And swam the Hellespont.
And swam the Hellespont.
Centralizing agriculture far away and transporting pesticides and fertilizers to that site and then transporting the produce, sometimes half-way across the globe, represents a huge waste of energy, with the pollution that goes along with that.
Well... maybe. I've heard differing analyses on this. It's counterintuitive, but there are economies of scale associated with mass production. Trains are incredibly efficient, and so are the massive container ships: the square-cube law means you're moving more stuff and less vehicle. Local produce carried in the back of a pickup truck can burn as much fuel in 50 miles as a thousand miles in a freighter. There are similar economies of scale on the inputs: dragging fertilizer to a thousand local farms will be less efficient than one tanker full of it.
That's far from the whole story, of course. Local foods can take better advantage of local conditions (including less pesticides), can be better varieties since there's less shipping, are often mixed-use rather than monocultures. I know a local farmer who uses no fuel whatsoever on his farm... though a fair bit of energy is used hauling his produce from the country to the city, around 50 miles.
I do prefer to eat local when I can, but the fuel advantages aren't nearly as overwhelming as it might seem.
Mostly that if it actually did kill a lot of people, the corporation would take a lot of heat for it. The corporations do frequently try to push the limits on that, and the punishment for that isn't nearly severe enough. But they do actually take considerable steps to avoid having it happen accidentally, and it's really not in their best interest to do it deliberately.
The biggest problem is in ground beef. If you add one infected animal to the hopper, you can make millions of pounds of meat dangerous. That's expensive.
Note that I'm not a fan of industrial meat production, and I avoid it. That has more to do with concern for animal welfare during their lives, and with flavor: if an animal is going to die for my dinner I want it to taste less bland than the meat you get at grocery stores and most restaurants. Plus, a few environmental issues. And yeah, safety is a bit of a concern... but they do want to avoid killing people. Bad for business.
Assuming that the Chinese DID do it. For which we have the unsupported word of the US government, whose unbelievable incompetence and/or negligence allowed the theft to take place. What better - indeed, what more irresistible knee-jerk - reaction than to blame the horrid foreigners?
"Sanction them. Exclude them from the world market".
Assuming much? We have already seen how sanctions on Russia have stimulated its economy while seriously damaging Europe's. I seriously wonder which of those (or both) the US government finds more rewarding.
The important question, however, is why the US government thinks that it can "exclude" other countries "from the world market". Given that the USA has less than 5 percent of the world's population, and has been spectacularly successful in lining up dozens of other nations against its policies - including several of the world's largest. They started by placing sanctions on Russia (see the link below). Now they want to sanction China. Maybe India and Brazil might follow - four out of the five BRICS nations. But at some point, when less than 5 percent of the world's population starts sanctioning and excluding others, one wonders just who is excluding and who is being excluded. Or maybe someone is contriving to exclude themselves?
"Those are F-22 Raptors".
Which the mudfeet refer to as "Raptors".
"You are confusing the F-22 Raptor with the F-35 JSF".
Easily done. Not everyone has completed the Advanced Turkey Discrimination Course.
"The F-22 has recently been deployed to Europe because of the russian attack on the Ukraine".
There has been no "Russian attack on the Ukraine". Two important things happened last year:
1. After the illegal coup d'etat in Kiev, in which the elected President was chased out of the country in fear of his life, the junta of oligarchs that illegally assumed power revealed its murderous hostility to the Russian population of the East and South. The inhabitants of Crimea held a referendum (approved by all the usual international monitoring bodies) which resulted in a 96.77 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout. Crimea then asked Russia to accept it back as a part of Russia (as it was from 1783 to 1991) and Russia agreed.
2. The Kiev junta then sent its armed forces to conquer the Donbas area (Donetsk and Lugansk). The local inhabitants fought back, first of all with weapons seized from armouries and then with increasing quantities of heavy weapons captured from the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF). ("Please send us more armoured columns. The last ones were delicious!") The UAF and numerous neo-Nazi and other Fascist units helping them shelled, bombed and rocketed civilian areas including schools, hospitals, homes and places of work; but they were unable to capture territory and, indeed, lost many troops and much equipment. To date over 1 million civilian refugees have fled to Russia - which they would hardly have done if Russia had been the aggressor.
If Russia had attacked Ukraine it would have conquered it in about 48 hours.
"Smart bombs turned bomb dropping into a precision weapon that had pinpoint accuracy".
Hahahahahaha... advocates of bombing have been saying that kind of thing since the WW2 Norden bomb sight. That was supposed to attain an accuracy of about 20 metres... but under real conditions, many bombs fell miles away from their targets.
The introduction of clever electronics has admittedly allowed "pinpoint accuracy" - meaning that you hit exactly what you aim at. Now all that remains is to make sure you aim at the right target - rather than, say, the Chinese embassy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
By way of disclosure, I tried in 2009/2010 and wasn't able to do it at any reasonable cost. Our compromise was living in a campground and getting cable service. That worked surprisingly well.
While most campgrounds have wifi, not all campground wifi is reliable enough to run a business. During the season it will bog down during peak demand, some of the smaller campgrounds have time outs and bandwidth limiters.
Out in the twigs even wireless wasn't reliable enough to make work.
I can tell from the comments most of you don't live near the ocean. Down here in South Florida it's already making an impact. There are storm drains that flow water during high tide up and down the coast and boat docks underwater. Miami is worse. Hallendale Beach has five of their seven fresh water pumps closed because of salt water intrusion.
The real problem that no one is talking about is what happens when Miami gets nailed by a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane? We're going to have boats washing up on I-95. Do we spend the money to rebuild Miami just to have it flood 40 years later? Or when it gets nailed by another hurricane?
I also can't see why I'd want a built-in satnav, though I wouldn't mind having a cradle that connected my phone to a larger display. The one advantage to builtin satnav is that the display can be clearer and more informative.
I own an add-on Garmin, and while I like it, I use my phone far more often. Among other things, it has a much better understanding of traffic and how to route around it. (My particular Garmin model does get traffic information over the air, but that information is much less precise and useful than the Internet can give it.) I keep it around for those days when I'm out of coverage, and a few other circumstances, but it's mostly relegated to taking up space and getting out of date. (It also has map updates, but they don't happen automatically. And a major new interchange near my house took a very long time to appear. I didn't need it, but people coming to my place sometimes got confused.)
So I can see why a car my want I/O features, but the smarts might as well be relegated to the device I'm already carrying with me. It would be nice to have better audio controls than fiddling with the phone itself, for example.
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong".
So, applying elementary logic... it's dangerous to be right.
Makes sense to me.
Love ling ond prapser!
"Why is the BBC (a corporation with a royal charter) paying the Met Office (a government entity) for weather forecasting?"
Because political correctness requires everything to be paid for. If neoliberals had their way, children would have to pay their parents for board and lodging.
panic: kernel trap (ignored)