• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

No Happy Meals for SanFran

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Unless you're an American who wants to market his wares......then not so much.

Awww... too bad we live in a democracy, eh? We don't let just anyone with a gun and the willingness to use it rule the world. The People can and do put limits on the power of others to balance power disparities.
 
Awww... too bad we live in a democracy, eh? We don't let just anyone with a gun and the willingness to use it rule the world. The People can and do put limits on the power of others to balance power disparities.

So then you agree, Americans do not have "all their rights intact" as you initially claimed. That's all you needed to say.

Oh, and by the way, we live in a representative republic. Perhaps you should have paid better attention in your civics class.......
 
Last edited:
Yet, you have a mental problem with a fire dept not willing to put out a fire b/c the owners decided not to pay for fire protection.
I pay plenty of taxes, and of course the Government should come to my aid when my house is burning. That is the purpose of Government.

I do not pay for insurance, as it is a scam.

But for Government to continue to regulate my life, they need people that pay for insurance, or busy-bodies that worry about food consumption.

It's a simple catch-22.

Rely on Government, and you are screwed (fire-fighters let house burn down).

Pay Insurance companies, and you are screwed (they will ban fast-food).

-John
 
The simplest, and most effective measure to curtail all this crap is Tort Reform, and a balanced budget.

As soon as Government, and Insurance Companies, and Lawyers get out of the way, we can begin to resume a normal life, where Government actions don't lead the news, but people's actions, lead the news.

-John
 
Good. Who wants to be infested with hormones, pesticides, saturated fats, cruel treatments of gods creations, animals, to get you $1.99 happy meals?


Fuck y'all for being sheep. Fat, self-absorbed heart attack waiting to happen sheep. If you had a clue you would not vote for those who take you choices away anymore than you vote for death - as such you get what you deserve.
 
Indeed. To have such people around removes the usefulness of certain shortcuts, which is really annoying. It's quite the irritation to have to do 10x the work to catch certain assumptions and then still have no result because you're dealing with morons.

1268520372171.jpg


In the top 50%, things are ok. Once you bring in the bottom 50%, things go all askew. You can no longer bank on certain aspects of a person's rationality and perception. You cannot use their projected image to formulate a baseline because their projection has no basis in reality.
In a room with only people with an IQ of ~110 and above, everybody will basically be on the same page. Their methods will be similar. 160's may do certain things faster and with more precision, but not necessarily due to fundamental differences in procedure.
You start bringing in 80's, though, and everything changes. Their procedures are absolute crap, and you can't get them to fix their procedures because the procedure they use to judge the validity of their procedures is also crap.
They're perpetual victims of their own stupidity, and to have them around changes the entire social dynamic. It really sucks having to be on constant watch for idiots and to need a constant noise cancellation routine in operation.

Much better to be among smart people.

A shop full of just Electronic Technicians is a wonderous thing. Bring in Radiomen and... you have to hope they're of the "cute" and "female" variety and don't make the mistake of saying too much.

lol
 
I pay plenty of taxes, and of course the Government should come to my aid when my house is burning. That is the purpose of Government.

I do not pay for insurance, as it is a scam.

But for Government to continue to regulate my life, they need people that pay for insurance, or busy-bodies that worry about food consumption.

It's a simple catch-22.

Rely on Government, and you are screwed (fire-fighters let house burn down).

Pay Insurance companies, and you are screwed (they will ban fast-food).

-John

/faceplam

But you wanted your government not to provide fire protection if one does not pay. Why do you hate democracy and America?

When you grow up and move out of your parents basement, you're in for a major shock. If you ever need serious medical attention and don't qualify for free/subsidize health care, expect to file for bankruptcy to avoid paying your medical bills.
 
Last edited:
You are either mis-reading, or mis-posting my posts.

I was the guy arguing that Government has to respond, and put out fires.

I've paid them for it. That some specific individual did NOT pay them for it, is not my business. I paid them to help individuals that did not pay.

Otherwise, I have no idea what you are talking about.

-John
 
Last edited:
You are either mis-reading, or mis-posting my posts.

I was the guy arguing that Government has to respond, and put out fires.

I've paid them for it. That some specific individual did NOT pay them for it, is not my business. I paid them to help individuals that did not pay.

Otherwise, I have no idea what you are talking about.

-John

Too bad your local government is not the one that you argued forever about in OT, where they voted to not provide any fire protection to any of their citizens and a neighboring town was willing for a fee to help.

And good for you that you don't have insurance, just hope nothing ever happens to you. You'd think you would want it to cover your therapy sessions.
 
