Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

bothemastaofall    

Rank #982 on Comments
bothemastaofall Avatar Level 299 Comments: Post Master
Offline
Send mail to bothemastaofall Block bothemastaofall Invite bothemastaofall to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:3/14/2012
Last Login:7/12/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#3219
Comment Ranking:#982
Highest Content Rank:#3092
Highest Comment Rank:#698
Content Thumbs: 1382 total,  1591 ,  209
Comment Thumbs: 10626 total,  13201 ,  2575
Content Level Progress: 10% (5/50)
Level 111 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 112 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 87% (87/100)
Level 299 Comments: Post Master → Level 300 Comments: Lord Of Laughs
Subscribers:0
Content Views:92973
Times Content Favorited:101 times
Total Comments Made:2887
FJ Points:11350
Favorite Tags: paper mario (2)

latest user's comments

#1454 - hey admin can you show us his real username? 04/11/2014 on Secrets +1
#2 - In Bing's defense, AI programs like that need a lot of data to…  [+] (5 new replies) 04/10/2014 on Why google will always be... 0
User avatar #4 - scant (04/11/2014) [-]
So why bother trying to break into the market when Google already has a monopoly?
User avatar #65 - drunkasaurus (04/11/2014) [-]
Because monopolies suck and so far Google has had no problems abusing its monopolies. Case in point, Google+ and youtube.
MS used to do the same thing until they got an anti-trust lawsuit against them back in the '90s...
#6 - sgtxrootbeer (04/11/2014) [-]
apple is dying, google is rising. google and microsoft will soon be challenging eachother over lower costs for software and whatnot, this is googles bread and butter, microsoft can dump all the money into bing if it means taking away google as a search engine. once that happens, google will slowly decline like apple is doing
User avatar #7 - scant (04/11/2014) [-]
Except there's no contest. No one is going to switch from Google in favour of Bing because Google is already so far ahead of Bing anyway.
#8 - sgtxrootbeer (04/11/2014) [-]
but, give them time and microsoft will dump all the money they can into bing, and it will be a search engine far better then google

so far, its a damn good text search (which i like using, so i use bing) but they are lacking in certain areas. they will fix it. its the only reason that i see is why they launched bing in the first place
#3 - But he's still ****** Marge, so he wins. 04/10/2014 on Ugly -2
#11 - Revolver Ocelot irl 04/10/2014 on Revolver Ocelot 0
#10 - Comment deleted 04/10/2014 on Revolver Ocelot 0
#483 - Well actually, IT HAPPENED TWICE AT BAND CAMP 04/10/2014 on Secrets +1
#239 - Hey jnovuse is that you in the Bane mask?  [+] (2 new replies) 04/10/2014 on 'Want' VS. 'Do NOT Want' -... +1
#493 - jnovuse (04/11/2014) [-]
Ok you win :p
User avatar #321 - jnovuse (04/11/2014) [-]
It's just some huge twat.
#244 - So no means yes, good to know. OFF TO THE CLUB 04/10/2014 on POV 0
#3 - He sold her.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/10/2014 on Dawn Stars +3
User avatar #23 - themeade (04/10/2014) [-]
ohmygod, thats why he says "if i had one" he ALREADY sold her!
#91 - **bothemastaofall rolls 687,092,563** Nonnon 9's  [+] (1 new reply) 04/10/2014 on This just fucking happened,... +1
#136 - patrickandgoldie has deleted their comment.
#24 - So did they bang or what? 04/10/2014 on See Saw 0
#10 - they bully is the one the flamigos go after. 04/09/2014 on good parenting +2
#26 - It's funny because teletubbies is allowed in NK now. …  [+] (1 new reply) 04/09/2014 on This is my OC for our... 0
User avatar #30 - xxhunterxx (04/10/2014) [-]
They're all being considered, not airing yet
#209 - It's kept farmers afloat for the past 70 years or so. I think …  [+] (1 new reply) 04/09/2014 on There should be a unhealthy... 0
User avatar #210 - durkadurka (04/09/2014) [-]
Farm subsidies are terribly inefficient and just as prone to fraud and lobbying as any government handout.

www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/business/richer-farmers-bigger-subsidies.html?pagewanted=all

This inherent inefficiency should be expected: There's simply too much information for the best decision to be made all of the time. We'd be better off letting economics work.
#208 - Beef is not a staple. Where... what gave you that idea? St… 04/09/2014 on There should be a unhealthy... 0
#176 - when i say "smarter famer" I mean that farmer needs … 04/09/2014 on There should be a unhealthy... -1
#175 - All research you find on nutrient value of organic vs non orga…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/09/2014 on There should be a unhealthy... -1
User avatar #176 - bothemastaofall (04/09/2014) [-]
when i say "smarter famer" I mean that farmer needs to have a more intimate relationship with his field to know what he can get out of it.
#173 - I don't know too much about the low level stuff of GMO's, but … 04/09/2014 on There should be a unhealthy... 0
#169 - Actually if you pay attention to the news, farm auctions are i… 04/09/2014 on There should be a unhealthy... -1
#166 - I don't know what you're trying to get at with your second sen…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/09/2014 on There should be a unhealthy... -1
#207 - muffinssnuffims (04/09/2014) [-]
Right. Supply and demand can't possibly rectify it.

If people started starving, they'd be fucking willing to pay a little more. You're literally suggesting people would just be like "Oh well, I'm about to die of starvation but I AIN'T PAYING THAT GREEDY FARMER MAN A FULL EXTRA DOLLAR! THAT'S RIDICULOUS!"

