Jeff Bezos Space Tourist

[Tari Landar]

2 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

The conversation deadened by the constant barrage of conspiracy theories and off the wall comments which had no basis in reality.  Oh wait...nvm.

I will have you know my off the walls comments always have a basis in reality. It's probably not the reality anyone outside of my brain would ever understand, but it's a reality all the same!

That aside, the conspiracy stuff got old a very long time ago, I try to ignore most of it. I'd rather not break my long standing record of having never actually used the ignore feature on the forums. So I have to actually put in some effort to skim right on past. It's a very weird game I play with my own psyche, and so far, I've always won (or at least I tell myself that). 

After a while you start to realize that your brand of crazy is not another's brand of crazy and odds are better than not that a war of wit will surely result in nothing but a bunch of losing sides with no distinct winner. It could also be that some brands of crazy aren't crazy at all they're just in need of attention, but really bad at actually asking for it. That's another game I play with my own psyche...guess the intention... I rarely ever win that game, but I give myself a participation trophy anyway, because I'm awesome just for playing. 

I also like derailing threads and now I'm forced to resort back to doing so with unnecessarily verbose drivel, if only to amuse my own self. It is rather amusing, especially when I confuse people or force them to use their dreaded wtf and scorn laughs, which serves to further my amusement (I'm fairly simple to amuse, I suppose). Then I declare victory having derailed the thread for the, I lost count, time, in a single post.

I'm truly magnificent, at absolutely nothing, and everything all at once, depending entirely on which part of me you ask and at which time of day.

I'm pretty hungry now too, I think I'll go make food. 

[Paul Hexem]

7 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

A lot of people in Europe remember when communism was the boogeyman too, and many of us lived under communist government.    That's perhaps why we're more aware of the distinction between popular and necessary policies that most people, right and left, agree are necessary and desirable in a modern society and those specifically associated with communism.

Do you really think that contemporary Germany, for example, has much in common with either the contemporary US or the old GDR?    Compared with most advanced economies, the US is now increasingly seen as a strange outlier, with odd national obsessions and priorities, and what seems to us a strange view of history.    So's China, of course.  Or Russia.       

It's fair to point out that for humans, the boogeyman you have no experience with is scarier than the one you've already "defeated".

[Sukubia Scarmon]

8 hours ago, Ayeleeon said:

I did read about the impacts of food labeling on small scale food producers, but can't find anything on the internet yet. I did find an article that states that food labeling had no positive effects on health

Uh...  okay, maybe that's some sort of missunderstanding due to me not being a native english speaker, but I was under the impression that food labeling is the act of labeling the ingredients present in a food product, the date and place of manufactoring.
I believe anyone that has a severe food allergy that gets triggered with even trace amounts of the allergen would beg to differ with you, in that case. People with diabetes would need to know what's in it. I believe not dying *are* positive health effects. Being able to see if and how many carbs and sugar is in food is helpfull for people trying to lose weight, I can attest that because that's what I do - and I believe losing weight is a positive health effect as well. 
As for date and place of manufactoring - those become important when a charge is contaminated with something, which is something that simply can happen from time to time. That makes it much easier to determine the source which is benefitting the manufacturer as well.

[Innula Zenovka]

1 hour ago, Paul Hexem said:

It's fair to point out that for humans, the boogeyman you have no experience with is scarier than the one you've already "defeated".

And the only thing that will stop a boogeyman with guns is …  by a remarkable coincidence, whatever it is I happen to be selling, or will buy from my friends with your money if you elect me.     

[Paul Hexem]

55 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

And the only thing that will stop a boogeyman with guns is …  by a remarkable coincidence, whatever it is I happen to be selling, or will buy from my friends with your money if you elect me.     

I'm not sure what guns have to do with experience with communism? Other than the obvious "overthrow the government" type stuff?

[Ceka Cianci]

Since we're all over the board in here,I did a search for ,The Spaceman song and got some good ones..

I like this one.. hehehe

 

[Coffee Pancake]

I remember buying this one ...

 

[Chroma Starlight]

4 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

It's fair to point out that for humans, the boogeyman you have no experience with is scarier than the one you've already "defeated".

More critically, fear is illusionary and a mind killer. 
 