Personal choices to eat right and get more exercise work 100% of the time.. when people choose to make those choices. Food is a basic need for us, and it affects us in ways we're not always consciously aware of.

.....and how many people make those choices? As it seems 60% of the population don't. There needs to be something set in place to encourage people to make the right decision. I don't see this as control. For example if we only served healthy school lunches, I don't see this as control just because some fatass can't order a burger.
 
A shop full of just Electronic Technicians is a wonderous thing. Bring in Radiomen and... you have to hope they're of the "cute" and "female" variety and don't make the mistake of saying too much.

Very true. Nothing more terrifying to an ET than realizing that an RM (IT now), or an OS has decided to open up a system and 'fix' it. Invariably, that means a long day of work is ahead of you.
 
.....and how many people make those choices?

Not enough, but you're not going to get more people to make the choice simply by limiting what you make available to them, nor is it within your rights or mine to do so.

As it seems 60% of the population don't. There needs to be something set in place to encourage people to make the right decision.

Like what? Encouraging people to make the right choices is accomplished by education, marketing, and appealing to their wants/desires/needs.. not by arbitrarily limiting food options.

I'd also say that at some point we have to accept that people are free to make bad choices and there's nothing we can do to stop them. We should reduce as much as possible the financial impact their bad choices have on the rest of us, though.

I don't see this as control. For example if we only served healthy school lunches, I don't see this as control just because some fatass can't order a burger.

Burgers need not be bad for you. Lean ground beef is a perfectly healthy part of the diet. Don't limit foods; make the foods they want to eat healthier.

It is sheer folly to think that the government, at any level, knows anything specific about what's "healthy" for the vast majority of people.. nor can government keep up with new discoveries about how foods affect us. Remember how often eggs went from bad, to good, to bad, and then back to good? Yeah.. government is a poor resource for and advocate of factual nutrition information.

Nothing anyone has said realistically supports the notion that government action is required to help solve the obesity/poor health problems we have in this country. I don't know what action, if any, people can take on others' behalf, but one thing I do know is that GOVERNMENT ACTION IS NOT THE ANSWER.
 
Last edited:

So you're posting this in question of your own logic? Everything I said could substitute for the subject at hand and it totally fits. LOL @ you thinking you're so much smarter than others when you come off as such a pompous asshole. You know a little and think you know it all. Moron.
 
So you're posting this in question of your own logic? Everything I said could substitute for the subject at hand and it totally fits. LOL @ you thinking you're so much smarter than others when you come off as such a pompous asshole. You know a little and think you know it all. Moron.

intelligence comes off as elitist. ^_^
 
So you're posting this in question of your own logic? Everything I said could substitute for the subject at hand and it totally fits.

No, it merely looks like it fits to you as you haven't yet been taught how to parse your logic for fallacies. You perform invalid operations blissfully unaware that they are invalid.

Here is what I said:

X1 is under system p1. q1 is unavailable under p1. So, as p1, not q1. Therefore q2.

You came back with, "q1 is unavailable for X1? Then for all X, not q1." But where did you get that for all X, p1? X1 being under p1 does not necessitate that all X be under p1. You made a link there that just doesn't exist.

Oh, and my apologies -- with everything written out it's pretty obvious you wouldn't have gotten there by affirming the consequent. It looks like it might be non causa pro causa with some Hasty Generalization, but I'm waaay too tired right now to do a proper analysis of the illogic to put a name to: "Given X1, p1; for any X, necessarily p1." There's at least two transformations in there and I keep dropping what they are.
I am waaay out of practice in thinking illogically. I'll run through it on the 'morrow.
 
Last edited:
Burgers need not be bad for you. Lean ground beef is a perfectly healthy part of the diet. Don't limit foods; make the foods they want to eat healthier.

I'd be fine with making school lunches healthier for students, but do we do that? No, instead we tuck away the healthy foods at the bottom and the unhealthy stuff are up front and center. People don't seem to have a problem with limiting health foods.
 
I'd be fine with making school lunches healthier for students, but do we do that? No, instead we tuck away the healthy foods at the bottom and the unhealthy stuff are up front and center. People don't seem to have a problem with limiting health foods.

Actually, yes, school lunches are getting healthier. I work in public education (IT), and I can tell you that improvements are being made across the country.
 
You can substitute the fries in a Happy Meal with sliced apples. You can also substitute the soft drink with milk, chocolate milk, orange juice or apple juice. These healthy choices have been available for years. Progressives get their panties in a bunch over the silliest things.
 
Back
Top