Do you have any idea how MASSIVE the amount of food is that has to be thrown away due to government subsidies creating more than people want?
#50 - I fail to see how this is the government's fault. 04/09/2014 on There should be a unhealthy... +1
#48 - Actually if anything, conventional agriculture does nothing bu…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/09/2014 on There should be a unhealthy... 0
#103 - anonymous (04/09/2014) [-]
it would make sense for non-gmo organics to be superior because GMO focuses on quantity/yield and not nutrition
User avatar #173 - bothemastaofall (04/09/2014) [-]
I don't know too much about the low level stuff of GMO's, but I can guess this is because Monsanto only cares about yields.
Strike that; I KNOW Monsanto only cares about yields.
It would be very possible to genetically alter a crop to increase a specific nutrient though. Just because the current focus of research isn't focused on that aspect, doesn't mean the concept is a bad one.
#46 - I'll just call out bs as I watch the intro. I love destroying …  [+] (3 new replies) 04/09/2014 on There should be a unhealthy... +2
User avatar #48 - bothemastaofall (04/09/2014) [-]
Actually if anything, conventional agriculture does nothing but destroy soil, create a global dependence on food supply, leave our agriculture open to plague by encouraging monoculture, wastes oil, aaaannndd I could go on for days.

Also I take back what I said earlier. There is evidence that organic foods contain more nutrients. Not all, but some. Milk is a good example. Organically fed cows have milk that has a higher concentration of omega-3 fatty acids.
#103 - anonymous (04/09/2014) [-]
it would make sense for non-gmo organics to be superior because GMO focuses on quantity/yield and not nutrition
User avatar #173 - bothemastaofall (04/09/2014) [-]
I don't know too much about the low level stuff of GMO's, but I can guess this is because Monsanto only cares about yields.
Strike that; I KNOW Monsanto only cares about yields.
It would be very possible to genetically alter a crop to increase a specific nutrient though. Just because the current focus of research isn't focused on that aspect, doesn't mean the concept is a bad one.
#105 - **bothemastaofall rolled image ** I bet some douche just sa… 04/09/2014 on Dont look at the tags 0
#35 - No benefits health wise to humans, but organically grown produ…  [+] (7 new replies) 04/09/2014 on There should be a unhealthy... 0
#47 - anonymous (04/09/2014) [-]
yes, the pesticides used on large commercial farms do not increase yield. they are sprayed entirely to harm the earth. Same thing with ammonia based fertilizers, sprayed just for shits and giggles, not to increase yield. Theres a reason the use them, its cause it saves money by growing more food.
User avatar #169 - bothemastaofall (04/09/2014) [-]
Actually if you pay attention to the news, farm auctions are increasing because farmers can't keep up with the ridiculous cost of inputs like those. It doesn't save money, and organic produces better yields if done right.

These chems also encourage monoculture, which destroys biodiversity, and leaves our food supply vulnerable to pests and disease. Remember the potato famine?
User avatar #42 - lyiat (04/09/2014) [-]
Which is also completely bullshit, as that's utterly not true.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5amLAMRQk5I
User avatar #46 - bothemastaofall (04/09/2014) [-]
I'll just call out bs as I watch the intro. I love destroying these two morons.

1) You can be genetically modified AND organic at the same time.
2) Irrigation is totally fine in organic ag. You do not "have to wait until it rains"
3) Insecticides aren't necessary if one grows a variety of crops on one plot. Insects destroy monoculture, but if one grows varied produce (like I said) bugs aren't as much a problem. This would also have the effect of encouraging more local distribution, wasting less gas transporting the food.

Don't listen to entertainers who try to appeal to masses.

From the article "10 reasons why organic can feed the world"
1: Yield. Research by the University of Essex in 1999 found that in US farms who had recently switched to organic, yields dropped by 10-15%. They soon recovered, and became more productive than their chemical counterparts.
Should be noted however, in the UK, organic is less successful.

2: Energy. Less fossil fuels are used to make organic foods. Produce made conventionally takes about 10 calories of fossil fuel energy for one calorie of food energy. On avg, organically grown crops use 25% less energy to make.
3: Green house emmissions: ammonium nitrate fertiliser, produeces vast quantities of nitrous oxide. 320x worse than CO2 in global warming.

4: Water use: organic foods use less water to grow. YOU CAN IMPROVE THIS FURTHER WITH GMO RESEARCH!

6: Pesticides: "First and foremost, because organic plants grow comparatively slower than conventional varieties they have thicker cell walls, which provide a tougher naural barrier to pests."
You might say, "but BoTheMastaOfAll, isn't that baaadd? Mr Pennis and Suckoff said that we have 8 billion mouths to feed.
We already produce enough food to feed everyone 3000 Calories a day. Distribution is the problem, not the quantitiy.
User avatar #48 - bothemastaofall (04/09/2014) [-]
Actually if anything, conventional agriculture does nothing but destroy soil, create a global dependence on food supply, leave our agriculture open to plague by encouraging monoculture, wastes oil, aaaannndd I could go on for days.

Also I take back what I said earlier. There is evidence that organic foods contain more nutrients. Not all, but some. Milk is a good example. Organically fed cows have milk that has a higher concentration of omega-3 fatty acids.
#103 - anonymous (04/09/2014) [-]
it would make sense for non-gmo organics to be superior because GMO focuses on quantity/yield and not nutrition
User avatar #173 - bothemastaofall (04/09/2014) [-]
I don't know too much about the low level stuff of GMO's, but I can guess this is because Monsanto only cares about yields.
Strike that; I KNOW Monsanto only cares about yields.
It would be very possible to genetically alter a crop to increase a specific nutrient though. Just because the current focus of research isn't focused on that aspect, doesn't mean the concept is a bad one.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1050

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #1 - cactaur (06/01/2014) [-]
didyouknowgaming.com/page/2
4th one on the list
Thought you would like it.
 Friends (0)