| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 89994 | 2008-05-19 03:44:00 | LOL - Food Prices Article | pctek (84) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 670681 | 2008-05-19 21:19:00 | The Unicorns are not the same ! I have never seen any blemish on any organic Unicorn, nor have I ever seen a low-fat non-organic Unicorn. If the bored 16 year olds being overpaid the minimum wage for less than minimum service were to try smiling they may even find it works to the advantage of both parties and is non-taxable into the bargain. Of course, customers should try it too. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 670682 | 2008-05-19 21:22:00 | Nice article, unfortunately, 16 year olds earning minimum wages aren't paid to smile. Strange that!! When I started work aged 16 on lousy wages, I used to smile willingly and talk pleasantly to customers. It was expected by the boss. Mind you, that was 50 years ago. Different world then. I wont go into whether is was better or worse. Ken :rolleyes: |
kenj (9738) | ||
| 670683 | 2008-05-19 21:34:00 | Well, the bread has improved immeasurably. And the 'Lack-of-Lucas' on the roads is a plus. (No slippery parking areas now.) ;) |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 670684 | 2008-05-19 21:36:00 | Consumer warning, avoid GE Unicorns. They are not the real thing. | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 670685 | 2008-05-19 21:42:00 | If the 16 yo checkout staff are seeing unicorns (organic or not) in shopping trundles, then we have a bigger problem ... :waughh: | Jen (38) | ||
| 670686 | 2008-05-19 23:14:00 | When you're still on $9.18 an hour, that means I have to work for half an hour to pay for a burger after work! Can you expect me to smile for that? After my ******* manager has been on my back, and my ******* duty manager has been beating me with the whip (Carmen and Barry, if you're reading, I'm joking of course). And you want me to smile... | ubergeek85 (131) | ||
| 670687 | 2008-05-19 23:35:00 | When you're still on $9.18 an hour, that means I have to work for half an hour to pay for a burger after work! Can you expect me to smile for that? After my ******* manager has been on my back, and my ******* duty manager has been beating me with the whip (Carmen and Barry, if you're reading, I'm joking of course). And you want me to smile... Wow!!! Life's a ***** - then you die Ken :2cents: |
kenj (9738) | ||
| 670688 | 2008-05-19 23:38:00 | Damn right. That's why I'm getting into fixing IDtenT (l)users computers. It speeds up the cycle of pointlessness. | ubergeek85 (131) | ||
| 670689 | 2008-05-20 02:02:00 | Because I like things that are simply, natural. GE is one thing I totally find sickeningly repulsive, and will refuse to eat anything whose DNA had been meddled with by humans. I'm not trying to start an argument, just stating fact, when I say that there is virtually no food out there that has not had it's DNA meddled with by humans. I have to laugh at the signs on the windows of some cars saying, "Keep NZ GE Free." Nice sentiment but unfortunately they are 30 years or so too late. There was a very interesting article from the magazine, “Growing Today” May 1999, called “The Gene Wars” by Vicki Hyde. "Over the past 10,000 years humans have bred plants and animals to provide food, using a variety of techniques. Every time you take a plant cutting, for example you are, in fact, making a clone. Our tinkering over the millennia has meant that very few, if any, of the things we eat today bear much resemblance to their ‘natural’ forebears. Take a look at the brassica family and you’ll see what centuries of selective breeding have done for a genus whose wild form is actually pretty insignificant. Some have huge roots (like turnips), some have huge flower buds (like cauliflower), some have swollen stems (like kohlrabi). When we breed plants or animals we are really selecting for the genes we want, shuffling them back and forth to try to get the tastiest, biggest, best results. Unfortunately this approach is, genetically speaking, a rather hit-or-miss affair, as any plant breeder knows. Thousands of genes are involved in each cross. Some of them are significant, some are non-functional and some are dormant, not showing up except under special conditions. The odds of transferring, say, a naturally occouring toxin as well as the desired characteristic can be fairly high. When that happens we must backcross the new varieties with its relatives over and over again to ‘dilute’ the unwanted genes that have turned up, hoping that this semi-random mixing won’t increase the toxin, or even produce a new toxin from plants previously identified as safe. This sort of problem has happened quite often with traditional plant breeding – the development of one variety of celery for example, had to be abandoned when levels of a naturally occouring toxic psoralens became too high. New potato cultivars have also been rejected as having unacceptably high levels of glycoalkaloids. Indeed, the humble spud would probably never pass the safety checks required by regulatory bodies around the world were it to be introduced by a new Walter Raleigh today. It’s no surprise then that a full ‘conventional’ plant breeding programme can take a dozen years or more, and substantial amounts of money, to produce a desirable result. For the scientist and plant breeder direct genetic modification provides a tool to go directly to the desired trait we want to develop, select it and express it.” An excellent article that is neither for nor against GE - the article just gives the facts - the plus and minus of most arguments. Well worth reading. |
Roscoe (6288) | ||
| 670690 | 2008-05-20 02:42:00 | If the 16 yo checkout staff are seeing unicorns (organic or not) in shopping trundles, then we have a bigger problem ... :waughh: Are you getting invisible ones? (Unicorns, not 16 yo's.) How do they show the bar codes? |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||