pvnick

77 ms·

721.
by pvnick 13y ago
Now now, Food Inc is most definitely not a reliable source of information on much of anything. The whole thing was pure biased crap, the authors having a pre-decided conclusion and just using all sorts of unscientific scare tactics to persu
722.
by pvnick 13y ago
Such a label does indicate danger to the uninformed masses, even if it's unfounded. I would say it falls under free speech. Let the market forces dictate the risks vs benefits. Once completely organic chicken breast becomes as unattainably
723.
by pvnick 13y ago
>didn't control the entire industry While this is obvious hyperbole, I agree with your general sentiment. In fact, GMOs, perhaps more-so than any other modern technology, have an unprecedented potential to save billions of lives. Golden
724.
by pvnick 13y ago
That's not unreasonable, but there should be proper risk management involved first. The decision is too important to leave up to scare tactics and knee-jerk reactions.
725.
by pvnick 13y ago
>hitting a global price spike Again, this is not a certainty. Prices may very likely rise gradually on their own, allowing market forces to dictate a shift towards renewables. No reason to get incompetent bureaucrats involved
726.
by pvnick 13y ago
>Aristotle thought the universe was infinite in age If we're going to nit-pick, this was the scientific "consensus" until a Catholic priest postulated the big bang.
727.
by pvnick 13y ago
Your central argument rests on anthropogenic, CO2-caused global warming being irrefutably true. This statement is not yet known to be certain, and the reality is that the economic effect of such an infinitely-increasing tax must be weighed
728.
by pvnick 13y ago
>When was it the "consensus" that the Earth was flat? I don't know man I just threw that down as a hypothetical. Look at the sibling comment next to mine for a more well-thought-out refutation :)
729.
by pvnick 13y ago
Someone in my public speaking class several years ago, during a persuasion speech, actually tried to dismiss CO2, CFCs, et al as a cause of global warming in favor of methane from cow farts (bovinepogenic global warming?)
730.
by pvnick 13y ago
I'm not quite sure what point the article was trying to make. It simply read like an unnecessarily rude and polarizing circle jerk. One one had, the author vaguely hints towards some sort of conspiracy only to offer one of his own (Frank Lu
731.
by pvnick 13y ago
"Consensus" is not a valid scientific argument. For the longest time it was the "consensus" that the earth was flat and that existence was only 6000 years old (although not if you ask early Catholic theologians - they always saw Genesis in
732.
by pvnick 13y ago
We know much less about the climate than we do about evolution.
733.
by pvnick 13y ago
It may help if you refuted the central argument rather than attacking the source.
734.
by pvnick 13y ago
What's up with "global warming" these days? I was under the impression that, since there hasn't been any recent evidence of warming, everybody had just substituted the more general term "climate change" to deal with anthropogenic environmen
735.
by pvnick 13y ago
Is it possible that, being stuck between a rock and a hard place, they're trying to toe a thin tightrope (did I use that phrase correctly?) and, while well-intentioned, they may come off as a bit corporate?
736.
by pvnick 13y ago
Awesome article, but, > If you’re under 30 and in finance, you’ve definitely noticed the radical migration of your peers from Wall Street to Silicon Valley and Silicon Alley My heart sank. I don't want those sociopathic Wall Street bros
737.
by pvnick 13y ago
>portly, bearded, late-fifties nudist Unix guy You had me until "nudist." Dare I ask?
738.
by pvnick 13y ago
What have some of you more career-advanced HNers done to ensure yourselves employment as you guys age? I'm looking for tips to take into consideration through the years.
739.
by pvnick 13y ago
You're overcomplicating the issue. It's not the accountant's job to make up for lazy lawmaking. It's the lawmakers. Go bug the lawmakers, not the people trying to make money within the law. Would you seriously have done differently in Googl
740.
by pvnick 13y ago
Yes but notice the mistakes the developer made when adding extraneous whitespace. Also the use of the same class names. At the very least some of the code was copied verbatim without attribution.
741.
by pvnick 13y ago
Here's my logic: 1. Your "fair share to society" is determined by the law. 2. These companies are following the law to the "t" 3. If you don't like it then change the law. It's that simple. Case closed.
742.
by pvnick 13y ago
"My good friend and CFO, Larry, why didn't you set up that offshore account that would legally save us millions of dollars in taxes per quarter like we talked about? That way we could hire more workers so they could feed their families and
743.
by pvnick 13y ago
What's your point? I thought that senate hearing was disgusting because they were hammering away at Apple for obeying the law. Apple is an incredible success story and they should be lauded as an example of free markets, not vilified for tr
744.
by pvnick 13y ago
Why not reduce the tax liability as well for people like you and me then? It would be one thing if governments could be trusted to spend the money wisely, but so far as I've seen (other than obvious exceptions such as emergency services and
745.
by pvnick 13y ago
Seriously, what's up with politicians recently, both in Europe and here in the States, hammering at successful companies for trying to minimize their tax liability? I specifically avoided saying "leftist" politicians because even the right
746.
by pvnick 13y ago
You would make a terrible accountant.
747.
by pvnick 13y ago
If my accountant paid a penny more taxes than I owed I would fire them. That politicians are attacking successful companies for trying to pay as little in taxes as possible is offensive and embarrassing. If you're unhappy with the law then
748.
by pvnick 13y ago
Some damning evidence you've shown. One small suggestion I would make is to compare the md5 hashes of the images. Obviously they appear to be the same as per the evidence you've shown, but I would see that as extra convincing. I see only a
749.
by pvnick 13y ago
Very interesting! I'm currently on a strength training/bulking diet, so I'll need about 3-4 times as much protein, but there are some interesting tidbits in here that I'll probably try and incorporate into my diet. I currently spend probabl
750.
by pvnick 13y ago
Based on science meaning essentially the same as based on a true story.

More ›