 

Edited July 23, 2021 by Chroma Starlight

[Ayeleeon]

3 hours ago, Sukubia Scarmon said:

I was under the impression that food labeling is the act of labeling the ingredients present in a food product,

US regulations go beyond just listing the ingredients, they require percentages of certain nutrients, as well as the level of sodium, and sugar. The lable as well must follow a particular format, It is not sufficient to merely list this information on the lable. The issue is not whether such information is useful for the consumer, but whether all good producers should be required to place it on all food products. As you mentioned some consumers want this information, so to sell to them a manufacture needs to include this information. However take for example a farmer who wants to grind his own corn and sell corn meal. Is it really nessesary that he provide a standardized lable that lists calories per serving, sodium, and the amount of sugar. Wouldn't just saying it is 100 percent ground corn with no.added ingredients be enough?

You mention place.and date of manufacture, this information is not required in the US, nor is country of origin. Many manufactures will include it because it is a good business practice, and many consumers want to know. But the big corporations don't want to have to place this on thier packages, so it isn't a requirement.

 

 

 

 

 

[Rowan Amore]

 

[Chroma Starlight]

 

[Innula Zenovka]

2 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

I'm not sure what guns have to do with experience with communism? Other than the obvious "overthrow the government" type stuff?

A  joke  (obviously one that didn't work) about how some things seem one way in the US but quite off the wall in a lot of other countries.   The supposed threat of communism is/was one of the matters in which the US is something of an outlier, guns are another, and there are several more topics about which assumptions and attitudes that are taken for granted in the US seem extreme and bizarre in many places, and vice versa.

 

[Chroma Starlight]

26 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

A  joke  (obviously one that didn't work) about how some things seem one way in the US but quite off the wall in a lot of other countries.   The supposed threat of communism is/was one of the matters in which the US is something of an outlier, guns are another, and there are several more topics about which assumptions and attitudes that are taken for granted in the US seem extreme and bizarre in many places, and vice versa.

 

They're bizarre here, too! The entire thing is astroturfed! The Second Amendment is about well-organized state militias and that's what it was right up until a bizarre point in the late 1980s under cover of darkness spread by Reagan and Thatcher's death cults the NRA bought themselves a SCOTUS ruling that redefined the meaning of the US Constitution to something utterly alien.

What I'll never understand is why everyone was just like "Oh, okay, that's cool I guess. What could possibly go wrong. We'll just let you do this, what the hell do we care about anything." 

If you have perhaps forgotten, here's what a "well-organized state militia" looks like:

(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellefonte_Armory )

 

Oh, sorry. Let me translate this into local parlance for Second Life denizens:

(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Armory )

This, however, is not and will never be a well-organized state militia: 

What that is is an obscene mockery of everything, a bad joke that's turned out to be quite grave indeed.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Chroma Starlight

[Sukubia Scarmon]

19 minutes ago, Ayeleeon said:

US regulations go beyond just listing the ingredients, they require percentages of certain nutrients, as well as the level of sodium, and sugar. The lable as well must follow a particular format, It is not sufficient to merely list this information on the lable. The issue is not whether such information is useful for the consumer, but whether all good producers should be required to place it on all food products. As you mentioned some consumers want this information, so to sell to them a manufacture needs to include this information. However take for example a farmer who wants to grind his own corn and sell corn meal. Is it really nessesary that he provide a standardized lable that lists calories per serving, sodium, and the amount of sugar. Wouldn't just saying it is 100 percent ground corn with no.added ingredients be enough?

You mention place.and date of manufacture, this information is not required in the US, nor is country of origin. Many manufactures will include it because it is a good business practice, and many consumers want to know. But the big corporations don't want to have to place this on thier packages, so it isn't a requirement.

It'S a bit different here - they're not required to put the exact percentages of all ingredients, since recipe secrets, so incredients here are listed from most to least. The nutricional facts need to be listed, usually seperately, with exact percentages. Both get measured one time, and everytime the recipe changes. 

I have certain afflictions that require me to keep close tabs on my intake of certain nutrients. How is seeing them not a health benefit? 

[Orwar]

6 minutes ago, Sukubia Scarmon said:

It'S a bit different here - they're not required to put the exact percentages of all ingredients, since recipe secrets, so incredients here are listed from most to least. The nutricional facts need to be listed, usually seperately, with exact percentages.

