You are not a f*cking DJ. You’re an overpaid, untalented, cake-throwing c*nt.

ianuss

Is mise le key wrote: »

More deception in order to jack up prices & make the wealthy even more wealthy, Ethanol can even be produced from grass & not needing to go near food staple crops for humans,

Ethanol from grass

Do you actually believe that?

Is mise le key

ianuss wrote: »

Do you actually believe that?

What? That ethanol can be produced from grass so there is no real reason for human food prices to be hiked?

Why are food prices rising?

Because they are choosing to produce ethanol from crops that humans grow to eat thus the price rises because of perceived supply being low & the people then that are in control of growing the crops whether it be for the ethanol or food supply profit emmensly.

Do you really beleive they wouldnt do that?

Scubadevils

Is mise le key wrote: »

What? That ethanol can be produced from grass so there is no real reason for human food prices to be hiked?

Why are food prices rising?

Because they are choosing to produce ethanol from crops that humans grow to eat thus the price rises because of perceived supply being low & the people then that are in control of growing the crops whether it be for the ethanol or food supply profit emmensly.

Do you really beleive they wouldnt do that?

It wouldn't surprise me at all, just as they poison us daily with all sorts of crap that should never make its way into the food chain... all because its cheaper to produce and more profitable.

ianuss

Is mise le key wrote: »

What? That ethanol can be produced from grass so there is no real reason for human food prices to be hiked?

No, that there is some level of deception???? Where is the deception? More importantly, where's the evidence of any deception?

The first story on the google page you linked to even states that US dept. of Energy is putting $1.2b in to the development of grass refineries.

And to answer your question, no, I don't believe that there are some shadowy capitalist forces driving up food prices unnecessarily.

BaZmO*

On the subject on inflated food prices, has anybody been watching the documentary series The Foods that Make Billions?

Really interesting stuff. First episode was about bottled water. Interesting point was that if you go to any supermarket you're likely to find about 10 different brands of essentially the same thing.

Last week was about Cereals, and again, it's the same thing. Find a commodity that's extremely cheap to produce and then add "value" to it and sell it for multiples of it's base value.

Is mise le key

ianuss wrote: »

And to answer your question, no, I don't believe that there is some shadowy capitalist forces driving up food prices unnecessarily.

Are you for real, the core aim of capitalism is to drive up prices unnecesarily in order to accumulate as much Capital as possible & a huuge amount of deception is used all over the place in order to acheive this.

ianuss

Is mise le key wrote: »

Are you for real, the core aim of capitalism is to drive up prices unnecesarily in order to accumulate as much Capital as possible & a huuge amount of deception is used all over the place in order to acheive this.

examples being?.......

jtsuited

ianuss wrote: »

examples being?.......

diamonds, oil, etc.
Lots of deliberate misinformation about the rarity of these two things drive up prices.

Is mise le key

ianuss wrote: »

examples being?.......

One example which i seen ages back now somewhere,

The Toyota prius hybrid, appluded & sold to you as being the way forward ecologically as it is using electric power combined with fuel.

The decpetion is that the material used in production of the battery is mined in canada which destroys the environement around the mine, uses massive amonuts of traditional vehicles & machiney to actually mine it, then is transported by cargo ship from canada to japan to undergo a proces using extermley harful chemicals etc etc to produce the battery cell. Add to this that the elctricity you will charge the car with was good bet produced using fossil fuels.

All in all the entire process needed to produce the cell & charge it offsets almost all benefits of what it will save in its life in use in the car if not all but they would have you beleive that you are an eco warrior by choosing this car & charge you extra for the perceived exclusivity & leader in the market spin they put on it.

They do this by identifying that the market is ripe for selling a product like this & hyping it up to be this that & the other to increase the companies profits.

Deception to drive up the price unnecessarily by 'shadowy' capitalists.

jtsuited

Is mise le key wrote: »

One example which i seen ages back now somewhere,

The Toyota prius hybrid, appluded & sold to you as being the way forward ecologically as it is using electric power combined with fuel.

