better.

Does anyone know if there actually is a term that I just didn't find in my admittedly quick Googling?

A lot of times, I find bad reviews to be uninformative. You often get a mix of people who don't seem able to articulate WHY they are giving a bad review, just that it is bad ("WORST. ITEM. EVAH!!!111!!!!") and people who refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for poor performance being due to their own mistakes (e.g. a product that says it requires X with a 1 star review that says "After ordering this product, I tried for 2 HOURS to get it to work. Finally, I called Customer Service and they said it needs X to work. What a scam!!!").

I tend to find the overall pattern of reviews more informative. If 85% of the reviews are 4 or 5 stars, 10% are 3 stars, and 5% are 1 or 2 stars, then the product is likely to be good. If 50% are 4 or 5 stars, 20% are 3 stars, and 30% are 1 or 2 stars, I'd shy away from buying the product.

I was tempted into doing this a couple of times. (Stopped at a red light. Hear a notification come in. Think "well, I'm stopped, I can check it.") The times I did it, I felt extremely unsafe. Now, I have a pattern lock on my phone. Not only is it increased security from "swipe to open", but it makes it much harder to casually try to open your phone while stopped at a light. The increased difficulty in checking the messages helps reduce the temptation and makes it less likely that I'll listen to the "you can do it this time and still be safe" voice in my head.

What I don't understand is the violent response some people have. Either actual (Person wearing Google Glass has them ripped off their face) or online comments ("If I ever see someone with Google Glass, I'll punch them in the face!"). Replace "Google Glass" with "Smartphone in a shirt pocket" and it would seem totally ridiculous. (e.g. Punching someone because they have a smartphone in their shirt pocket.) However, some people seem to think that, once Google Glass is involved, all social conventions go out the window.

You could also record someone much less obviously with a smartphone and a dress shirt. Hit record on the phone, stick the phone in the shirt's pocket with the lens facing out, walk around recording people until your microSD card is filled. A 64GB microSD card ($30 or so on Amazon, so definitely not cost-prohibitive) can allow for over 22 hours of recording time. You could theoretically record your entire day with your smartphone in your pocket (assuming you could somehow make the battery last for recording that long).

Existing laws are good enough to protect public photography and yet disallow abuses. For example, when you're out and about in public, you have no expectation of privacy. You don't expect that people won't be able to see you walking down the street. So if someone takes a photo of you, you have no grounds to object. However, a person typically does not consent to the area under their clothes being filmed - even if they are out in public. Taking an upskirt shot of someone typically requires positioning your camera in an unusual manner to capture a shot that your average "person walking past" wouldn't see. There is an expectation of privacy under your clothes. Unless a woman pulls her skirt up of her own volition in a public area (thus removing the expectation of privacy), she is not giving "permission" for a photo to be taken up her skirt merely because she's wearing a skirt.

Which is different than my current smartphone. I could hit record, put my smartphone in my shirt pocket (camera lens facing out) and walk around recording people without their knowledge.

But people freak out about Google Glass as if it's something entirely new and frightening.

Part balloon helium raises your voice.

A weapons grade helium bomb raises the voices of everyone in a five mile area to the point that it's above the human hearing range, thus disabling the enemy's communications.

Obviously, we need to watch out for potential terrorists in the form of people holding balloons.

Don't even get me started on the weapons-grade ice cream and the disabling headaches is causes.

I can't speak to other science denialism, but I spent some time in an Orthodox temple where the rabbi was a strong opponent of Evolution. (I spent time there when I disagreed with the rabbi so much only because my parents belonged there and so I didn't need to pay any dues to join.) The rabbi's argument basically boiled down to "Scientists keep changing their theories. Our 'God did it' theory never changes. Therefore, our theory is stronger and theirs is weaker, ours is right and theirs is wrong."

Religion has a strong reliance on the past and a strong element of momentum. You do X because Very Religious Person Y said you should and therefore your father, his father, and his father did X. X has been done for generations and any changing of X would be against your religion. If a new situation crops up, it must be somehow fit into the most applicable existing situation and made to follow the Old Rules. Any change is bad because it means veering from The Way Things Always Were. Even if they actually weren't always like that, the past will often be retconned to either ignore unsavory events or to re-write what people did. (e.g. The bible says Abraham served milk and meat together. That's not allowed in the Jewish religion but this was before the Kosher laws were given. Still, having that big of a figure ignoring Kosher is icky so that passage is "retconned" by an explanation that he served them in the proper order and separated in time just the right way,

The end result of this is that science, with it's ever-changing theories, is seen as bad - even though the theories change to better suit the data. Meanwhile, religion, with it's never changing rules (or, at least, rules that "have always been" this way once you retcon them) is seen as better.

Is your argument really: "Since the deniers keep denying, you'll have to eventually accept that they are right because they don't stop denying"?

You do realize that this could be applied in other areas where it would be even more obviously wrong:

"Since the Evolution-deniers keep denying Evolution, you'll need to one day accept that Evolution is wrong because 'how many times am I going to have to blow off the 'deniers' before I consider maybe I'm wrong about Evolution?'"

"Since the vaccine-deniers keep insisting that vaccines are poison and don't work, you'll need to one day accept that vaccines are poison and don't work because 'how many times am I going to have to blow off the 'deniers' before I consider maybe I'm wrong about vaccines?'"

Just because a group denies something strongly and repeatedly doesn't make them right.

I was still me, but someone else was pretending to be me and, by doing so, was damaging my financial reputation. Thus, the value of "me" (financially) was put at risk. To use a car analogy, it would be as if someone "borrowed" your car every night when they knew you were asleep and returned it by the time you awoke. You still had full use of the car, but mysterious dings that "appeared" on the car would reduce the value of it.

As far as the representative being an accomplice, I don't think that was the case as everyone I talked to in that company varied from unhelpful to actively stonewalling both me and the police. At this point, it doesn't matter. My credit is frozen which means nobody can open a new line of credit - not even me - unless I first thaw my credit file (and pay for the "privilege".)