   I believe that's an EU law and that it's the same as here. In which case you must list the ingredients in order of proportion (i.e. if your product is mostly water, you put water first), usually with common allergens in bold text (such as nuts and gluten). The nutritional value is obtained by sending a sample to a laboratory approved by your national FDA-equivalent (Livsmedelsverket, here) for an analysis - it's not particularly expensive and you'll have the results in <10 days.

   You don't have to do so, however, for certain artisanal products. If you've made a batch of home-made strawberry jam or cinnamon rolls to sell at your kid's school's bake-sale that isn't required. 

[Ceka Cianci]

Guns!!!!................................Space............................................Music video about guys with guns that have the blues

And I forgot what else Iwas gonna say so.............................................more space..........................................

hehehehe

[Ayeleeon]

2 hours ago, Sukubia Scarmon said:

I have certain afflictions that require me to keep close tabs on my intake of certain nutrients. How is seeing them not a health benefit? 

It is a benefit, and for many products listing them is a good business practice, but it does not follow that it should be required. If you are interested in a product, but want that information before you buy, you will not buy it if the information is not there. The manufacturer will lose a sale. That is enough incentive without getting the state involved making regulations and buracracy to enforce them.

[Rowan Amore]

Because business always has the consumers best interest at heart?   What a wonderful world that would be.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 hours ago, Ayeleeon said:

It is a benefit, and for many products listing them is a good business practice, but it does not follow that it should be required. If you are interested in a product, but want that information before you buy, you will not buy it if the information is not there. The manufacturer will lose a sale. That is enough incentive without getting the state involved making regulations and buracracy to enforce them.

I'd like to agree with you and on most of what you have mentioned I do but in the case of the ingredients I think it is becoming increasingly important if not critical to know what ingredients are in a product. 

[Moondira]

3 hours ago, Ayeleeon said:

5 hours ago, Sukubia Scarmon said:

I have certain afflictions that require me to keep close tabs on my intake of certain nutrients. How is seeing them not a health benefit? 

It is a benefit, and for many products listing them is a good business practice, but it does not follow that it should be required. If you are interested in a product, but want that information before you buy, you will not buy it if the information is not there. The manufacturer will lose a sale. That is enough incentive without getting the state involved making regulations and buracracy to enforce them.

What if Sukibia had no other store in her area to buy what she needed for her diet, and the only item available there is from the manufacturer who did not list ingredients? This is the case in many areas of the country (where choices are limited and there are "food deserts" where fresh, healthy food is unavailable to those without the means to drive distances).
Or what if all businesses stopped providing the information needed by a minority of customers because they deemed the effort too expensive?  Then Sukubia or other minorities who needed this information to remain healthy would have no choice at all. It's vital that we protect the minority and not just cater to the majority or whomever business deems should be catered to.

As you can see in these cases, missing a sale will not automatically incentivize a business to accommodate anyone when they can skirt around it and still remain profitable. There is no magic, no "invisible hand" that corrects exchanges between businesses and consumers without intervention. 

Your solution, repeatedly (and this is why I'm finding your remarks so disturbing), is always to enhance the needs of those with most of the power, the businesses, because you find a government limiting anyone's freedom so repulsive. This colors your perspective and so you're unable to acknowledge areas where the government should indeed intervene for the safety of all. What about the freedom of the customers -- shouldn't their freedom also count?

Libertarian perspectives tend to view all government intervention except the protection of private property unnecessary. But the needs of society go far beyond property value, and the delusion of a magical "invisible hand' fixing problems automatically is preposterous. It's like a religion, this delusional belief in markets self-correcting. Are your fears of losing freedom via the government so great that you'll believe in magic?

[Moondira]

19 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

On 7/22/2021 at 11:14 AM, Moondira said:

We (in the States) pay far more for comparable basic services (through taxes AND out-of-pocket expenses) than other 1st world countries pay via their taxes.

Don't forget what we pay for out-of-pocket and at considerably higher prices (like health care), as well as higher fees for a college education, child care, and a whole slew of other services they get for their tax dollar.

Expand  

That's the "funny" thing about Capitalism. People here feel better about paying out of pocket to private companies, even if there's tax on it, than paying the government for it directly. They don't trust the government to do it, or to do it right. Or they don't trust the government at all.

Not true. The majority (63%), according to Pew research, want a single-payer health system:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/

Those who don't trust the government to administer costs have been brainwashed to fear socialism and the government, or fear their care would be substandard.