The decpetion is that the material used in production of the battery is mined in canada which destroys the environement around the mine, uses massive amonuts of traditional vehicles & machiney to actually mine it, then is transported by cargo ship from canada to japan to undergo a proces using extermley harful chemicals etc etc to produce the battery cell. Add to this that the elctricity you will charge the car with was good bet produced using fossil fuels.

All in all the entire process needed to produce the cell & charge it offsets almost all benefits of what it will save in its life in use in the car if not all but they would have you beleive that you are an eco warrior by choosing this car & charge you extra for the perceived exclusivity & leader in the market spin they put on it.

They do this by identifying that the market is ripe for selling a product like this & hyping it up to be this that & the other to increase the companies profits.

Deception to drive up the price unnecessarily by 'shadowy' capitalists.

hmmmmm.....not a very convincing argument I think. As you point out (but only briefly), if you charge the battery you are 'most likely consuming fossil fuels'.
What if you were in France where most of their energy is nuclear and therefore carbon neutral?
If you could charge a battery using a carbon neutral power source (like Nuclear), then your fuel consumption (as in the energy you use to power the car) would be entirely carbon neutral.

Regarding the material used to make the battery being mined in Canada etc., I sincerely doubt that the ecological footprint of the extraction of the materials is significant enough to upset the Prius's environmental appeal.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong with the actual figures involved as opposed to 'they mine it and damages the environment etc.' .
It's not a question of whether something damages the environment, but of how much it damages the environment.

Is mise le key

jtsuited wrote: »

hmmmmm.....not a very convincing argument I think. As you point out (but only briefly), if you charge the battery you are 'most likely consuming fossil fuels'.
What if you were in France where most of their energy is nuclear and therefore carbon neutral?
If you could charge a battery using a carbon neutral power source (like Nuclear), then your fuel consumption (as in the energy you use to power the car) would be entirely carbon neutral.

Regarding the material used to make the battery being mined in Canada etc., I sincerely doubt that the ecological footprint of the extraction of the materials is significant enough to upset the Prius's environmental appeal.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong with the actual figures involved as opposed to 'they mine it and damages the environment etc.' .
It's not a question of whether something damages the environment, but of how much it damages the environment.

Ahh now, i am trying to recall from memeory here so forgive me for the vaugeness in the post.

What i do have to laugh at is how absurd your suggestion that if you charge the car in france from nuclear it is great as it is carbon neutral, what about the radioactive waste that is produced from the nuclear plant that needs to be stored for millenia?

BaZmO*

I thought it was a well known fact that the environmental impact of producing the Prius far outways the eco gains?

But I suppose you could argue that you have to start somewhere, and it was essentially a prototype for future battery powered cars.

jtsuited

Is mise le key wrote: »

Ahh now, i am trying to recall from memeory here so forgive me for the vaugeness in the post.

What i do have to laugh at is how absurd your suggestion that if you charge the car in france from nuclear it is great as it is carbon neutral, what about the radioactive waste that is produced from the nuclear plant that needs to be stored for millenia?

again, bullsh1t made to scare people about nuclear energy. While putting nuclear waste in the ground might seem like a scary thing to do, what with the fact that it might like cause mutant zombies to be born in the vicinity, it's cheap, safe and easy to do.
Nuclear power IS the simplest renewable engergy source we have, unless we want to set up solar panels the whole way across the earth.

Statistically speaking, nuclear power is THE safest form of energy. We have had one nuclear accident in the West (three mile island) and not one person was killed.

jtsuited

BaZmO* wrote: »

I thought it was a well known fact that the environmental impact of producing the Prius far outways the eco gains?

But I suppose you could argue that you have to start somewhere, and it was essentially a prototype for future battery powered cars.

yeah i have heard that, but the whole point of it is to make a car that can run on batteries. That would be a huge deal in the grand scale of things.

Unfortunately it's once again the marketing departments fudging the facts to cater for the consumer market being stupid.

