I think that will have done them more damage here than good, by far. What's funny is that really nobody wants to hear a line of bullshit any more. Kawasaki just sent a clueless flack to be on Leno's Garage and show off their new bike and a good portion of the comments were about what a lame he was. That's at least half of what people will take away from the experience. Send someone who knows what they're talking about and can handle being on camera, or don't send anyone at all. Just send the bike and a brochure.

I'm not sure that's actually true. What would have to happen is that the production of chickens and eggs would have to become more distributed, and you would need more human labor. There's lots of places where the chickens can get free food, but they do need to range for that, so you're going to have to spend a lot more time and effort managing your chickens.

On the other hand, integrating chickens into more agricultural scenarios has the potential to improve them in a variety of ways. Chickens can be mixed in with most plants once they reach a certain size that makes them less appealing than the pests that they attract, and the weeds growing up around them. The chickens help with both of these problems. If we move to a more integrated food production model in which we do sensible things like compost our shit and put it back into the fields once it's become soil again, we'll want to move away from tilth and towards guilds anyway. Robotics is advancing on fruit-picking, and in the mean time, we have a lot of labor lying around to handle the substantial increase in labor currently demanded by such a change. We only don't do this now to maximize profits. We could pay people enough to pick vegetables, but then some of the vegetables which currently produce the most profit would fall by the wayside, and we can't disturb the status quo now, can we?

Actually, you're both displaying ignorance, although yours is the more spectacular; it's a fact that the bread far outweighs the mayo, so caring about the carbs in the mayo is a jerkoff waste of time. Even a low-carb slice of bread will run you around 5g net carbs (carbs less fiber, which is indigestible.) The truth is that anything less than 1.0g can be reported as 0g by our nutritional guidelines, and otherwise the numbers are rounded. Therefore, something with 0.9g carbs is reported as having 0g carbs, while something with 1.1g carbs is reported as having 1g carbs.

The law already included a solution to the problem of misleading information in at least some EU countries; you can have the material taken down, because it is already illegal there. Hell, even some non-misleading material is illegal in some of those countries, those in which the truth is not an absolute defense against libel. A new law seeking to hide the illegal information is not the solution. It only really seeks to do two things: one, let people hide their misdeeds, and two, attempt to hide the extent of the failure of laws against stupid people saying stupid shit on the internet.

You are so right. That is precisely why I need to be provided with all of the search results, so that I can make up my own mind.

No, you've got it twisted. I'll eat chickens because they would eat me. Unless I was starving, I wouldn't eat a llama, because they wouldn't. I'll eat octopi on the same basis even though they're intelligent, although I do prefer to eat stupid food.

There is no functional difference; if you can't remember what you forgot, then you forgot it. The data might be out there someplace, but if you can't find it, then you can't make use of it.

As the person initiating the search, I decide what is relevant.

No, no they couldn't, because you'd click on the links and you'd see the actual result. Search engines can only report what is there; they might report on it incorrectly, but you can always check up on them.

So, is mayo without cholesterol actually healthier? Since we now know that eating cholesterol has little effect on your cholesterol levels, this seems a specious claim.

Eggs are not inherently sustainable or unsustainable. They could be raising these chickens on some kind of bugs, maybe you could find some that will eat algae. Instead they're raising them on unsustainable feed crops. That is a problem. Many of our means of food production should change substantially if we hope for them to be sustainable. That's not an indictment against eggs, though.

Well, unless you cook them. Pasteurizing counts.

The same as the nutritional benefits of eggs themselves. They're made of a readily digestible protein.

I care about food a lot (you can tell if you've seen pictures of me) and the eggs in mayo are the absolute last of my worries. It's the oil, which is usually some GMO crap (which means it's been absolutely hosed down with chemicals) and then the oil is processed with hexane, not all of which is successfully removed from the final product. That's a way bigger concern than the eggs could ever be for anyone who is not allergic to them, and who has not invented a moral quandary over whether they should eat eggs like every other omnivore on the planet, including birds. You can bet your ass that if we laid eggs, chickens would eat them.

Since we started launching satellites whose intent was to find military jets in the sky with IR over the entire world in the 1970s, I should think that it is not too much to ask that by 2014 we should have advanced the technology and built out the hardware to the point where we could in fact do that.

No doubt. Perhaps there is a superior means which could be used today, although IR is still pretty good for this sort of job and the planes are still big IR sources. Our sensing and data processing technology have both advanced dramatically since then.

That's OK, censorship is alive and well in many countries. For example, those in which truth is not an absolute defense in libel cases. It should not matter what your intent is if you are only using facts unless you are deliberately using them to defraud, e.g. by careful omission of relevant information.

This is not about that. This is about search engines creating accurate impressions. See, it was already illegal in many of these countries to say bad things about people, sometimes even when they were true. But now people in these countries have the right to ask people to forget about things about them which are true. In most cases they didn't need a new law in order to actually go after people spreading rumors about them on the internet, the original laws would suffice. What this does is actually protect them not from things they didn't do, but from things which they did.

The problem is, this information getting out is critical to society's advancement. Covering up people's actions makes them seem less commonplace without actually doing anything to curb the behavior. If the behavior is common and unacceptable for reasons of actual harm, then it must be uncovered so that something can be done about it. If the behavior is common and not harmful to others, then we benefit if it is uncovered and we learn more about it, so that we can learn (perhaps, someday) not to stigmatize it.

The right to be forgotten is not about making the world a better place. It is about permitting people to behave badly without consequences.

We had a program which located jets via afterburner IR signatures in the 1970s, I realize commercial jets aren't using afterburners but you'd think we'd have this problem licked by now.

It's reputed by the usual conspiracy theorists that every call goes to one of those shiny new government data centers they built not so very long ago, and gets analyzed for contents. Then the transcripts are stored, and the contents of any interesting calls as well. This would consume substantially less data.

That's dumb. What year is it? I realize it's not a non-trivial problem to track bits of metal from space or wherever you've got to be in order to have a good view of airliners, but seriously. What year is it? If we can't have flying cars, we should at least know where our jets are.

And you know that no government incompetence, overreach, underreach, or malfeasance led to those deaths because you've recovered the wreckage and studied the cause?

I don't have a dog in this fight, mostly because I don't have a dog. But let's not make assumptions in any direction without evidence of some kind.

There are reasons to find that airliner that have nothing to do with those particular human lives. As time passes, of course, the apparent likelihood of reward does decrease.

Mmmmm, safely.