Big Pharma and insurance companies are pulling the strings at our expense. Not to mention all the deaths caused by those who can't afford health insurance.

 

[Moondira]

23 hours ago, Ayeleeon said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CRo4Sh6nwv6/?utm_medium=copy_link

This is absurd. People can both hate spending money on wars and hate what Bezos is doing -- one does not preclude the other.

[Arielle Popstar]

13 minutes ago, Moondira said:

Your solution, repeatedly (and this is why I'm finding your remarks so disturbing), is always to enhance the needs of those with most of the power, the businesses, because you find a government limiting anyone's freedom so repulsive. This colors your perspective and so you're unable to acknowledge areas where the government should indeed intervene for the safety of all. What about the freedom of the customers -- shouldn't their freedom also count?

Libertarian perspectives tend to view all government intervention except the protection of private property unnecessary. But the needs of society go far beyond property value, and the delusion of a magical "invisible hand' fixing problems automatically is preposterous. It's like a religion, this delusional belief in markets self-correcting. Are your fears of losing freedom via the government so great that you'll believe in magic?

And the problem with you is that you like to view all businesses as being on the same level where in reality many small businesses barely survive and most actually will go out of business within 5 years and less if you had your way.  Government favours the big businesses whereas the small ones get shafted throwing small entrepreneurs to the dogs where they are in a worse position then those poor you claim to be standing up for. The pandemic lockdowns really bore that out.

[Moondira]

3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

23 minutes ago, Moondira said:

Your solution, repeatedly (and this is why I'm finding your remarks so disturbing), is always to enhance the needs of those with most of the power, the businesses, because you find a government limiting anyone's freedom so repulsive. This colors your perspective and so you're unable to acknowledge areas where the government should indeed intervene for the safety of all. What about the freedom of the customers -- shouldn't their freedom also count?

Libertarian perspectives tend to view all government intervention except the protection of private property unnecessary. But the needs of society go far beyond property value, and the delusion of a magical "invisible hand' fixing problems automatically is preposterous. It's like a religion, this delusional belief in markets self-correcting. Are your fears of losing freedom via the government so great that you'll believe in magic?

And the problem with you is that you like to view all businesses as being on the same level where in reality many small businesses barely survive and most actually will go out of business within 5 years and less if you had your way.  Government favours the big businesses whereas the small ones get shafted throwing small entrepreneurs to the dogs where they are in a worse position then those poor you claim to be standing up for. The pandemic lockdowns really bore that out.

How does this apply to, say, the more recent regulations we now have which require the listing of ingredients such as peanuts, which kill some allergic children?  Are we supposed to allow the small business to kill children because their business might be more likely to fail?

There are 31.7 million small businesses in the United States. This number accounts for over 99% of all firms operating in America, so don't really get where you're coming from with the distinction between small and big businesses.

[Finite]

7 hours ago, Ayeleeon said:

US regulations go beyond just listing the ingredients, they require percentages of certain nutrients, as well as the level of sodium, and sugar. The lable as well must follow a particular format, It is not sufficient to merely list this information on the lable. The issue is not whether such information is useful for the consumer, but whether all good producers should be required to place it on all food products. As you mentioned some consumers want this information, so to sell to them a manufacture needs to include this information. However take for example a farmer who wants to grind his own corn and sell corn meal. Is it really nessesary that he provide a standardized lable that lists calories per serving, sodium, and the amount of sugar. Wouldn't just saying it is 100 percent ground corn with no.added ingredients be enough?

You mention place.and date of manufacture, this information is not required in the US, nor is country of origin. Many manufactures will include it because it is a good business practice, and many consumers want to know. But the big corporations don't want to have to place this on thier packages, so it isn't a requirement.

 

 

 

 

 

Products labeled as “100% organic” must contain only organically produced ingredients and processing aids, excluding water and salt. No other ingredients or additives are permitted. Products labeled “organic” must contain at least 95% organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt).

Seems like it wouldn't have to be labeled anything but organic unless you used some funky unnatural method to grow the corn. Then yes you SHOULD have to label it with all the ingredients.

Besides, let's just say it wasn't required to label your food at all. And business A labels their food anyways and business B doesn't. Guess who is going to get more sales and who will likely end up labeling their food?

And can we stop pretending that most regulations aren't reactionary because of businesses exploiting laxed regulations? The gov doesn't just pop regulations out of thin air just to make you have a bad day.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Finite