Same exact thing happens in pharmaceutical companies, where a drug that has a success rate of 60 % in relieving 80% of symptoms is advertised as a miracle cure. And then because of their advertising, they get taken to court and everyone thinks it's big-pharma being corrupt evil capitalists who eat babies.

Is mise le key

jtsuited wrote: »

Statistically speaking, nuclear power is THE safest form of energy. We have had one nuclear accident in the West (three mile island) and not one person was killed.

Now im just going to leave this before it gets silly, lets just ignore Chernobyl because it was still in the USSR at the time & not with us here in the west.:rolleyes:

jtsuited

Is mise le key wrote: »

Now im just going to leave this before it gets silly, lets just ignore Chernobyl because it was still in the USSR at the time & not with us here in the west.:rolleyes:

have you ever seen what actually caused chernobyl????
there is absolutely zero chance that that anything like that could happen in the west.

jtsuited

without getting down to the geeky probabilities of the dangers of nuclear power, here's a simple article http://www.ehow.com/about_6762161_safest-energy-source_.html

Is mise le key

jtsuited wrote: »

have you ever seen what actually caused chernobyl????
there is absolutely zero chance that that anything like that could happen in the west.

Thats what the last over confident scientist said right before meltdown, overcomplacency leads to disaster, And you only announced that you are now studying Chemistry & Physics.:eek:

jtsuited

Is mise le key wrote: »

Thats what the last over confident scientist said right before meltdown, overcomplacency leads to disaster, And you only announced that you are now studying Chemistry & Physics.:eek:

Didn't realise you were a nuclear physicist Is Mise.
I know fcuk all about nuclear energy (I sort of know how it works but that's about it). However there is a whole world of guys out there who do. And a bunch of guys who are way better than you or I of predicting things and working out if something is dangerous or safe.
So if those dudes pretty much all give a valid reason to support their collective opinion, I'm not gonna argue with it.
Why? Because like I said, I don't have a clue. But I figure they do. So you'll excuse me if I side with them on this one.

Is mise le key

jtsuited wrote: »

Didn't realise you were a nuclear physicist Is Mise.
I know fcuk all about nuclear energy (I sort of know how it works but that's about it). However there is a whole world of guys out there who do. And a bunch of guys who are way better than you or I of predicting things and working out if something is dangerous or safe.
So if those dudes pretty much all give a valid reason to support their collective opinion, I'm not gonna argue with it.
Why? Because like I said, I don't have a clue. But I figure they do. So you'll excuse me if I side with them on this one.

No i am not a nuclear physicist, but i am qualified in H&S.

No matter what industry or profession the same rules apply when you are looking at it from a H&S perspective & assessing it for the risk,

The likeleyhood of something happening X the consequence

In this case the likeleyhood may be small but the consequence could be disaterous with major loss of life therefore it is a high risk & dangerous profession even though the likeleyhood is low.

You see i do have some expertise other than drug taking:D

jtsuited

by using your formula,

the fact that is so highly unlikely that a nuclear accident would happen would mean the first value would be soooooo near zero that the overall figure you would get would be small.
therefore safe.
done.

seannash

This is the thing i dont get by people who throw around the "scary big corporations" line.

If i setup a company and it is successful.It could be anything.
Lets imagine that it becomes a worldwide global brand.
There will always be negative comments from people who view big brands with scepticism.
Im sure coca cola started out as a mom and pop business,Kfc the same.
These companys all wanna make money no matter how big or small they are.
Some engage in propeganda.some dont

Giving out about the prius is beyond short sighted.Its making people view electric cars with less scepticism and hopefully itll be the way of the future.
It has to start somewhere.

Oh also what is the carbon footprint of creating a prius versus creating a normal car?

Mise i hope your not going down the road of the illuminati and billdaberg stuff

Is mise le key

jtsuited wrote: »

by using your formula,

the fact that is so highly unlikely that a nuclear accident would happen would mean the first value would be soooooo near zero that the overall figure you would get would be small.
therefore safe.
done.

