Advertisement
by Narland » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:25 am
by Dooom35796821595 » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:26 am
by Hurdegaryp » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:26 am
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.
by Imperializt Russia » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:27 am
Dooom35796821595 wrote:THISE BASTARDS! I knew something was wrong when I saw a pack of 5 cream eggs, let alone the fact it hurt when I ate it. This shall not, and has not gone unnoticed! Kraft will pay for its crimes. Why must they poison everything?
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by The Nuclear Fist » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:28 am
And you touch the distant beaches with tales of brave Ulysses. . .Farnhamia wrote:You're getting a little too fond of the jerkoff motions.
by Hurdegaryp » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:30 am
Dooom35796821595 wrote:THISE BASTARDS! I knew something was wrong when I saw a pack of 5 cream eggs, let alone the fact it hurt when I ate it. This shall not, and has not gone unnoticed! Kraft will pay for its crimes. Why must they poison everything?
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.
by The Nihilistic view » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:32 am
Tubbsalot wrote:Imperializt Russia wrote:What it implies is their product has a shorter shelf life than Cadbury products, hence why they have to add preservatives.
Well, no. The fact that they've added preservatives implies they have a longer shelf life, because anything with added preservatives is going to last longer than an equivalent product with none. Adding preservatives doesn't mean your product will spoil within seconds otherwise, it implies you want a longer shelf life - which could easily be due to issues of transport time, preferences of their customers for longer-lasting stock to prevent waste, and blah blah blah.
And even if that weren't the case, just because something spoils quickly doesn't mean there's a problem with the recipe. If you leave warm meat out for a day, you won't want to eat it, but you won't complain about how meat is therefore a terrible food.
I mean, in this particular case, preservatives would have implications somewhere between neutral and bad... I just objected to the logic "has preservatives, therefore is terrible."
by Hurdegaryp » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:33 am
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.
by Olthar » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:33 am
by Dooom35796821595 » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:34 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:Dooom35796821595 wrote:THISE BASTARDS! I knew something was wrong when I saw a pack of 5 cream eggs, let alone the fact it hurt when I ate it. This shall not, and has not gone unnoticed! Kraft will pay for its crimes. Why must they poison everything?
There's probably a Downing Street and/or Change.org petition floating about to nationalise Cadbury and/or Kraft.
by The Nihilistic view » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:34 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Yeah, an American company attempting that on Cadbury would have to get rejected by the state department as there is no way the UK would allow it. Protectionism works both ways
Kraft owns Cadbury though.
We almost had riots in the streets when that went though.
Then Kraft changed the Dairy Milk chocolate in the Creme Eggs (an "Easter" traditional product over here, available for only part of the year) for American-style chocolate, reduced the pack size and kept the price the same, they turned around, sneering like smarmy fucks and told us they were never called "Dairy Milk Creme Eggs".
Now we might have another set of national riots.
by Imperializt Russia » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:36 am
Narland wrote:anyone know the feasibility of a crowd-source funding campaign to help cottage confectioners make better chocolates?
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by The Emperor Fenix » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:36 am
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I buy giant Hershey Special Dark bars from time to time to serve as a vehicle to scoop peanut butter out of a jar and apply it to my face hole. It is essentially a chocolaty cracker. I would never eat Hershey's chocolate solo.
by Olthar » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:37 am
The Emperor Fenix wrote:Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I buy giant Hershey Special Dark bars from time to time to serve as a vehicle to scoop peanut butter out of a jar and apply it to my face hole. It is essentially a chocolaty cracker. I would never eat Hershey's chocolate solo.
How are you alive ?
How did everyone else pass by that part without wondering the same thing.
by Dooom35796821595 » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:39 am
by Luziyca » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:39 am
The Emperor Fenix wrote:Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I buy giant Hershey Special Dark bars from time to time to serve as a vehicle to scoop peanut butter out of a jar and apply it to my face hole. It is essentially a chocolaty cracker. I would never eat Hershey's chocolate solo.
How are you alive ?
How did everyone else pass by that part without wondering the same thing.
by Stormwrath » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:40 am
by Lunatic Goofballs » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:40 am
The Emperor Fenix wrote:Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I buy giant Hershey Special Dark bars from time to time to serve as a vehicle to scoop peanut butter out of a jar and apply it to my face hole. It is essentially a chocolaty cracker. I would never eat Hershey's chocolate solo.
How are you alive ?
How did everyone else pass by that part without wondering the same thing.
by Lunatic Goofballs » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:41 am
by Hurdegaryp » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:46 am
Stormwrath wrote:In my opinion, Hershey's is probably trying to prevent competition by preventing overseas competitors from selling their chocolate, such as Cadbury (which is better than Hershey's in my opinion). Everyone probably knows that competition between brands is good, because it helps the main competitors to attempt to produce better quality compared to their rivals. Plus, it's good for us because we can choose from more.
What I am concerned with is how Hershey's is acting. Why should they ban British Cadbury's because of how they make it? That would be like telling someone to stop making cheese sandwiches because he/she does it differently.
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.
by Imperializt Russia » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:49 am
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Stormwrath » Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:49 am
Hurdegaryp wrote:Stormwrath wrote:In my opinion, Hershey's is probably trying to prevent competition by preventing overseas competitors from selling their chocolate, such as Cadbury (which is better than Hershey's in my opinion). Everyone probably knows that competition between brands is good, because it helps the main competitors to attempt to produce better quality compared to their rivals. Plus, it's good for us because we can choose from more.
What I am concerned with is how Hershey's is acting. Why should they ban British Cadbury's because of how they make it? That would be like telling someone to stop making cheese sandwiches because he/she does it differently.
Monopolism may not be exactly legal, but that doesn't mean companies are not trying to do so despite the law.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Abserdia, Cerespasia, Diarcesia, Dimetrodon Empire, Ebrein, Giovanniland, Google [Bot], Ifreann, Keltionialang, Lycom, Mergold-Aurlia, Plan Neonie, Republics of the Solar Union, The H Corporation, The Kharkivan Cossacks, The Two Jerseys, Tiami, Tungstan, Zantalio
Advertisement