Wrong, no matter how small the lilekleyhood the outcome would still be devestating if it were to happen, therefore needing to be monitored & controlled with the utmost scrutiny with no room for complacencey.

Is mise le key

seannash wrote: »

Oh also what is the carbon footprint of creating a prius versus creating a normal car?

The point was about deception being used in order to make sales, regardless of the figure your looking for, Toyota did not market the prius on the grounds that they were simply branching into this new technology & it most likeley not be any better than any other car but were looking to the future with this.

seannash wrote: »

Mise i hope your not going down the road of the illuminati and billdaberg stuff

People can stick whatever names they want on things, i am going down the road (or have been travelling the road for quite a while now more realistically) that the worlds wealth is being strategically enginneered by the capitalists in a long & well planned end game, the way the world works is not by accident or left to chance you can be assured of that.

jtsuited

Is mise le key wrote: »

the way the world works is not by accident or left to chance you can be assured of that.

so you are going down the road of something similar to the Bildeberg group conspiracy theory?

jtsuited

Is mise le key wrote: »

The point was about deception being used in order to make sales, regardless of the figure your looking for, Toyota did not market the prius on the grounds that they were simply branching into this new technology & it most likeley not be any better than any other car but were looking to the future with this.

but sure this is the point. that marketing departments market things in a completely unrealistic manner.

despite the fact that something like the Prius is a serious milestone should there be carbon neutral electricity available.

thing is, if they didn't market it that way, the car might not have been commercially viable, because at the end of the day most people would not appreciate the intricacies and nuances of this achievement.

jtsuited

Is mise le key wrote: »

Wrong, no matter how small the lilekleyhood the outcome would still be devestating if it were to happen, therefore needing to be monitored & controlled with the utmost scrutiny with no room for complacencey.

which is how nuclear power is run. Hence the reason we've never had a serious accident in the west.

seannash

Is mise le key wrote: »

The point was about deception being used in order to make sales, regardless of the figure your looking for, Toyota did not market the prius on the grounds that they were simply branching into this new technology & it most likeley not be any better than any other car but were looking to the future with this.

No I understand that,Im simply asking that if a Prius has th same carbon footprint during construction as a regular car its definetly more beneficial.

I dont think that the marketing is that misleading to be honest.Its like saying building an energy efficent house will take up a larger carbon footprint than one that isnt insulated,solar powered,rain catching etc so this negates all the benefits the enviroment will get.

Maybe thats a bad example but where i see normal marketing practices you see "deception" which is a bit worrying to be honest.sceptism is healthy but in my opinion thats a bit paranoid.

Everything is marketed,Plus even if im so self aware to know about the untold truth about a prius its still cheaper for me to run it than a normal car(in theory) and to be honest thats what most people are concerned about.Most couldnt give a toss about the hidden agenda as it wont impact there day to day lives

MikeHoncho

BaZmO* wrote: »

On the subject on inflated food prices, has anybody been watching the documentary series The Foods that Make Billions?

Really interesting stuff. First episode was about bottled water. Interesting point was that if you go to any supermarket you're likely to find about 10 different brands of essentially the same thing.

Last week was about Cereals, and again, it's the same thing. Find a commodity that's extremely cheap to produce and then add "value" to it and sell it for multiples of it's base value.

Yeah its a brilliant show. The one tonight about yogurt was great. A product that no one wanted now a multi billion industry that has managed to adapt to suit the times over and over again for the last 60 years. Evil bastards.

Is mise le key

jtsuited wrote: »

so you are going down the road of something similar to the Bildeberg group conspiracy theory?

Where is the conspiracy? with all the professsional people running the show do you really beleive that the way things unnfold are left to chance?
Economies are controlled, created & when nearing the end of their natural cycle prepared for in advance, thats not a conspiracy, thats how capitalism works

seannash wrote: »

.Most couldnt give a toss about the hidden agenda as it wont impact there day to day lives

You see that there is a hidden agenda behind most capitalist strategys yet you say i am paranoid to call it deceptive.

It is deceptive to operate one way but to be really operating differently behind closed doors & keep that from people.